I love Al Pacino, but this film was quite a disappointment to me. I don't think his acting was all that it can be, and that the script and the film in general was not good at all. Everyone on this board seems to like it, but I can't see why? I guess it would have been better had I seen it during the time it was first released, in the late late 70's. Does someone agree with me, or is there something about this film that I am just not seeing?
For goodness sakes, get down from that crucifix. Someone needs the wood. -Felicia Jollygoodfellow
Hey, I just saw The Panic In Needle Park yesterday. I have to kind of agree and disagree with you. I actually thought Al Pacino was brilliant in this film but the film in general was kind of a disappointment. The characters didn't really go on any real arch's and I was lost at the ending with no real conclusion (the point is...the whole thing goes on and on?) And the plot seemed the same throughout, like there was no real plot to the plot (if you get what I'm saying) all it was, was the relationship between Pacino and his girl and you're constantly waiting for something drastic to happen and nothing ever does. But somehow (unbeknown to me) I enjoyed going on the journey with the characters. But I can totally undersatnd why you'd be disapointed with the movie. There's honestly nothing your missing but rather the story is lacking something i.e. better script and a little swift kick up the backside.
I just saw this movie the other day because someone I know recommended it to me. I have to say that I think most of you are missing the point of the film. The plot isn't meant to go anywhere in this. It's very much driven by the characters. Of course at the end it hangs and Bobby and Helen's addictions probably did go on and on because in the life of someone who is on heroin and refuses to get help that's all there is.
I'm a huge fan of Al Pacino (I also love Kitty Winn and Raul Julia) and I have to say I think this is the best movie he's ever done. The acting is incredible and I can probably count on one hand the number of movies I've seen (Candy is also one of them) that don't glamourize drug addiction and shows it for what it really is. Something ugly and if you don't get help, something that never ends. This is one of those movies. If you're looking for something that is virtually untouched by anything Hollywood, see this. I only wish there were more like it.
May: I can't breathe. Darren: And what would happen if you did breathe? (The Mother)
I found this movie when I was searching for Al Pacino's film I yet hadn't seen. Well, I just watched and I got to tell you, it kind of disappointed me too. I think acting in this film is quite good... pretty much as good as it can be with a script like this. I think movie just doesn't tell us enough about the main characters so that you could grow to like them. In the end I wouldn't really had cared even if either one of them had died... not that anything as dramatic as this happens during the movie. Like the guy above said, you are always waiting for something big to happen but the moment you are waiting for never comes.Seriously, there is no single memorable scene in the whole movie. Back of the DVD-case reads "Movie that was banned in England" and "Uncut version was shown first time almost 30 years after the original release". If the uncut version was the one I just saw, I can't honestly tell you what was so horrible in this movie that it had to be cut.
However, I think the movie wasn't a total disaster. Like I said, acting is great and everything so if you are fan of Al Pacino's movies, you might want to check this out. DVD shouldn't be too expensive either (my copy cost 7 euros) so give it a shot.
Well, i remember my mother taking me to theaters and see this movie when I was like fourteen. (i'm french and there was a Pacino retrospective 10 years ago ) and I tought that this movie is much better than any adds and any drug prenvention discourse ( Thre is still in Pulp or transpotting the "cool aspect of taking drugs" Anyway, yes, you might be waiting something to happen but drug addict's life isn't as drastic as Requiem's. Life is much more closer of panic than of requiem. They are trapped in their addiction, and it will go on until they die. No need to add any horrible sequence, they're already in hell. ( Bobby asks his girl to score for him 30 minutes after the beginning of the movie !) I don't really understand what you were expecting, a hold up, another OD ? another jail sentence, they met a great doctor that made them quit ? a arm amputed ?
