User reviews

Al Pacino is one of the best actors around, and he has many definitive roles. His role as Frank Serpico is certainly one of them. He acts with such charm and smoothness in some scenes, while explosive and intense in others.

The movie gets into a big plot line about police corruption and Serpico blowing the whistle on the department. It's interesting and the whole point of the movie, but the reason this is such a good movie is because of the character, not the plot. The better scenes include Serpico's personal life and struggles. There's one great part where he explains to his girlfriend why he's always wanted to be a cop. It's scenes like those that make you sympathetic for him.

Sidney Lumet and Pacino made a great team for this movie, and proved to be a great team for Dog Day Afternoon a few years later. But as good as a director Lumet is, as good as everyone involved with this movie is, this is Pacino's movie. It's an essential viewing for his fans.

My rating: 9/10

There have so many crooked-cops-themed films in the past 30 years that this film has lost a lot of its shock-and-awe. The long hair, wild clothes, beads, etc. really date this film, too, it being so early '70s in looks. It's almost become a "period piece" as if it were the Roaring Twenties except its the Sleazy Seventies.

All you have to do is look at the party scene in here and you'll get a glimpse at the early '70s, and most of it is not good. What IS good is Al Pacino's acting, of course. There have been very few films in which he starred that didn't displaying his acting talents to the fullest. This one, along with Dog Day Afternoon and few others, put him "on the map," making him a big star. He's been a "star" ever since.

This is a fairly long film but, like Pacino, it's rarely boring. The name of Pacino's character, "Serpico," has become synonymous with "honest cop." It demonstrates what a strong impact this movie had on millions of people.

Gritty? Yes. Profane? Yes; Memorable? Most definitely. When you speak of modern-day "classics," this film is one of them.

Serpico is not a bad film, but it definitelty could have been better. Directing and acting are as good as they always are when Sidney Lumet and Al Pacino are involved. Pacino made a really Oscar-worthy performance, and Lumet's directing is brilliant, especially at the beginning of the film. And the story itself is gripping and intriguing. But the way it is presented is not that good as it may seem when you read the film's description. The script is not good enough, there are lots of useless dialoges and scenes. For instance, Serpico's two women almost don't make sense, especially the first one. They don't have influence on the story, but serve only for Serpico to express his attitude towards the police, which he expresses directly towards his collegues in the same way. His fellow policemen don't look like real bandits and most of them are shallow too. It seems as the film's crew made this film only for the ones who already knew everything about the real Frank. His story deserved to be presented more thoroughly. Nevertheless, the film is still good and I can recommend it.

Sidney Lumet proved himself to be a highly competent and effective director/storyteller for the true story of New York Officer Frank Serpico, who became famous after appearing to testify before the NAPA Commission about payoffs and corruption in the Police Department. At the time, it was unheard of, and it gained Peter Maars attention to write the book, which thus got transferred to the screen as so. But what makes Serpico such a riveting and eye catching picture today are the little things about it, little details in specific scenes and locations that help ring Serpico's emotions far more than true- it's just there. Even more amazing on the part of the actual filming of the movie is that it was at the time filmed backwards (started with the beard, then the mustache, then clean-shaven).

Al Pacino, right off of the first part of the Godfather trilogy, took this role with all the fire and compassion that he had in him. He sees in Serpico not just an honest cop wanting some balance and honor in his work, yet also a man, who can get as joyful and humorous as he can act subtle, furious, and thoughtful. This will always remain one of his stand-out roles after all the Scarfaces and Scent of a Woman pictures he can do because he, as well as Lumet, know how to approach such a saga. Plenty of great, compelling set pieces, and even sweet ones (like when he first buys the sheepdog as a puppy). A

Serpico, directed by Sydney Lumet at the peak of his career, and also launched Al Pacino into a star status. The story follows Frank Serpico, an ambitious and idealist policeman from his first days at the police force as he is exposed to a routine police corruption and to his final days in the force as he invests all his energy in fighting these corruptions. Al Pacino's Performance as Serpico is one of the best in his career, he plays it so cool and professional that it's easy to forget that back in 1973 he was still at the beginning of his career. He makes character of Frank Serpico unforgettable. The film itself is very credible and honest with no clichés that are often appear in this kind of genre. New York has got a terrific look here. every place in this film whether it's bars or shops or buildings is memorable. Overall this makes for a very unique cinematic experience and shouldn't be missed by any movie fan. Well Recommended. 10/10

(1973)

Sidney Lumet's Serpico is based on such a compelling story, and is told so well, you really can't not like it. Al Pacino dominates, and he is in every scene. This means the movie is based almost literally on what Frank Serpico saw and did as a moral and unshakeable cop in New York just before the film was made.

