Disappointment
-
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. -
bobvious — 17 years ago(July 09, 2008 07:15 AM)
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. -
twiggy232 — 17 years ago(September 14, 2008 05:59 PM)
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! -
rik_17 — 17 years ago(November 09, 2008 06:58 AM)
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
-
bobvious — 17 years ago(December 30, 2008 12:57 PM)
"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. -
twiggy232 — 17 years ago(January 02, 2009 06:15 AM)
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. -
patchofblue65 — 17 years ago(February 21, 2009 03:41 PM)
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 -
Ragsdolly — 16 years ago(January 29, 2010 12:37 AM)
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.
-
dj_hottie-910-458400 — 15 years ago(December 24, 2010 06:30 PM)
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" -
DerKaiser — 15 years ago(February 04, 2011 01:17 PM)
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.
-
franzkabuki — 15 years ago(February 17, 2011 12:33 PM)
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 -
LaPfieffer92 — 15 years ago(February 20, 2011 04:49 PM)
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.
-
launlori — 15 years ago(February 26, 2011 12:10 AM)
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.