This movie is a very realistic depiction of this universe, and yes, nothing happens and that's why they take heroine. Characters are great except this juvenile cop who is absolutly terrible. whos is this guy anyway ? Couldn't they at least iron his shirt in order to make us believe that he is a cop ? So long
well the young cop in the movie was supposed to be narc, and if anything he actually looked too well groomed for a narc. they're supposed to look as UNcoplike as possible so they can investigate deeper without being suspected so...yeah...plus it was the sixties...just putting that out there
i loved the ending of this movie. no wrap ups. no exciting getting back together scenes or them moving to the country. their addicts. this is a stark depiction of the addicts life and the spiraling nature of how heroin can grip you and take away all of those things that are held dear. a lot of scenes are realy well done. some of the diner scenes i thought were great. pacino's courting of kitty reminded me of his courting in other movies as well. you can tell a lot of the canvas for what he would be become is included here and the diabolic nature of this character is what drew coppola to cast him for the godfather. bobby loves the innocence of kitty but when its taken away he can't feel remorse b/c he still needs cash to support his habit and having her with him is perhaps better. panic isn't a masterpiece, but a nice drug-related film that brings out the human element in creative ways.
It's a great film. Then again I am a sucker for late 60's and early 70's moviemaking -- the last "golden age" in my opinion. It was a great slice of life film and I think Al Pacino was great and Kitty Wynn was fantastic in her role. I have this on VHS tape and watch it every year.
I loved it. A very grimy, realistic snapshot of the lives of a group of people living in a drug infested neighbourhood in the early 70's. Pacino was fantastic, barely even looked as though he was acting at all he was so natural. The lack of music really added to the atmosphere i thought. An excellent film from my favourite movie decade.
'i'd rather stay here in my room, nothing out there but sin and gloom'
Haven't seen it in years but I remember it as being one of the best 'slice of life' films I've ever seen. Not sure what people were expecting or why they felt disappointed but, as stated by others, a conventional plot would have destroyed the atmosphere of tedium and meaninglessness (is that a word?) that make up their lives. They move through an endless sequence of desperation, screw ups and betrayals until they die untimely deaths. If you crave plot structure TPINP might not work for you. On a positive note, sometimes junkies get clean and stay clean.
I'm sorry that I got the age of the film wrong, i don't know why I missed that fact...
Yes, taste is subjective, but the reason behind my post is just to get other people's thoughts of the film, why they like it etc. I think I got some good answers from people here, and I'm glad most of them weren't rude.
I hate it when they look like Tarzan but sound like Jane. -Neil in Mysterious Skin.
I don't know if I'm seeing everything in Sopranos masquerade, but I do think this came first and was brilliant - you don't have to see where they're heading to, it's implicit.
Another thing I forgot to add, is that the ending of the movie means that they're back together again despite what happeend and that this will go on for years, this hell of a desperate life will keep going and going 365 days a year for a long time.
You also have to remember that for it's time it was showing things that hadn't really been show, for example, the scene with them shooting up, I still don't like to look at the screen while that is happening, and this is the 2000's, imagine back then, those things were hardly ever shown in the theatres. Another thing, this is one of the few movies where it felt so real to me, I 've known and lived with people like this, it was a pretty acurate protrayal of that kind of life. A lot of it is looking to score, getting high, trying to find ways to make money, and this goes on for years and years, until you die or go to jail or quit. And the scenes in the park , where they are sitting on the bench, where all too familiar, they did a great job. THe characters, the conversations they have-all that was waaaay to real. I think it still holds up. And Al Pacino and Kitty where great and natural in their acting.
I loved this film, and I thought Al was brilliant in it. I'm not sure what disappointed viewers were expecting to see because the film sticks very closely to its point that drugs destroy. At the beginning, Helen still has a future if she wants it, but then she gets addicted and it ends with her walking the streets with Bobby who's basically a loser. She's entirely different than the person we see in the beginning and her future's gone.
I don't understand why so many people need to see lots of action to think they've seen a good film....
