MOVIE REVIEWS

Recently I have gotten on kicks for both watching and appreciating the works of director Sidney Lumet and the classic (i.e., 70's) performances of Al Pacino. Thus I came across this film, which I had on DVD forever. It'll interesting to watch the recent documentary on the character Pacino portrays, 'The Dog'--just found out about it earlier today. I loved Lumet's films he made before this that I've seen--'12 Angry Men', 'The Fugitive Kind', 'The Hill', 'The Anderson Tapes' and 'Murder on the Orient Express'--and he's superb at getting the gradual self-destruction of his characters that just seethes through the screen. At this point, Pacino could do no wrong in his work--he had that firm grasp on his immense talent and just what he needed from it to do remarkable work, some of the finest characterizations in contemporary cinema. Do both he and yourself a favour and don't bother with anything he's made since 'Heat'.

**A good film, but not as memorable as some people say.** Director Sidney Lumet created this film based on a true incident that is still the subject of study by police cadets today: a homosexual who decides to rob a bank to pay for his partner's sex change, but who takes the manager and the employees as hostages when things get complicated, and desperately tries not to be killed or arrested by the policemen, who surround the place and try to control a maddened crowd, who are not sympathetic to the authorities. The film was made and released in 1975, and it could not be more appropriate to the time in which it was made: the great decade of civil disobedience, of challenge to authorities and the affirmation of the gay movement. I confess that I'm not quite aware of the real incident behind the script. For that reason, I prefer to focus on this very well done dramatization. In addition to the design of sets and costumes, and an intelligent choice of the filming location, the cinematography is very well executed, and the film has very good visual qualities. The pleasant pace is reasonably fast at first, but slows down midway through, perhaps emulating the back and forth of negotiations between the authorities and the clumsy robbers. And if history is a mirror of its time, the same can be said of the dialogues, where swear words are used with a liberality previously unthinkable. Although many consider this film a must-see, I honestly disagree. It's a must-see for fans of Al Pacino or Lumet, it will certainly be a good suggestion for a 70s film cycle, but that's basically it. It's a pretty good film, but it can hardly be classified as memorable. Al Pacino is a great actor and is experiencing a particularly happy moment in his career when he makes this film, but I have to recognize that he made several better films, before and after. Just think of “Godfather 3”, “Scent of a Woman” or “Devil’s Advocate”, to name a few. John Cazale is good in a more understated role, and Charles Durning and Chris Sarandon both deserve praise for a job well done.