Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Lawbolisted Powerful

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

dougdoepke The storyline's about as close to two hours of sheer futility that I've seen. One thing—don't see it if you're at all depressed; I think I counted two smiles from actress Winn the entire time. But then she and fellow junkie Bobby (Pacino) have little to be happy about. Sure, they love each other, at least during their sober moments. But those moments are really just preludes to shooting up again. All in all, life's a teeter-totter ride. So which is going to win out— love or dependency. It's a harrowing descent for Helen (Winn). She starts off conventionally enough, until Bobby's fast life pulls her into sharing his heroin addiction. Then it's a treadmill to nowhere, from getting money by any means to feeding the never-ending bodily demand. Thus, the lovers can never be sure who's talking—the affectionate person, or the drug's long shadow. At the same time, trust in others can never be a certainty, even among lovers. It's a grim portrait of human relationships, to say the least.In my book, Winn deserves some kind of award for winning us over with troubled vulnerability. Thus, her tumble into personal desolation pulls us along. Pacino too is outstanding, though not nearly as sympathetic. Still, the way he maneuvers among the jungle of addicts and drug money is totally convincing. I can see why the role launched his A-picture career. Also, the NY city locations lend a further sense of realism, though I could have used more of the down-and-out street characters.Overall, I suspect PiNP is the best movie made about the seductive ravages of hard drugs. In fact, I think I'll open my medicine cabinet and check the prescription drugs.

jimbo-53-186511 One problem with this film lies with how it's structured; to me it has a very 'episodic' feel about it whereby it seemed to be filmed in lots of short segments and each segment gradually moves the story along. You may think at this point 'Hey what's wrong with that?' That's how a normal narrative works - yes it is, but the problem with this film lay outside the basic narrative.Another big problem with this film lies with its very poor development of characters; Bobby & Helen are the two main characters and throughout the entire running time we learn very little about them. As mentioned there are lots of little scenes between Bobby and Helen, but the writers never allow us to learn much about them meaning that you always feel as though the writers are keeping Bobby and Helen at arms length from you. The same thing can be said of the story and due to the rather 'episodic' nature of the film, I found that the writers tended to move from scene to scene without really developing the characters or offering any real commentary. I expected the film to be thought-provoking, insightful or perhaps even moving, but I honestly felt cold & unattached from the film as a whole. Characters one minute would be at death's door (Bobby's OD'ing scene) and then in the next scene they would be fine giving the audience nothing to reflect upon. Aside from Al Pacino's OD'ing scene I never felt as though the characters were suffering from the effects of drugs and never felt as though they were in much danger - which again just made me more and more uninvolved as the film progressed.The only positives I can draw from this film come from the performances of Al Pacino and Kitty Win who clearly did the best that they could with what they had to work with. I really disliked this film and the rather abrupt ending was also quite strange. Requiem for a Dream is a much better film tackling a similar theme and you'd be better served watching that film.

CinefanR Before "Trainspotting" and "Requiem for a Dream", there was "The Panic In Needle Park", starring a very young, than unknown Al Pacino. The movie looks more like a documentary, so the whole experience is pretty realistic. I don't have any compassion whatsoever for drug addicts, but this serves as an excellent cautionary tale. Bobby and Helen's relationship, deteriorating from pure and sincere affection to mutual exploitation is a reminder, if one was ever needed, of the grave danger that one is exposing himself to when "trying" drugs."The Panic in Needle Park" shows how this thing changes the very core of a human being. It is not a pretty sight and it's not meant to be easy on the viewer. This should be mandatory viewing in school, with a big warning: "Say no to drugs".