I agree with the previous poster. I have known drug addicts myself and all their time is consumed in hustling for money to get drugs. There is no glamour in their lives and it's all about survival and scamming others for money for their drugs. It isn't pretty. The movie accurately depicts their situation. It's a great slice of life film and the ending is great because it is so ambigious. Not all movies like real life have happy endings.
Even though in 2007 we have seen this type of thing before I think the film still holds up very well and is probably one of the best I've seen about drug abuse. It's the best kind of commentary - one that doesn't comment so much as show you what happens to the lives of 2 initially very likable characters. I thought Kitty Winn was great but I wonder if her character was supposed to be so obscure. I could never really tell what was motivating her or why she was in the position she was in in the first place so I couldn't really feel much for her. Otherwise great film though.
"The biggest disappointment was the lack of ending, all it was just "Well come one then Kitty.""
It's not an easy film. The ending was understated... but it was powerful... a certain level of sensitivity is required from the viewer to really "get" this film.
I think Pacino's performance was great but I am a little confused with the ending though, I believe its meant to be ambiguous. I have to say its takes a little effort to watch this and I find this film powerful not only in the end, but also in its entirety.
Yes Pinnbarr - I do not agree yet respect your comments in part. Panic in Needle Park was released in the early 70"s, not the late late 70's like you mentioned.I first heard about this movie in 1971 from my family because my uncle and Al were in the movie. I was 12 years old at that time, always following my uncle's career. I was apprehensive even a bit scared to view it because of the content described to me by my parents. With that in mind, I so there went on a personal quest or rebel to see this controversial movie. There were no like blockbusters video stores in 1971 that I knew about. Therefore, I spent countless hours over the next years from age 12 searching for the movie in the TV Guide, and once in a while it was noted in the last pages of movies in that magazine.. This flick, which aired once in a great while, could be seen as a late late movie eg. 3 or 4am. I hunted the movie from the tv guide and saw it 3 times during my teenage years. I had always thought or was told, this was Al Pacino's 1st film, and the actors in this film, worked well with big Al, a variety of method acting unbeknownst because of his formal Shakesperian training on the stage. As a kid when i viewed this film, my eyes never left the TV. The drug addicts, coffee shop spots and spats along with heavy chain smoking and tough talk intrigued me but scared the living hell out of me all at the same. Does this style of life really exist, questioning myself? Horrifying yet true tell. Their ntensifed eyes by each character connected to the viewing audience, at least for me. Along with their drifting viewpoints, in and out of reality, when high or undecided. There seemed to be talk about criminal action, getting over on someone, coping the next fix even including freedom or an exit plan. Was NYC the drug infested bad ass section about fiends and dope heads blew my mind away at age 12. When i viewed the film I truly believed this location was really existing and the characters were true to the end. Today I am 48 years old, and have not seen the movie again. It's been over 20+ years. At this time of my life, I want to recall the movie as I first viewed it at age 12 and a few other times viewing the flick thereafter. The movie was what it was. I am not ready to see the movie again at this time; It's a personal choice because this movie did have an impact on my life..i watched it as a simple viewer not a critic. I am aware that many readers on this program are true critics or wanna bees// BUT Please respect my viewpoint --this is much of what I remember as I watched in during my early teen years because my uncle, may he rest in peace, played a key role in this flick...yes I was young at the time, but I followed his career path always always and a day. To this day I have not seen the movie again.
I loved this film. I think it is one of Pacino's best performances. I actually prefer it to Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and Carlito's Way, which are all a bit overrated in my opinion.
It's the most realistic movie about horrors of drug addiction I have ever seen. It doesn't attack you with in your face message, it's not even supposed to. But thanks to gritty portrayal of NY streets, amazing ,realistic acting and opened ending it simply shows you how it is. It's up to viewer, how he's gonna interpret it. I think this movie deserves more attention it gets.
Good points pixel - and as for "hard to remember," I think some of the negatives in this thread are from those who can't remember 1981, much less '71.
