Freaktana
A Major Disappointment
Breakinger
A Brilliant Conflict
Glucedee
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
Anssi Vartiainen
Based on a true crime and a notable media circus, Dog Day Afternoon retells the tale of John Wojtowicz (Al Pacino) and Salvatore Naturale (John Cazale), two Vietnam War vets, who have been beaten down by life and one day have a bright idea: "Hey, banks have money, right?"The movie takes us through the events in a slow, deliberate manner. Almost no music is used, the set is almost just the bank and the street outside, the actors were given a lot of freedom to improvise their lines - especially the heated parts - and all in all the film tries to really take you there.And it works. Especially because Pacino and Cazale are two such memorable, identifiable actors. Their characters are two simple idiots, who really didn't have a plan beyond walking in with guns. But that's what makes this movie stand out. These two feel like real people, with their odd idiosyncrasies and short-fused tempers. They're certainly not the criminal masterminds you usually see in heist movies.That being said, the film can feel a bit slow, but then again, that's sort of the point. Once they end up taking hostages, it becomes a waiting game, and that's reflected in how the story is told. Could the narrative be a bit tighter? Maybe, but then again, just as I was about to become genuinely bored, the film picked up the pace and threw in some now plot developments. So it's a measured amount of slowness. Can't really argue against it.Dog Day Afternoon is a great watch if you're a Pacino fan or you're looking for a film where it feels like you could round a corner and walk straight into it.
garthlotel
This film blew me away, mostly because of Pacino's command of the role and the screen. He is a sublime, unparalleled talent. This movie is amazing. I don't know what else to say except see it.
donaldricco
Great film! Pacino is superb! I loved the crazy, intense arguing between Pacino and Durning! It felt so real, even adlibbed! The feel of the movie is incredibly real too - sweat robbers and hostages, dirty door window of the bank, almost everyone looking worn out and exhausted. I love when filmmakers realize that makeup and hair aren't perfect in real life! This film also touches on social issues, like gay marriage, sex change operations, working man poverty, etc. Pretty progressive! I'd definitely watch this again! " ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!"p.s. - love that 3 "Godfather" actors are in this!
Riley Porter
I've seen it said frequently about this film that it is a commentary on the nature of media and sensationalism, and how those things can warp the perception of certain events and people. This is a fair analysis, but what I think is perhaps more significant to me, though perhaps not as clever, is that this film is a careful study of how different people react to a crisis. Of course, these things are not mutually exclusive. The media certainly acts as a major force of change both in the nature of the story and in the characters. I think though, that the idea that this film is just about how the media affects people is insufficient. How then is the viewer meant to understand the scenes which altogether lack any media presence? In the quieter moments of this film, when the cameras have gone away and the crowd is silent, the heart of this film reveals itself. It is about people reacting to crisis. Not just the crisis of a robbery gone wrong, but personal crisis. What drives characters in the film is not how they think the cameras will perceive them (not saying that part is not also essential in appreciating this film). The protagonist, masterfully performed by Al Pacino, is not motivated by it. He's motivated by the tumultuous nature of his life which has led him to this point, and the desperation it has instilled in him. The police too, are not driven by cameras and crowds, they simply measure their actions differently. Media changes the dynamics, but it doesn't change reality. The reality is that people are brought together by a tense situation and are defined by how they compose themselves when the pressure's on. The best example of this theme in action within the characters is in the transition of police leadership of the stand-off from Moretti to Sheldon. I found watching this film that when Sheldon confronts Sonny for the first time, I could tell it was the beginning of the end. It isn't just that Sheldon represents a more formidable branch of law enforcement, but that he conducts himself in a more powerful way. He's cool and collected. Up to this point in the film you sort of get the sense that Sonny and Morreti are approaching the situation with pretty similar attitudes. They're both struggling to maintain their composure and they're seemingly blindsided by the fiasco that is the hostage situation. Sheldon is not blindsided. They're isn't a trace of doubt or fear in him. He has it all under control, which means that Sonny has lost all power. Watching his interactions with Sheldon I just knew that it was already over. How could a mere victim of circumstance best what is obviously a master of fate and will? The direction of this film is also demonstrative of this theme. You might notice, especially if you've seen a Lumet film before, that the use of music in this film is very limited. This strikes me as being very deliberate both stylistically and dramatically. After all, wouldn't it make more sense to play up the sensational nature of the story by adding a melodramatic score to punctuate every little interaction? That would be very meta. What this selective choice of music suggests, to me at least, is that reality is distinct from the media circus. It surrounds the characters, it influences their behavior to a certain extent, but ultimately it isn't the reality they occupy. They are still trapped in their circumstances, and no amount of cheering, jeering, or filming can change that. All that's left for them is to decide how to handle their crises. That also explains the nature of the cinematography, which also seems a bit restrictive at times. There's little movement and the often the camera is sort of just set at eye level. Nothing too crazy. The effect of this is that you find yourself, as the viewer, just as trapped as the characters you're observing. You don't get to have a dozen montages and swoop over the roof as the police plot their infiltration because that isn't something any of the characters can do. This film respects the barrier between crisis and coverage. It endeavors to thrust its characters into a disaster and ask you to consider how they're reacting. The commentary it makes on the media is valid, and should be considered carefully, but in doing so don't forget what's happening when the cameras are away.