It's filmed with gritty realism but without sensationalism, though you might say a little artlessly, too, as if Lumet just wants to get the job done and not get in the way. In fact, Lumet wasn't involved in pre-production, called in just a filming was to start, so there might be a disconnect there. The support cast--mostly other cops plus two sometimes convincing girlfriends--is very good, though very few of them are developed at all.

So it's a very good film with a great story--a plain enough summary of a movie that won't let you go. But wait, you do have to let Pacino take a bow for another absorbing, intense performance. It's his movie. And Frank Serpico, who just saw it for the first time last year, after carefully avoiding it for almost forty years. A great article of the real Serpico from January 2010 can be found by typing "Serpico on Serpico" in google, and look for the New York Times article, worth the fast read!

I'd been wanting to see SERPICO for some time; this real-life crime drama based on Peter Maas' nonfiction bestseller about an honest cop fighting corruption in the NYPD was one of the few grim-and-gritty New York crime dramas that my older brother didn't take me to see when I was a kid! :-) (I should explain that my brother, 9 years my senior, used to take me to the kind of movies he wanted to see -- films like TAXI DRIVER, REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER, etc. Fortunately, I developed a taste for them as well, though our mother didn't think they were really appropriate for a girl as young as I was then. :-) No wonder this film helped young Al Pacino's then-rising star (he was fresh off THE GODFATHER when he began filming SERPICO) to soar to the stratosphere, complete with an Oscar nomination. Pacino's earnest intensity fuses Frank Serpico's disparate qualities into a spellbinding performance. The guy is a bundle of contradictions, the kind of man who could charm you, move you, and drive you crazy at the same time: a nice Catholic boy who can't commit to any of the devoted women in his life; an honest, downright rigid moralist who's also a free spirit known as "Paco" to his friends and lovers; and an undercover cop with detective aspirations whose hippie-like appearance rankled his superiors and fellow officers even as it helped him blend in on assignments. Pacino's riveting performance carries the film, with fine support by John Randolph, Tony Roberts, M. Emmet Walsh, Barbara eda-Young and Cornelia Sharpe, not to mention memorable uncredited turns by F. Murray Abraham, Judd Hirsch, Kenneth McMillan, and Tony LoBianco, among others. Sidney Lumet's taut direction of the script by Waldo Salt and Norman Wexler does Maas' source material proud, as well as taking advantage of evocative NYC locations (just try getting this kind of atmosphere in Canada, I dare you! :-). The sparing use of simple yet haunting music by Mikis Theodorakis sets the tone well. The end result: one of the best films of the 1970s and beyond. Rent the DVD to see some fascinating extras about the making of the film and the filmmakers' experiences with Frank Serpico himself, including interviews with Lumet and producer Martin Bregman (no Pacino, alas).

Upon graduating from the local police academy, "Frank Serpico" (Al Pacino) joins the New York Police Department with high hopes and ideals. Being new to the department he is determined to follow the rules and play it by the book. However, he soon learns that there are a different set of rules his fellow officers follow which aren't taught in the classroom. Although he doesn't like what he sees he chooses to concentrate on his personal life and career. However, as time goes by he realizes that he cannot ignore it any longer and attempts to change things by taking his suspicions to his superiors. But when things don't turn out like he plans he decides to take a drastic step that has severe repercussions for everyone involved. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film contains a great deal of drama along with an outstanding performance by Al Pacino who was subsequently nominated for an Academy Award. Likewise, the fact that it was based on a true story makes it even more remarkable and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

