88 Minutes (2007)

Preposterous thriller directed by Jon Avnet. 

Al Pacino stars as famed forensic psychiatrist Dr. Jack Gramm, who is suddenly faced with a new murder that resembles the ones from his past that led to him putting away serial killer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough), who is now on Death Row. Then Gramm gets a phone call telling him he has 88 minutes to live… 

The premise is a strong one, and Pacino cannot help but be anything except extremely charismatic, but the film just doesn’t work. The action is meant to occur in almost real time, but so many of the episodes shown would have taken much longer than the narrative allows them. Crossing a concourse, driving across town, going up in a lift: all of these things take more time than the few minutes the plot allows for them. And for some of that time, he doesn’t even seem in a hurry.

The story logic is pushing it, but just about holds together. But it’s still deeply odd, and only works if you accept that Pacino hangs around with young girls all the time.

Donnie Brasco (1997)

Crime drama directed by Mike Newell. 

It’s loosely based on the true story of Joseph D. Pistone (played by Johnny Depp), an FBI agent who infiltrates the New York mafia of the 1970. He befriends Lefty Ruggiero (Al Pacino) but finds himself torn between doing his job as an agent and becoming part of the shady world he is attracted by. 

It’s engaging, but somehow not quite as good as it should have been. You wonder if in the hands of Martin Scorsese the same material could have been more skilfully handled. Depp and Pacino are both excellent. 

My favourite scene is when the various meanings of “Forget about it” are discussed. If only there had been more of this subtle, nuanced character-based comedy.

The Panic in Needle Park (1971)

Grim drama set in New York, adapted from a 1966 novel by James Mills and with a screenplay by Joan Didion. 

A very young Al Pacino (in his first role) plays a heroin addict, Bobby, who introduces his girlfriend Helen (Kitty Winn) to his world of dealing and using drugs. Plot-wise, that’s pretty much it. 

We see horrible, lingering shots of the couple injecting, and we see how the drugs ruin the lives of the addicts. It’s sad and disturbing, and it’s clearly intended to be. I’m not sure why you’d want to watch the film – I certainly don’t need to see it again – but it’s expertly filmed, acted and edited.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Adapted by David Mamet from his own 1984 play, this is a remarkable film that transfers amazingly well to the screen. 

The plot deals with four real estate salesmen engaged in conning their clients. Although the details of the con are never fully explained, the real point is the relationships between the characters and the way they talk to each other as their situation intensifies across two days. These dynamics are explored with unusual intelligence. 

I’ve never known so much swearing in a film. Also, there is a huge amount of dialogue with machine-gun-fire speech between the characters as they interact. Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris and Alan Arkin are all superb, in their own ways, reflecting the tension that goes with their illegal work. And Alec Baldwin is more powerful than usual, playing a motivational salesman sent to inspire the others.

Carlito’s Way (1993)

Superb crime thriller.

Al Pacino plays Carlito Brigante, a Puerto Rican ex-con who is trying to make a fresh start. But his post-prison efforts to clean up are thwarted by a corrupt, drug-addicted lawyer friend (a suitably sleazy Sean Penn) and other remnants of his former criminal lifestyle. 

The story is told in flashback so we know what happens from the very beginning – which is a shame, in a way – but it’s fascinating to see how the plot winds back around to that point. 

Penelope Ann Miller is superb as Pacino’s love interest, who helps to redeem him. Brian DePalma’s direction is imaginative, utilising unusual angles and a fresh feel. Pacino as usual is hugely watchable – magnetic even – and oddly funny at the same time. It’s a masterful performance – one of his best.

Scent of a Woman (1992)

A masterpiece quite unlike anything else I’ve ever seen. It’s the very blackest comedy, an extremely moving drama and a fascinating character study. 

A New England preparatory school student Charlie Simms (Chris O’Donnell) is in trouble, after witnessing a rule-breaking prank, and also in need of money. He takes on a curious job: looking after a retired lieutenant colonel (Al Pacino) while his niece is away for the weekend. The colonel is not only blind but also volatile and difficult, and he takes Charles to New York with a somewhat different plan in mind.

Al Pacino is at his very best as the seemingly deranged colonel. His various outbursts are funny and terrifying at the same time. There are some superb scenes, including a tango in a restaurant and a high-speed test-drive of a Ferrari. 

The film surprises with its structure, too. After one emotional peak regarding the colonel’s death wish, there’s another one as Charlie’s future is addressed. This could all have been terribly uneven, but it’s so well done that it works perfectly. 

The script is spot on. The soundtrack by Thomas Newman is appropriate and matches the narrative. Pacino’s presence is incredible.

