Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

I love the wonderful sense of New York in the 1970's that this film gives us. The characters, dialog, and shots on location in Brooklyn are all highly authentic. It's Al Pacino who really makes the film though, with a performance that is captivating and endearing. He's bumbling and ill-prepared as the leader of this bank heist, yet he's cagey and street-wise as a New York rat. We first get a glimpse of how amateurish these criminals are when one of the three bails early on in the robbery, which is a comical moment. We also smile at Pacino's handling of the situation. He realizes the importance of the hostages he suddenly finds himself holding, but far from being heavy-handed, he tries to be decent with them. He whips the crowd up into an anti-establishment frenzy by shouting "Attica!", throwing wads of money into the air, and paying for pizza delivery. He gets into a shouting match with a police sergeant (Charles Durning). He talks to his wife, mother, and transgender lover (Chris Sarandon), and each conversation is touched with pathos, and fantastic. To his mother he says "I'm a fuck-up and I'm an outcast. If you get near me you're gonna get it. You're gonna get fucked over and fucked out." It's the outcast underdog that we find ourselves rooting for.I love the simple acceptance of his sexuality, which is incidental and doesn't devolve into some type of stereotype - well ahead of its time. Director Sidney Lumet shows the seamy side of New York, but at the same time, its humanity. The characters are blunt, but understanding of one another when they simply say what they want. The relationships in this tense stand-off are fascinating. I also liked how Lumet gets us into the story immediately. We learn the backstories and characters of the criminals, including Pacino's henchman (John Cazale) gradually, and in little moments, such as finding out he fears their escape plan because he's never been on an airplane before. The film works as both a hostage drama and as a character study. It may be a teeny bit too long at 125 minutes, but has held up well over the years, and is definitely worth watching.

I was delighted to get Dog Day Afternoon as a Christmas gift. I still watch DVDs and thank goodness for them. Other than TCM, there is only a slim chance of viewing this movie on television. Finally getting to see the movie and its star Al Pacino was a bigger treat than I expected. Watching this robbery/hostage drama made me feel like I was right there minute by minute as the story unfolded. Sidney Lumet, a director of so many great movies set in New York, knew the territory. The movie is set in Brooklyn in 1972 and it captures the squalor and the mood of the working class neighbourhood. At the time, New York was dealing with crime, bankruptcy, racial strife and the loss of faith in government. Pacino, playing Sonny, is an unemployed Italian-American in a failing marriage. Part of the story is an alliance he builds with neighbours who cheer for him as he is surrounded by police, FBI, and media reporters. John Cazale plays the buddy Sal and Charles Durning is the seasoned police chief caught in a highly charged environment between the police and a crowd of rabble rousers cheering on the hostage takers. The full cast is great. Glad I finally saw this movie, which I can now add to the many other great movies I've seen from the 1970's. Highly recommend.

I have a confession to make. As I was watching Dog Day Afternoon for this review, I realized my DVD copy was scratched and it would not play the last half of the movie. But luckily, I have seen this movie before and I am fortunate enough to remember how the movie ended. Both times I watched the film, I enjoyed it very much. Given the talent behind and in front of the camera, that comes to me as no surprise. Sidney Lumet is a very talented director who directed incredible films such as 12 Angry Men and Serpico. Lumet reunites with his Serpico star Al Pacino to create a very fine portrayal of a real-life story about a Brooklyn bank robbery. The film is more subtle and quiet when compared to other Lumet films, but the film has an unexpected lighter tone. The film has some funny lines and I was surprised how much I laughed given the subject matter, but then I realized Lumet was not trying to make a serious film. The thematic issue of gay marriage gave the movie a political edge which also surprised me. I was expecting a straightforward movie about a bank robbery, but I got something more in-depth. There is motivation behind what the characters do and that caused me to sympathize with them, despite robbing a bank and holding people hostage. You may have figured by now, but I really enjoyed this film very much.Believe it or not, but this story is based off real events which occurred at the Chase Manhattan Bank in Brooklyn, New York in 1972. The bank was held up by this gay man named Sonny (Al Pacino) and his dim-witted crime partner Sal (John Cazale) in order to get money to pay for Sonny's partner sex change operation. The manager and tellers agree to cooperate with Sonny, but things go south when Sonny realizes there is not anything to steal because the money has been packed up for the day. When Sonny gets in contact with Police Captain Moretti (Charles Durning), he gets nervous when he realizes the entire bank is surrounded by cops. Now he must negotiate a way to get what he wants without compromising the safety of everyone in the bank.Al Pacino is one of my favorite actors of all-time. He commits to every single role of his, even if the movie stinks. Obviously, this is not a stinker but it is impressive to see Pacino so committed to this role. I loved his performances in the two Godfather movies and Serpico. So it comes to no surprise I am impressed with this performance. This time around he brings an edge of comedy to his performance and it works spectacularly. The scene where he is being live broadcasted and he skips around in happiness telling people he's a star, that was a wonderful but funny scene. John Cazale does a fine job as Sal. I felt Sal's character goes hand-in-hand with John's character in The Godfather, but regardless it was still a fine performance. Charles Durning plays it tough as the NYPD captain as he should because it easily fits his persona. Finally, Chris Sarandon as Sonny's lover Leon does a fine job in his small role-a role that got him nominated for an Oscar.I thought it was interesting about the political angle given to this movie. Gay marriage would not be a major political issues until many years after the release of this film, but it was interesting to see the viewpoint of the movie given how gay marriage was frowned upon during this era. The movie played the sympathy cards for Sonny and Leon and it gave a motivation for Sonny's actions. The movie does not revile Sonny, but instead it makes him a deeply-flawed character.Overall, Dog Day Afternoon is a excellent movie. It has committed performances by everyone, especially by Pacino. Sadly, Pacino still did not receive an Oscar up to this point despite being nominated for every movie he was in until 1975 including this one. Sidney Lumet continues to bring his style into all of his films. I love Lumet because like auteurs like Scorsese and Allen, many of his films are about New York. Each individual brings something to their films about the great city of New York and they make these films even more interesting to watch. I like the way Lumet turned the film from just an ordinary crime film to a film that is intelligent, creative, and still fun to watch. This is another impressive film on the resume for Sidney Lumet and Al Pacino.My Grade: A

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.