MovieChat Forums > Dog Day Afternoon (1975) Discussion > Sheer confusion

Sheer confusion

posted 12 years ago by creepingdeath82
15 replies | jump to latest

I like Pacino and I knew this movie was among the best of all time, so when I decided to watch it I was expecting something really good. However, after the end credits rolled I have to say I found myself at least confused if not let down. The acting and direction are excellent no doubt. But the story... seriously?! Bank robbers who change their mind and walk out after the robbery has started; hostages playing with their kidnappers' rifle; a robber/kidnapper walking in and out of the bank unarmed with 200 cops around him; a married man who is simultaneously married to another guy (!) who wishes to become a woman but doesn't even show a bit of affection towards the man risking his life to make it happen... (deep breath)... I mean come on!

Even the actual person who this movie is based on has said that the movie is only 30% accurate--from Wikipedia. I found it pointless, nonsensical, unrealistic, disoriented, lukewarm, like nothing was intended to be conveyed through this movie. It's like "hey, wanna know what happened in an August day of 1972? This, this, and that, end of story." We might as well have read the papers of the day. And to think I really wanted to like this one. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to stick with Scarface, Donnie Brasco, Carlito's Way, the Godfathers and so many more that make Pacino such a great actor.

[–] skydog_0 11 years ago

The most annoying part of this film is the cynical view of the public at the cusp of this hostage crisis. Cheering the bank robber and hostage takers? Hostages laughing and dancing in the bank? Pedestrians chasing the car as it travels to the airport and throwing things at the car? There is a lot of Lumet ridiculousness in this film. It made it really hard to sit through the movie despite Pacino's excellent performance.

[–] oldewill 11 years ago

I'm with you guys..
"story... seriously?! Bank robbers who change their mind and walk out after the robbery has started; hostages playing with their kidnappers' rifle; a robber/kidnapper walking in and out of the bank unarmed with 200 cops around him;"

TRUE TRUE TRUE.
30 min.s to rob a bank WTF ??? Anyone who has seen a movie/tv "bank hold up" even on the news.Knows in and out..

.Hey why didn't the robbers just give the people in the bank a lot of the money and send 1 or 2 of the hostages out with the one robber as a hostage ??
If Sonny didn't go outside he probably could have left in the same manner..The "hostages" seemed really "down with" the robbers.

This movie really made no sense....

http://youtu.be/ifJYxdV57go .
http://youtu.be/9WNPorqIyD8 .

[–] rochelle-rochelle 11 years ago

I thought the bank teller playing with the rifle was a bit weird, but the guys didn't want to kill anyone. I also thought them using their real names to each other in the bank within the first few minutes was VERY unprofessional. It's still a great film.

I loved Pacino in the 70s when he didn't overact like he's done the last couple decades.

"George is dead. Call me back."
RING. Hello?
"Hi. It's George."

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

None of the "problems" listed above are remotely nonsensical. Seems you`re just expecting some kind of easily understood standard behaviour from everybody - the robbers to be macho professionals... and NOT be homosexuals with an intent to finance a sex change operation, hostages weeping and cowering in fear etc.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] oldewill 11 years ago

Being a homosexual doesn't mean you can't be macho or professional or you have to be an idiot...When you know the "ins and outs" of a bank you should have a inkling of understanding of how to rob a bank..

http://youtu.be/iDiwoKOD8hA .
http://youtu.be/9WNPorqIyD8 .

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Well, as it happens, this particular homo/bisexual was `not` a career criminal specializing in robbing banks... and he wasn`t an "idiot", either. However, knowing these "ins and outs" don`t automatically make you a successful bank robber - he did know how to take care of certain things, but was undone by poor preparation and faulty judgement in other respects.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Goodbye_from_Fox_In_A_Box 11 years ago

The reason why Sonny was so freely able to move outside of the bank with no repercussions was due to the fact that the cops knew Sal was in there with the "hostages", and if something happened to Sonny, they have no idea what Sal would do, like killing one or all of the hostages.

What got me with this movie was how times have changed. The "good old days" when criminals/kidnappers/ murderers actually wanted to live through their spree.

Not so much now.

I do no harm, I keep to myself; there's nothing wrong with my state of mental health.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

From the Wiki Article on Dog Day Afternoon:

Bank manager Robert Barrett said, "I'm supposed to hate you guys but I've had more laughs tonight than I've had in weeks. We had a kind of camaraderie."

Teller Shirley Bell said,"[I]f they had been my houseguests on a Saturday night, it would have been hilarious."

I don't think it matters whether the film is 30% true or not. It doesn't claim to be true, though is very obviously based on factual events.

What the movie does very accurately capture with its moments of hyperbolic absurdity, is the anti-establishment feeling pervading early 70's New York, where for a few brief hours Sonny becomes a counterculture hero.

[–] bw0000-1 8 years ago

You have my respect and admiration in your valiant attempt to give perspective to those human specimens who haven't the imagination to think their way out of a paper bag. What I used to find interesting (which was not as commonplace as it has now become) is how motivated people are to express their negativity on these boards. It seems they are compelled to find others who share their intellectual and creative limitations. I think the title of this thread says it all. "Confusion" reigns when one's expectations run to "typical, traditional and plodding" and they are instead confronted by "original, unconventional, and quirky".

Interesting moment of synchronicity: As I finish writing this post, American Masters is running their first feature of 2017. The subject is Sidney Lumet.

"I'm attracted to the rabbit hole"

Sidney Lumet

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

All one can do is try.🐭

[–] christomacin (4660) a year ago

Yes, but the public (the Straight part anyway) just as quickly turned on them when it was revealed one of them was gay..

[–] MrSalar 11 years ago

First of all, it's a film not documentary. In film your allowed to base it on a true incident but you can do what ever you want to manipulate the audience emotions. Yes if it was documentary then it would have been different.

2ndly it's easier to say ins and out but when your actually doing something wrong you panic, you get neverous and confused and things goes wrong.

3rdly why on earth will the 200 cops kill when Sal is inside with the hostages who is just out from prison after spending time in for a past crime. Not to forget Sal was kmown to be a bit crazy.

4th Criminal changing his mind minutes before robbery. Off course it happens. You get cold feet and arent able to do what you intended to.

5th Leon not having any affection for Pacino even Pacino robbing for his sex change is tottally understandable.

This is a great film. And its normal you found it boring instead of amusing because you went with very high expections. Your mind wanted to see something else made by the reviews and stuff you had read about this film.

[–] Elder_Yautija 11 years ago

Exactly. It's not a documentary.
Let me also point out to the complainers that this film won the Oscar for Best ORIGINAL Screenplay, which means written directly for the screen, and not Best Adapted Screenplay, which means that it's coming from another medium. The facts depicted are mostly made-up, although centered around a true event.
People complaining about this movie because the robbery didn't exactly happen the way we see it on screen is like complaining about Inglourious Basterds for showing Hitler die by the hands of two Jews. It really isn't the point, guys.

[–] friendoffilm 10 years ago

I disagree, creepingdeath82. I like Al Pacino also, plus I thought that Dog Day Afternoon was a very good, well-done, and funny movie, up until the end, when it gets darker, more violent, and somebody (namely Sal) ends up getting shot and killed in the end.

[–] liscarkat (18536) 2 years ago

Confusion? There's nothing confusing about this movie. I hope you tried watching again when you were sober.