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.

i gotta agree with the OP, i didnt really like the movie either. it was sopointless. 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.

I dont think the protagonists are particularly UNlikeable either.
And I dont see anything wrong with the script as its 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 - Aronofskys film comes off as a comedy more than anything else. A very unintentional comedy.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

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.

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"

This message has been deleted.

I find the film brilliantly written, acted, filmedmore 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.

This message has been deleted.

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

haha exactly
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.

"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."
But thanks for the condescending lecture.

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 planand what happens after the 50 days??? they die?? no,death is never considered normal from the human point of view,they move onthats 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

ye it was quite disappointing.
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 plainlyboring!

@bobvious
Ha ha ha ha ha! Those imagined alternative endings were hilarious! PINK (the film) is just fine the way it is!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.
"

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.

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.