Two for the Money (2005)

Extremely unusual drama

Al Pacino plays a charismatic gambling addict who has built a career advising other gamblers on which way to bet on American football games. He meets Matthew McConaughey, who is so talented at selecting winners that he gets it right 80% of the time. Meanwhile, Rene Russo plays Pacino’s wife, who forms part of a complicated love triangle with the two men. 

It works on lots of levels. It’s primarily a study of the relationship between the two men. But it’s also about the psychology of gambling and addiction. 

The tone is peculiar. Parts of the film feel like a comedy without jokes. There’s also a homoerotic subtext, with McConaughey’s rippling, sweaty muscles often displayed in close proximity to the adoring Pacino. 

I found it hugely watchable because the three main performances were so strong. It seemed initially trashy but acquired a kind of depth as it progressed.

The Insider (1999)

A whistleblower thriller based on a true story. Russell Crowe plays Jeffrey Wigand, who – when fired from his job in the tobacco industry – shared secrets about the conduct of his firm, even though he and his family were threatened and intimidated for doing so. Al Pacino plays the TV producer responsible for the 60 Minutes documentary that will air Wigand’s revelations. Christopher Plummer is the presenter of the show, who has a conflict of interests in terms of honouring his ethics vs. protecting his TV career. 

It’s entertaining and fairly gripping, if a little too long at 158 minutes. Director Michael Mann turns in something more sophisticated and less trashy than Heat, which also featured Pacino and the actor playing Wigand’s wife, Diane Venora. 

Pacino is terrific, even if (or because) he plays the same character in all his films: a hardboiled-yet-sensitive tough guy with integrity. 

It’s a little thin on the topic of Wigand’s marriage and the strains placed upon it. That thread could have been explored better. Otherwise, it's difficult to fault.

Heat (1995)

Cop tries to catch criminal gang causing havoc in Los Angeles. Al Pacino is the cop. Robert De Niro leads the gang. 

Heat is a complex film that introduces multiple threads. At its worst it’s in danger of becoming an episode of Miami Vice or even The A-Team. At its best, it’s like a cut-price Scorsese imitation, albeit without the elegance and sophistication. The script is reasonable enough, but there are casting problems. Val Kilmer is jarringly woeful as one of the gang members. Furthermore, the gang guys have no chemistry whatsoever. Even De Niro seems to be struggling a little with the material. Plus, some of the music is intrusive. And the threads about the stand-in getaway driver and Natalie Portman as a troubled teen could both have been removed in the interests of tightening up the narrative.

On the plus side – and it's a big plus – Pacino rises to the challenge of his role and is every bit as cool as usual. The scenes featuring him and his wife (Diane Venora) are convincing, and there’s a depth to him that the other characters lack.

Sea of Love (1989)

Brilliant, noirish thriller. Al Pacino is a New York cop investigating a series of murders. But unfortunately he’s falling in love with the main suspect. 

Pacino is effortlessly and endlessly charming in the main role. Ellen Barkin plays his girlfriend and handles the nuances well. Is she or isn’t she the killer? Even John Goodman, usually guaranteed to ruin a film, judges it about right as Detective Sherman Touhey.

A couple of plot holes keep it from being perfect. There’s something not quite tied up about the “Sea of Love” single that the killer plays – and Ellen Barkin’s relationship with the song. Also, the attempt on Pacino’s life comes too late in relation to the killer’s attacks on previous victims. Why does the killer wait so long to strike?

Those points aside, it’s hugely enjoyable.

The Godfather (1972)

This came with all the baggage of being a celebrated “masterpiece”. Maybe that’s why I didn’t enjoy it as much as I was supposed to. The mafia plot threads are engrossing, if complicated, and Al Pacino is terrific as Michael. Also, James Caan, Robert Duvall and Diane Keaton are all persuasive in their roles. However, I found Marlon Brando slightly ridiculous as Vito Corleone. His almost indecipherable speech didn’t help (it’s obvious he has something stuffed inside his cheeks), and clarity is unnecessarily sacrificed for “character”. 

Surprisingly, Francis Ford Coppola’s direction doesn’t seem especially notable. I far, far prefer the vision he brings to Apocalypse Now and Peggy Sue Got Married. 

The drab, washed-out visuals are presumably deliberate, but these are another turn-off.

My loss, I know.

Frankie & Johnny (1991)

Intelligent, highly engaging romantic comedy-drama starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino. It’s adapted from a play (by Terrence McNally) and you can tell. The dialogue is strong and even the way the set has been designed has a simple theatrical logic that just works.

The two leads are hugely charismatic, but the supporting parts also seem integral – even though they weren’t in the original play.

The scenes in the New York cafe where F. and J. work are wonderful. You want to go there and sit drinking coffee all day while observing all the little details around you.

Subtle and nuanced, it’s sophisticated and moving without ever being obvious or choosing an easy, sentimental option.