Sidney Lumet is a director who captures something crucial in city based dramas surrounding legal and political affairs; with films like '12 angry men', 'the verdict', 'nightfalls on Manhattan' and 'Q & A' he shows an excellent grasp of the power plays in civic politics. In 'Serpico' he uses an excellent script to tell the story of an unorthodox character in Frank Serpico, a hippie in a time when most cops were square as a doorway but whose honesty when faced with police corruption marks him out as a man of remarkable character. Unflinching in its depiction of Serpico, the film portrays warts and all, over the period in which he refuses to take money and shows his extraordinary political vindication at an official investigation into NYPD corruption. The story of civic corruption is cogent in any time, one only has to look at great empires like Rome to understand how much corruption plays a part in the shaping of so called civilizations; where the very foundation stones have bodies, so to speak, buried under them or even within them. This film is both informative and honest in much the way 'All the Presidents Men' would be in the following year. Winning Al Pacino a deserved Oscar nomination in the years between the Godfather's Part I and II; it demonstrates the range of an actor who would go on to portray a character in Michael Corleone soon afterwards who is the very nemisis of the character in Serpico. In Serpico there is a dramadocumentary that calls to mind Shakespeares history plays in its depiction of a classical situation of a man ostracized and driven by noble sentiments to embody something of the civic value one expects of servants of the public trust. Brilliant film. 10 out of 10.

Meant to be a character study as well as an examination of police corruption, the film is, ultimately, unsatisfactory. About halfway through the film, Pacino's constant, unvaried shouting becomes tedious. The film is not a balanced look at police corruption or a compelling character study. We don't connect the loose hip Greenwich Village Serpico with the cop he that is. He never connects with his fellow officers or for that matter anyone, he's too busy shouting them down or doing one of his street theater undercover routines. None of the supporting characters count or make an impression;it's a showcase for Pacino and his character eventually comes off as a self-pitying,self-righteous, prima donna. Lumet and Pacino are better represented by "Dog Day Afteroon"(1975). And Lumet's "Prince of the City"(1981) is a more complex,convincing, and focused study of informing and police corruption. On the plus side, Serpico has a good feel for location and provokes thought. Otherwise, it feels dated,the scenes with his living partners are soapy, and those with his parents are moldy. The score by Theodorakis is inappropriate,the dialog ,especially in the domestic scenes, is trite,and the ending disappointments. In its day, this might have been an eye-opener, now the effect may be the opposite.

The movie tells the true story of Frank 'Paco' Serpico who was about the only honest cop of the entire New York police department at his time. The movie provides a realistic view in the corrupt and tough world of the New York police and tells the story of Serpico in an intriguing and realistic, perhaps maybe even documentary like way.

"Serpico" is a movie with a typical fantastic '70's atmosphere and it's a movie that still holds up today. This is mainly thanks to the fantastic story of the movie and the way it is told. Yep, they really don't make movies like this anymore. I think "Serpico" may already be regarded as a 'classic'.

Actually the story itself or concept isn't that terribly original compared to many other movies from the same period. Still this movie distinct itself from most of those movies, thanks to the perfect directing from Sidney Lumet. Also Pacino's acting and the fact that his movie is based on a true story makes this movie better than most others. Lumet and Pacino continued working together and later made the even better "Dog Day Afternoon" together.

But fair is fair, even though Pacino is fantastic, this is far from his best role. The 'explosion' he later used for his characters in movies is still missing here and it seems like he's holding back. I also think that his Oscar nomination he deserved for this movie was also a bit too much credit for him. Pacino was just a young beginning actor at the time (He had just done his first big role and movie; "The Godfather".) and he obviously had still a lot of learning to do.

The rest of the cast consists out of unknown actors (with the exception of apparently Oscar winner F. Murray Abraham in one of his first small movie roles, to be honest I didn't even noticed him.) but for a movie like this a cast with unknown actors work really well. It keeps the focus on the movie's its intriguing story better.

Apparently there is a lot of hate for it but I really liked the musical score by Mikis Theodorakis. It was really fitting with the movie its atmosphere.

All in all this is a already 'classic' typical '70's cop flick in the style of, for instance "The French Connection" and is an absolute must see.

