Disappointment


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

reply

[deleted]

I find the film brilliantly written, acted, filmed...more like a documentary than like fiction. It is very likely that you had to actually live through the early 70's to fully appreciate the nuances of the movie.

reply

[deleted]

i thought it was brilliant. the first time i saw it, i was 13 and it really got to me. now i'm 15, and it's not as amazing as i once thought it was, but it's still one of my favourite movies and the best i've ever seen.

frankly, i was impressed and it was better than i thought it'd be. it's not lighthearted, it's not vibrant, it's just stark realism at it's best and it shocks you. it's disturbing. it's not meant to please you, it's not meant to amuse you, or even entertain you for that matter, it's a veritie documentary-style movie. it's basically letting you see the truth and the dirty parts of a heroin addict's life. it doesn't glorify anything, it doesn't lie to you, it just tells it like it is.

i mean, the guy asks his girlfriend to whore herself so he can get a hit. she's bored cuz Bobby won't *beep* her, she shoots up, next thing you know they gotta worry about getting 2 fixes. the junk turns her into a prostitute. Bobby gets Helen a dog, and they're so high and stupid that it runs off the ferry and drowns. Helen rats on Bobby so she can stay outta jail for whoring. what does that tell you about loyalty? it doesn't exist. now, if that doesn't get to you, i dunno what will, and if, by the end of the movie, you're shocked and disgusted, i guess the Schatzberg has done his job.


"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"

reply

The reason why I like this film is that it delivers an unsentimental and realistic take on drug addiction. The characters are not supposed to be likeable. You are not supposed to be able to identify yourself with them. At least not in the state they are in at this point. You can't trust an addict. An addict will always put himself and his needs first, as illustraded for example by the scene with the baby crying as well as the scene with the puppy drowning. I think this film shows this in an excellent way.

reply

I don´t think the protagonists are particularly UNlikeable either.

And I don´t see anything wrong with the script as it´s not meant to be a plot driven drama in the first place. It tells a powerful, realistic story without resorting to silly, over-the-top antics the way Requiem For A Dream does - Aronofsky´s film comes off as a comedy more than anything else. A very unintentional comedy.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

i gotta agree with the OP, i didnt really like the movie either. it was so...pointless. i didnt get it. just a weird creepy movie about drugs and the inevitable consequences it brings to unfortunate victims. what really irked me was that the girl waited for al pacino to get out of jail at the end. why do that? he treated her like crap and she just gets back with him for more drugs and to further crap up there lives. the lack of music was wierd too. just more weird 70's "realism" crap. thats gotta be the worst decade for movies.


reply

You've lost your mind. I will always think this is one of his all time best performances.

The movie is brilliant. I've seen this film a few times catching it on Sundance .. etc.

Not a mainstream movie. Totally script driven in excess. I'm very into this type of film and I would compare it to other films such as Candy with Abbie Cornish which is a brilliant film as well.


Kelly: I'm under Evelyn Waugh.
Charlotte: Evelyn Waugh was a man.

reply

just more weird 70's "realism" crap. thats gotta be the worst decade for movies.

The 70's worst decade for movies, I think not. In my opinion the best.

reply

Well your opinion sucks then because you, like the many other lost souls who watch this dreadful depressing junk, have absolutly no taste in good movies. I pity you people frankly, the 70's was the most horrible terrible depressing era for movies i can recall ever. and dont forget the late 60's, just as bad. Nothing but sex drugs and disturbing images and killings. But if thats what you all prefer to watch, then I expect to see you in prison someday. Movies like this, as well as the music from this time, influenced a whole generation into drugs, promisucity and violence, and i refuse to watch such junk anymore. Its all just pointless drivel.

oh yeah, "in my opinion".

If you love the Lord Jesus Christ 100%, make this your sig now!

reply

"I pity you people frankly, the 70's was the most horrible terrible depressing era for movies i can recall ever"

LOL, also the best, most honest, absolute finest pieces of film art came from the glorious 70's....(ever heard of the Godfather?)

Hilarious post!......guess Ill see ya in prison someday!...too funny!!!!!!






James Coughlin: If we get jammed up, we're holding court on the street.

reply

@LaPfieffer92

I'm assuming your post is satire,right? If not, I know even you can't believe all the BS you just wrote. You can not be serious.

reply

I think The Panic in Needle Park's problem is its script. The characterisation is lacking in terms of development. The protagonists simply go through stages of looking for their next high and then suffering the repercussions. The Panic in Needle Park feels like a series of scenes rather than a solid narrative. There is no exploration or introspection of the protagonists, except for the brief details on Helen's family life, and even that is minimal.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was hugely disappointed. It was completely unrealistic & just the usual dumb & exaggerated anti-drug propaganda. (like a lot of people who grew up in the 60s, I have nothing but good memories of all the drugs & it was no big deal to stop when I got too busy with other things)

reply

Yeah. Drug addiction doesn't exist. This movie was stupid. Let's all do heroin. Heroin is the same as weed and mushrooms. People who get addicted to heroin don't exist, how unrealistic to have someone get addicted to heroin I mean, give me a break LOL! I grew up in the 60's and we all did heroin and no one ever got addicted because addiction doesn't exist. I never got addicted to heroin so this movie is stupid, duh.

This movie also sucked because.. what the heck! LOL like what? Why didn't Al Pacino and Helen get married or something? NOTHING HAPPENED HOW STUPID!?!?!?!?! Hasn't anyone ever lived before? Everyone knows in real life stuff is always happening and you are always doing crazy *beep* like getting in gunfights and becoming the drug kingpin of New York and Columbia so why didn't that *beep* happen in this movie?!?!??????? How unrealistic, honestly. In real life no one suffers or is desperate or lives a sad inane life of repetition and addiction, especially in NEW YORK CITY! New York City is where it all goes down, brother! Everyone in New York is doing crazy awesome *beep* ALL THE TIME, ALWAYS AND FOREVER.

Man, I've read some of the stupidest *beep* on the IMDB boards. What a cesspool. Are you people even capable of thought?

reply

Unless you're trying to be funny, I tend to assume that no one could achieve this level of incoherence without taking drugs or drinking heavily.

reply

It was satire. Everything I said in that post is absolute trash and completely void of any common sense or thought.

reply