Disappointment
-
lucid768 — 18 years ago(September 03, 2007 05:55 PM)
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.
-
pinnebarn — 19 years ago(October 26, 2006 04:54 AM)
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. -
imdbyes — 18 years ago(August 11, 2007 08:32 PM)
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.
-
patchofblue65 — 19 years ago(November 23, 2006 03:29 PM)
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.
-
dave-greg — 19 years ago(January 20, 2007 10:57 AM)
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' -
Byzantine15 — 19 years ago(March 20, 2007 12:53 AM)
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.
-
imdbyes — 18 years ago(August 11, 2007 08:27 PM)
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.
-
Clover827-1 — 18 years ago(September 07, 2007 11:44 AM)
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. -
patchofblue65 — 18 years ago(September 13, 2007 08:07 PM)
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.
-
SheBear — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 06:34 AM)
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.
"
I'm aroused and confused.
" -
JustPassingTime — 18 years ago(October 13, 2007 01:31 AM)
"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. -
expressive_child — 18 years ago(January 22, 2008 05:53 AM)
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.
-
Azalea891 — 18 years ago(January 29, 2008 06:59 PM)
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 flickyes 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. -
killacam-2 — 18 years ago(March 10, 2008 08:55 AM)
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.
-
pixelwks — 17 years ago(June 11, 2008 05:10 PM)
As a young adult in '71 this film was a real punch in the face.
The drug culture was filtering down to the suburbs and this film scarred the crap out of all of us.
It's hard to remember this when you view this film now, but this was really daring stuff.