noahturks
The dire content of 'The Panic...' is groundbreaking. Al Pacino is great as a street urchin in this early role, a precursor to his 'Dog Day Afternoon' performance. In this one, he's just as passionate and intuitive, but the script hinders the effect. Kitty Winn has an old-time-y feel, like she was meant to stay in the 70's, and film-wise, she kind of did as this and 'The Exorcist' are her most famous roles. She was solid here though. Instead of a clear plot, this movie's more impressionistic with it's storytelling, revealing more brushstrokes as it moves along, and I can appreciate that.The weak links were the dialogue, which was lame at times, like with Pacino's movie brother's line about, "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" being particularly offensive on the lame-o-meter. Then some of the addicts spouted a few too many buzzwords, though the way they only had drugs, sex, or crime on their minds did ring true in my experience. The actor who played Hotch was expressionless the entire film. He was a pile of tapioca pudding warbling around, and he brought the energy down with him whenever he came on-screen. I understand that acting, especially in grittier, 'street-life' films, is meant to be naturalistic, but he was boring, which I can understand as I've fallen into that trap too: "Am I being too theatrical and demonstrative?" No, you're really not, Hotch.
classicsoncall
The first time I ever heard the word 'chipping' as it relates to using drugs sporadically was just a day ago, and it wasn't in this movie. It's what Marianne Faithful told Mick Jagger when he saw her strung out on smack, and she tried to lie about it without much success (from the book 'Mick Jagger' by Phillip Norman). So now, a day later, I hear the same word in pretty much the same context when Helen (Kitty Winn) tries to tell Bobby (Al Pacino) that she's not hooked on heroin. These moments of spontaneous serendipity never cease to amaze me, which is why I make note of them when they happen.Well this is about as depressing a movie as you're likely to find, and not really presented for entertainment value. It portrays the seedy world of drug use on the West Side of Manhattan in an area formally known as Sherman Square, but called 'Needle Park' by it's drug addled inhabitants and frequenters. One gets an idea how bereft of humanity the principal characters are when Bobby's first impression on Helen is to steal a television set off the back of a repair van. Pretty dismal.It gets worse though, as Helen, who's clean when the film starts, succumbs to the depravity of drug life when she takes her first hit of smack and never looks back. While watching, it's difficult to understand why someone like Helen doesn't simply ditch her low life boyfriend, but never having experienced the kind of dependency she displays here, one's at a loss to explain it.When I first heard about this title, I presumed that it most likely referred to the panic that accompanies a bad experience with drugs resulting in violence and death. In this case, the 'panic' related to a brief period experienced by the addicts in Needle Park when heroin wasn't available on the street, and even the cops stopped hassling the low level dealers for a while. I guess if you think about it, a heroin junkie who can't get his fix does experience something like panic. And when your habit reaches eighty dollars a day in 1971 dollars, it brings a whole other level of degeneracy into play.
MartinHafer
"The Panic in Needle Park" is an incredibly unpleasant film...which is what you'd expect about a film that centers around two heroin addicts living in New York. So, if you are looking for a film to make you smile or a good date film, do NOT see this movie! In fact, that is the biggest problem with the picture...most folks won't wanna see two people slowly destroying themselves. Most folks watch films to be entertained. Now I am NOT saying it's a bad film and it might be a good one to show teens, as it shows how wretched a life hooked on drugs can be...though there are a few more recent films which make drug use seem a lot more unpleasant, such as the brilliant but hard to watch "Requiem for a Dream".The film has very little in the way of plot. It simply shows two addicts who are in love, Bobby and Helen (Al Pacino and Kitty Winn), as they slowly degenerate...sinking lower and lower and lower through the course of the movie. At first, Bobby is very glib...and fun to be with and Helen seems rather innocent. Naturally, this doesn't last and both sink deeper and deeper into their habit. Bobby claims he's a 'chipper' (a casual user who is not addicted) but after a while he's dealing and overdoses. Helen begins turning tricks to buy their next fix. Unpleasant, to be sure, but mostly realistic. When they shot up, it looks real...and the language is street language...nasty and crude. But the only problem I saw is that both LOOKED healthy through the course of the film and the makeup could have been better...enabling them not only to act like addicts but to look more like them. Well made but I am strongly warning you...it's not a movie for kids or for the squeamish.
Lauren Griffin
This film is one of the rare few that shows heroin addiction in a realistic manner. None of the horrors are left out but there is also a refreshing lack of the usual over-the-top harping on the subject. Al Pacino is absolutely at his best (in his first major role)... little surprise that he was cast in The Godfather shortly thereafter. The drug scenes and situations are true-to-life. The way the relationship between Bobby (Pacino) and Helen (Kitty Winn) is portrayed is especially moving. They truly love each other but are trapped having to do whatever it takes to get their fix. Heroin addiction becomes a trap in which you must continue repeating the same routine daily no matter what happens. This is illustrated well when Bobby turns back to look at Helen and says, Well? and the viewer is left with the impression that nothing is going to change.
AD