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Serpico has very little going for it. It is an extremely boring and tedious film. It is noteworthy for its grittiness, but that's not compelling enough to invest the time.

A great deal of the film is devoted to characterizing the main character, Serpico, with many subplots and scenes that lead to nowhere in particular. And, surprisingly given all the energy and effort to breathe life into this character and given Al Pacino's talents, the character remains rather flat and one dimensional throughout. He's an honest cop caught up in a corrupt system that views him as a threat. You probably knew that going in. A good chunk of the film has us watching him having girl trouble, having fun with pets, going to a big party, strangely doing ballet moves in the precinct, riding a motorcycle, exploding in rage, etc., for no clear reason. He's not terribly likable by the end, either, having alienated what few friends he does have, again for no clear reason. His actions are almost entirely emotive, primitive, and illogical plus tinged with childish motives.

Supporting characters come and go, a lot, and some of them are engaging at first. But they are routinely discarded and left undeveloped.

There are very few action scenes, unless you count a raging Pacino as an action scene. One of the action moments (the fire-escape caper) is hilariously improbable, poorly written, and executed with shockingly badly direction. The movie is very slowly paced. Boredom abounds.

The film ends in bizarre fashion that undercuts Serpico's tenacity, which is one of the few admirable qualities he does carry throughout the film. He basically punches out. Why now? After all this drama?

Frank Serpico begins his career with the NYPD as an idealistic rookie who believes in the moral value of policing. He has a simple and old-fashioned ethical code, an outlook which used to be known as honesty. What he finds is a moral sewer, five boroughs wide, in which almost every cop is on the take. The police are just another gang of hoodlums, but with more guns than the bad guys. Even basically decent cops go along with the kickback culture, because a locker-room psychology prevails in which values have become perverted. Squad loyalty is now a criminal conspiracy of silence. Detectives do not hesitate to shake-down hoods who are slow to pay. To Frank Serpico, this is simply wrong. He wants no part of it. And so his long agony begins.

Both responding to and helping to shape the mood of its time, a weary cynicism towards authority, "Serpico" arrived on the screen just as Watergate built to its climax. Americans could no longer regard their institutions as gleaming examples to mankind of optimism and good government. The film begins gloomily with Serpico badly wounded, having been shot in the face. We hear police and ambulance sirens fading, symbolically representing the life-force ebbing from Frank, and the withering of American dreams.

This first-class film is a triumph, and one that could easily have misfired. Had the crooked cops been depicted as mere thugs, then Serpico himself would have been an archetype, just another two-dimensional crusader. What gives the film its psychological richness is the realisation that the dishonest cops are NICE. These are affable, reasonable men who want to like Serpico and want to welcome him onto the team. The camaraderie is seductive and it's difficult for Frank to hold out against it. He is besieged by self-doubt, wondering if he is just a one-man awkward squad, or worse - a prima donna, sacrificing personal relationships on the altar of his own ego.

Again, the easy (but disastrous) course would have been to give Frank some big heroic speeches, allowing him to inveigh against corruption. The film chooses instead to go for psychological truth, and this is what makes the project outstanding. Appalled, afraid and despairing of ever changing anything, Frank withdraws into himself. He becomes the spectre at the feast, the silent rebuke, the muted but ever-present conscience of his colleagues.

Though Frank rejects the golden shield which is eventually offered, we feel that the system still means something. There are still some honest cops, and even after all these vicissitudes, the United States is still a nation of laws. Lumet's profoundly liberal and optimistic view of America ultimately shines through, but the final mood is one of quiet resignation rather than triumphalism. Right can prevail over wrong, but a price has to be paid. Serpico wins his titanic struggle, but he is diminished and saddened as a man.

The film contains some marvellous technical things. In the opening minutes, the action cuts between Frank as he is now (wounded, broken and alone) and as he started out (the clean-cut, idealistic rookie). These transitions are seamless, and the narrative logic is smooth and natural. We see Frank's first moment of disenchantment in a cafeteria when it dawns on him that cops get free handouts of food, but they have to take whatever comes. This first bewilderment develops until we see the gulf open up between Frank and the dishonest cops, the ones who take the money but also take the self-loathing.

