Show More...


@katiemourning: Also, there's not much reason to dislike the main characters imo. Charlie's an underdog sort of character, and Pacino's a haunted man. There's not much to dislike there. But whatever, its your opinion, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just replying with my own.
This is one of my favorite movies ever. Haven't seen it in a while though, thus why I'm here.
@katiemourning: I can understand your complaints. However, I have to disagree on most points. O'Donnell's character grounds the movie, and his story provides the situation that allows the speech at the end to happen. He seems non-existent because, next to Pacino doing his thing, you have to have someone who grounds it and is kind of like a real person would be if they met Mr. Slade, aka just kind of sitting there in disbelief a lot of the time. If you have someone trying to go toe-to-toe with that character, especially a younger actor like O'Donnell was at the time, its not going to work.
I would also posit that, yes, Pacino's character is somewhat despicable. But that was for a good reason. He was haunted by his mistakes and felt himself irredeemable, thus he wasn't even trying for most of this movie to be a "good" man. And yeah, he's a crude guy, but I also thought he was very funny at times, which offsets some of the crazier things about him. Obviously that was obnoxious to you, which is alright, but to me, he was a very real, flawed, and ultimately good character, especially after O'Donnell redeems him and he comes back to save him at the hearing.
this was rated really high on imdb, so i thought i'd give it a shot. there were several points where i just wanted to turn it off because i didn't like either of the main characters.... there were a couple of nice moments and Al Pacino's monologue at the end was pretty good... but other than that... i wasn't into this movie at all. chris o'donnell's character was practically non-existent and al pacino was mostly obnoxious and despicable. meh.
great film! love al pacino!