Scott LeBrun
Max (Gene Hackman) and "Lion" (Al Pacino) are two drifters who meet on the road. Max is an ex-convict, while Lion is a former sailor who abandoned his wife. Before much time has passed, they've become friends. They stick together while each man works towards a purpose. Max has been socking away a moderate amount of funds in order to open a car wash in Pittsburgh, and Lion is looking to go to Detroit to meet his child (he doesn't even know if the kid is male or female) for the first time.Garry Michael White wrote the screenplay for this thoughtful, sensitive drama, capably handled by photographer Jerry Schatzberg, in his third filmmaking credit. Given the nature of Schatzbergs' former trade, it's not surprising that the film looks great, especially since it's shot in Panavision and makes great use of several locations. Like so many late 1960s and 1970s films, it's not afraid to get grim, and doesn't spoon feed the audience a happy, conclusive ending. It is somewhat episodic, with two major sequences. First, Max connects with an old friend, Coley (Dorothy Tristan), who partners with a gal named Frenchy (Ann Wedgeworth) in the junk business. Next, after a bar room brawl, Max and Lion spend time in stir, where Lion is victimized by a trustee (Richard Lynch).Hackman and Pacino have rarely been this engaging. It's not surprising to learn that Max is the favourite role for the now retired Hackman; it is an interesting, amusing character, a man who's both a lover and a fighter. Pacinos' Lion may seem to be the inexperienced, naive one, but he's actually the one who has more to teach his new friend. In particular, how to have a good laugh.The first rate supporting cast also includes Eileen Brennan and Penelope Allen. Lynch once again shows why he was one of the big screens' premier villains. Richard Hackman, who has the small role of Mickey, is Genes' brother.Nicely shot (by Vilmos Zsigmond) and scored (by Fred Myrow), this is an affecting little film that leaves a memorable impression.Seven out of 10.
kevinosborne_99
The story is slight yet much happens in this apparently aimless film that seems to wander as these two men wander, with personality but without much conviction. Yet it turns out there is a reason for everything, and while that reason may seem insufficient to some I expect that is because the journey has been so satisfactory. Gene Hackman considered it one of his best films and he is fabulous as a drifter who picks up with Al Pacino's character, a young man on a mission but seemingly not in a big hurry to accomplish it. This isn't a buddy movie, in fact exactly what it is would be hard to define in a few words. If you need a lot of action, snappy dialogue, and a Holy Grail to make a movie work for you (and there's nothing wrong with that) Scarecrow isn't for you. If you like terrific acting and a life mirrors art sort of experience, and/or if you like these actors and would enjoy seeing them in something different, this is the one for you.
dougdoepke
Not a movie for all tastes. There's no real plot. Instead the narrative follows two drifters as they pursue their car-wash dream. Max's (Hackman) problem, however, is that he can't stay out of trouble, given his combative personality. Still, he buddies up with Lion(el) (Pacino) who has abandoned his pregnant girl friend to become a sailor. Now he's taken on a frivolous "what will be, will be" attitude that Max finds appealing. But will they ever get to Pittsburg and their car-wash dream.The movie really depends on whether you find the characters interesting enough to stick around for two hours. Characters other than the two leads don't stick around long, which I guess befits two drifters. Thus, there are other interesting types, except for Frenchy (Wedgeworth) who raises the whole idea of "bimbo" to new levels of exaggeration. Also, there's no attempt to pretty-up anything or anybody. It's pretty much a back roads America as it really is, and not as Hollywood would like it. And, unless I misread the subtext, the movie follows pretty much in the wake of 60's rootless counter-culture This is Hackman's favorite movie, though it did flop at the box-office. As the hulking Max, he's completely convincing as a "planner" who can't really plan. (Note how he gets entangled in the wire in the film's opening scene—a tip-off of things to come.) Pacino's role is more complex. My initial impression was that Lion is a gay man being drawn to the macho Max. That would explain why he left his girl and took up a roving life whether as a sailor or drifter. Nonetheless, the movie leaves this gay factor uncertain. The film's dramatic highlight is when a grieving Lion grabs a nearby boy and tries to baptize him in a fountain. That's because he thinks his own son died before baptism and therefore now dwells in eternal limbo. Of course that assumes Lion's been told the truth by the supposed mother. But then she would have reason to punish Lion since he did abandon her.Anyway, these are some conjectures on a film I really enjoyed. Still, I can understand why others might be bored by a narrative whose virtues do tend to meander. But, if they do, it's in the manner that real lives also do.
jmillerdp
Jerry Schatzberg made two interesting movies early in his film career, this and 1971's "The Panic in Needle Park." And, while both are well made, with very good acting, both seem pointless by the time they hit the end credits.I guess following the characters is the point in both films. But, their journeys seem to lead nowhere, and I guess that's the problem for me. I wonder what the point of all of it is. In "Panic," (spoiler alert) the two drug addicts we follow end up in the same place they started. In "Scarecrow," (spoiler alert) one of the two characters doesn't make it at all.Here, the film benefits from the excellent cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond, in one of his earlier films. Al Pacino and Gene Hackman are very good in their respective roles. And, the film is well made. But, when the film just kind of ends as it does, you wonder what the point of it was.It's especially interesting concerning Schatzberg, since he went from these iconoclastic films to something like "The Seduction of Joe Tynan," a straight-down-the-middle romantic comedy drama. What's most notable about "Panic" and "Scarecrow" is that they are prime examples of how gutsy 1970's cinema could be.***** (5 Out of 10 Stars)
AD