The terrible stress to which Frank is subjected is depicted with skill. The police department has a huge institutional inclination to protect its own, and this vast weight is brought to bear on Serpico. Equally, the pressure is relieved cleverly at appropriate points in the narrative. Frank's 'collar' of Rudi Casaro reaches an explosive climax as this all too human guy reaches breaking-point. On the other hand, the romantic story-telling interlude with Laurie and Serpico's undercover cameo as an orthodox rabbi break the tension and vary the pace beautifully.

The second-unit work is of a uniformly high standard. We are shown atmospheric New York streetscapes with grubby brownstones and the massive, overbearing masonry of the Brooklyn Bridge, in knowing homage to the films noirs of twenty years earlier. The symbols are powerful. This city, and this police department, are too colossal for one man to stand against them. Practice sessions in the police firing gallery intelligently reinforce the film's undercurrent of foreboding. Paper targets obscure the gunmen's faces, suggesting a monolithic force united against Frank, then come hurtling towards him on pulleys, signifying the fate which is rushing to meet him.

Mikis (Zorba the Greek) Theodorakis has provided a classy score. I particularly liked the jazzy, minor-key horn passage.

Pacino puts in another of the towering performances which have distinguished him as the profoundest acting talent of his era. He is simply wonderful. Barbara Eda-Young gives top-notch support as Laurie, the genuinely loving partner who is destroyed by her man's seeming eagerness for martyrdom in rejection of domestic happiness. If ever an actor exuded confidence it's Tony Roberts, and he is ideally cast as Bob Blair, Serpico's well-connected ally. Though he can open City Hall doors, he can't actually help Frank at all. Nobody can. Christ-like, Frank understands that it is ordained - he must go to the hill alone.

1973 was a very strong year for movies. I say it's the best year in movies produced in the modern Hollywood system up to 1973. It's not the best year of the decade (1976 is just fabulous for excellent movies), but with the likes of American Graffiti, The Sting, and this movie, Serpico, it's hard not to get excited about the year of film in 1973. I'll say off the bat that Serpico is an excellent movie. I can hardly call that a surprise given the amount of talent behind the film. The story, based off real-life events, is very engaging and its brutally honest. Just like Mean Streets showed, living in New York City was not exactly all that safe. While Mean Streets covered everyday life in a New York community, this film covers the police and more specifically, police corruption. The film shows that pretty much every cop in the NYPD were corrupt to some degree whether it's racketeering or paid murder, but one man decided to show honesty and integrity….and nearly pays with his life. This is a very powerful theme and it shows why the movie can be labeled as inspiring. It's just one of the few things that make this movie a must-see.

This picture takes place in New York City in the late 1960's-early 1970's. Frank Serpico's (Al Pacino) profession is a NYPD officer, and his motto is to become a good cop. The problem is that no one else wants to be a good cop. He refuses to extort money from the local criminals unlike his colleagues. Because of that, he is alienated from everyone else on the workforce. He is constantly put in life-threatening scenarios, and nothing seems to get done when he goes to the highest authorities. He refuses to be like everyone, despite all the danger, in hopes that one day corruption will end.

This movie relies upon some heavy acting by Al Pacino, and he certainly rose to the task. This movie also proved that Pacino was capable of becoming a powerful leading man. He impressed everyone in The Godfather, but Pacino proves he is no fluke with his incredibly powerful, believable role as Frank Serpico. I really thought Pacino was Frank every time he appeared on screen. I love how Pacino can make himself disappear in roles so easily, and that's why he is one of the greatest actor's of all-time. I also loved the physical transformation Pacino takes throughout the film. He gradually grows lots of hair and a beard, and it's a very noticeable transformation. I thought that was really cool to point out.

This film was directed by the great Sidney Lumet. He directed the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men and that movie kept him on the map. He, once again, brought his master direction techniques to this film. He was able to get the best out of Pacino and was able to give the film more of a personality. He definitely tackled the issue of police corruption very well. Police officers actually said what happened in this film was an accurate description of what really went on during the police force, and that's still a very scary thought.