One of the things about any work of art is weighing expectation and disappointment. If one really stops and thinks about disappointment and finds that it's because of a failure of the work to deliver certain specific expectations, the audience needs to look back at themselves. Case in point: the ending. So the ending is abrupt. Why is that bad to you if you believe that's bad? What would be a better ending? Bobby gets off smack and Helen dies? Bobby gets off smack, Helen gets off smack, both 1) get hit by a bus 2) live happily ever after 3) join a religious cult and have 95 children 4) Bobby runs for congress and as he's taking office Helen falls off the wagon and shoots smack in front of CNN cameras?
Point is - the ending is not an ending, it's just where the movie stops following them. More like real life if you ask me.
the ending was probably the best part of the film. its basically a depressing story about pacino who is stuck in a viscious cycle,and also sucks in his girl, which is nicely finished with the last scene.
but other than that, every other aspect of the film is poorly done and to put it plainly...boring!
well,see guys,movies can be categorized into 3 main classes(at least,thats how i can put it after watching films for 20 years) - 1. those which have a particular plot and have characters revolving round the plot,e.g.,mystery,thrillers,action,etc, 2. those which have a number of players and the audience spend their time watching them unfold thier colors when they react to different events differently.The films are written about 'their' thoughts and activities, and the actual plot takes a backstage,e.g.,dramas,which are basically films concealing a lot about their characters mainly,and, 3. as Jim Jarmush puts it,"life doesnt have a plot, so why should a film have one?", these are dramas 'about' life,movies which only pick up some 50 or 100 days of an ordinary man's life and puts it to screen.This particular film is one of the few members of the 3rd class,which shows the life of an ordinary couple with a rather abnormal and objectionable habbit of taking some drug.To understand the movie,think of a couple having a steady relation,whom you know, now take out some 50 days from their life, think deeply,what do you see?? some days they fight,some they spend happily,sometimes they kiss eachother,slap eachother,sometimes they discuss about issues,they plan......and what happens after the 50 days??? they die?? no,death is never considered normal from the human point of view,they move on...thats how the movie ends.The beginning of the movie is such that the characters are not introduced to the viewer,'we' are introduced to certain 'lives',as the movie goes on, we witness a part of certain 'lives',experience only that much emotional and physical stress that a human experiences in his ordinary life....ordinay because these are ordinary beings who only pocess a habbit,think of more apparent 'sane' habbits like smoking,masturbating,...are these poeple abnormal? like them,our protagonists too have personal lives,backgrounds.About perfomances,the film required actors portraying 'lives',and Al Pacino is a master with that,this was my first vision of Kitty Winn,and she created a good impression....these few reasons have made this movie really special for me....as for providing knowledge about drugs,heroin,that depends upon the info that a viewer receives after watching any movie about these things,there too the film scored highly,considering the documentary backdrop that the film presented....it is a classic if viewed carefully and patiently...
"life doesnt have a plot, so why should a film have one?"
The danger of this statement is that any yahoo with a camera (or novel, or song) can defend his worthless crap with it. I hope JJ's happy to have his statement trotted out every time a wannabe "film maker" -- who's never recognized someone else's great work, much less has any hope of creating his/her own -- uses it to defend completely superfluous, talentless, colorless, tasteless and odorless "art."
dont say its a classic if watched patiently, just say you liked it very much!
thanks for the lecture, but yes i do know what this film is about, and i just so haappened to think it was poor and generally quite boring. Ive seen much better films in this "category" as you like to put it.
I think people who are younger in their 20's will find it boring. People today have the attention spans of a cockroach so unless there is something happening every minute they assume there's nothing happening at all. Sometimes silence is something "happening"! Panic In Needle park is not a Masterpiece but it's better than 70% of the stuff today. The 1970's was the last golden age of film.
Other great 70's films:
Straight Time The Beguiled Harry and Tonto Candy Snatchers Mean Streets Conversation Dirty Harry Little Murders 3 Women