I also liked the location authenticity of the movie. This movie was filmed in actual locations of the city, and it felt like I was in 1973 New York. It's interesting to see how these movies featuring New York in the 70's proves how much the city changed with compared to 2016. That being said, I always love being in New York; past and present. The film was filmed in every neighborhood except for Staten Island.

Overall, I really, really liked Serpico. I would rank this film as my favorite film of 1973. I cannot think of a complaint to give the film. It feature solid, fluid direction by Sidney Lumet. The acting, led by the legendary Al Pacino, is perfect. I loved the story and the way the tricky issues were handled. It was shocking to see how bad police corruption got. So bad that they were willing to kill Frank Serpico just to keep his silence. That scene where there was a drug bust and his fellow detectives put him into the line of fire was very saddening and powerful to watch. I also liked the music, which was composed by Mikis Theodorakis. This movie is a classic and I can easily recommend it to those who love good movies. If you want to know why Al Pacino is such a big movie star, just check out Serpico.

My Grade: A

In the late 60's, in New York City, the idealistic Italian descendant Frank Serpico (Al Pacino) joins the New York Police Department and on his first day, he learns that his colleagues are dirty, sharing money received from the extortion of criminals. Serpico refuses to receive the money and reports to a superior. Along the years, his superior does not take any attitude against the corruption and Serpico is an outcast police officer, rejected by his fellows. Further, his personal life is affected and he is harassed and threatened by his colleagues.

In 1971, in a drug bust, Serpico is betrayed and shot in the face. He recovers with minor sequels and testifies to the Knapp Commission about the police corruption. Finally, Switzerland gives political to him and he moves to that country.

"Serpico" is one of the best films by Al Pacino and Sidney Lumet about the true story of idealism versus police corruption fought by an idealistic man. I saw "Serpico" for the first time in the 70's in the movie theater and yesterday I saw it again on DVD, and the film has not aged. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Serpico"

For mysterious reasons, here we have a film that's revered as few. Especially in Greece, where I live, it's considered a classic due to the score having been written by Mikis Theodorakis, a composer with a semi-god status. Sure enough, the music is brilliant, but completely out of context. It just doesn't fit to this movie, period. Now about Al, he deals very well with what he's got, but what he's got is a poser 70s film. Yes we have a story that has actually happened, but the representation and the dialogues are annoyingly stylish and some characters (especially the females) are void of content and personality. It doesn't work. In fact it's a lesson of how to make a real story appear unrealistic.

Unquestionably one of the major films of the 70's dealing with a big theme (police corruption) and with some major talents at close to the top of their game throughout. Sydney Lumet spares us little in this gritty urban drama using almost fly-on-the-wall documentary technique to involve the viewer in the action and stand us directly alongside Pacino as crusading street-wise cop Frank Serpico. Serpico's naive idealism is at first bruised by what at first seems casual freeloading by almost everyone of his new colleagues on the force but which turns to literally a battering as he comes to appreciate just how endemic the inside corruption actually is. Lumet plants us firmly on location in contemporary downtown NY with its rundown apartment blocks, graffiti-strewn streets and lowlife criminal element (and that's just the police!) As for Serpico, we feel his frustration as he cracks under the pressure, his relationship with his girlfriend poisoned as he fails to make the powers-that-be sit up and address what to all intents and purposes is standard behaviour. It takes a great acting performance to carry the viewer all the way through this lonely journey, even when the character himself becomes at times obnoxious and unfeeling to his (few) supporters; thankfully Pacino gives a performance the real-life Serpico deserved. Only very occasionally lapsing into the "hoo-ha" overacting style that reached its nadir in "Scent Of A Woman", Pacino plays it cool and tight throughout, always wary, always looking over his shoulder, playing it for real. If one is slightly sceptical if not critical of his sometimes ridiculous-looking "Harry Hippy" persona, I think it can be forgiven as being of its time. The ensemble support acting is top-drawer too, everyone is believable as indeed they need to be to make this film work but particular praise should go to Barbara Eda-Young as his put-upon girlfriend and Tony Roberts, free of Woody Allen for once, as his main ally. It's not hard to see the prototypes here for the new generation cutting-egde TV shows which were soon to follow such as Kojak and particularly Hill Street Blues, but that's the least of this film's achievements. In summary then, this excellent film is proof that it's possible for Hollywood to address a potentially unpopular, certainly uncomfortable serious subject, make its point and still entertain.

Tackles a very important issue we'll, but the acting is a bit outdated. If I had seen it 30-40 years ago, I'd have given it an 8.

For his second Academy Award nomination and his first in the Best Actor category, Al Pacino essayed the title role in Serpico, the true story of an incorruptible cop and a man who Diogenes could have ceased his search for an honest man with.

As I'm sure many idealistic young people do, Frank Serpico joined the New York Police Department with hopes of making a difference in society. What he found was a systemic culture of corruption there and faced his own crisis of conscience.

Nobody's ever decided where the line is to be drawn. A free meal at a local diner all the way to big payoffs from drug dealers. The police in this film run the gamut, except for Pacino who won't take a dime. His very honesty makes him a marked man.

The only problem that I have with Serpico is that he tends to be too self righteous. I do wonder if the real Frank Serpico, who is very much alive, is that way. He seems to repel all possible allies. Personally, I think at some point he should have put his papers in and taken the lesser pension at a point way before the near tragedy which does happen to him.

If the script makes him too self righteous, Al Pacino's skill as a player and Sidney Lumet's direction level it out and make Serpico someone we can sympathize with. There's a lot subtlety there in every move, in every facial expression, Al Pacino has even under that heavy beard.

Serpico got a nomination for Best Screenplay adapted from another source, it was adapted from Peter Maas's biographical study. Al Pacino unfortunately lost the Best Actor Oscar that year to Jack Lemmon for Save the Tiger. Oddly enough Save the Tiger is about another man at a crossroads in his life and his choice is break the law.

Sidney Lumet does love New York, so many of his good films are based and shot there. This one is no exception. I recognized many of the locations of the scenes. Every New Yorker ought to see this film just for that.

And I think Diogenes can end his search.

I'll give a 7/10 for this movie, but only because it's entertainment.

Several years ago and at frankserpico.com, a website that was supposed to have been created by relatives of Frank Serpico, former NYPD officer, I read an article that was supposed to have been written by him and it debunked some aspects of the movie "Serpico" of 1973. Try to find that piece today, good luck. He's provided or presented some talks since 2000 and he didn't disparage this movie, but you have to listen to the real Frank Serpico. Unfortunately the server for frankserpico.com isn't presently accessible. There's a blog, but it's apparently in Canada and who know who is hosting the website. The article I had read about the movie was supposed to be by him.

And it was considerably more different about the attempt on his life than what he's said in some talks since 2000. The article described the two NYPD officers that were with him when he was shot in the face as if they were part of a set-up against his life. Either he didn't describe the situation that way when he spoke at some assemblies since 2000, or it didn't sound the same way to me.

In any case, the movie "Serpico (1973)" apparently is a docu-drama that contains some falsehoods and only he could say what's true in this, and not. Someone should find a way to communicate with him about this; BUT, he provided talks since 2000 and there're videos at YouTube for this, including about this movie.

"Serpico" will always be one of the more compelling biographies ever made because its main character, even in the face of an unfair and corrupt world, clings to the virtue of honesty and comes out all right. Stories like that of Frank Serpico, a NYC cop in the late '60s - early '70s who bravely testified against police corruption, fascinate us because they make us wonder what we would do in that character's shoes and feel glad that at the end of the day we don't have to answer that question.

Al Pacino stars as the man with these trivial choices, Frank Serpico, who was asked to be the snitch for the NYPD in the Bronx in terms of identifying officers taking bribes from criminals, a role that subjected him to harassment and threats from his fellow officers and caused him extreme amounts of trauma affecting his job and his personal life.

Well all come to believe that a police officer's first duty is to the people -- to do the right thing. So does Serpico, so as he has the startling revelation that there's almost no one clean in the police department, we experience the same thing. Our perceptions change as dramatically as Pacino's acting. Initially, Serpico, comes off as this mousy do-good character, a good fit for Pacino's 5'7" frame. When things get bad, the dramatic styles of Pacino that we've come to know over the years really pour out. No one can yell as effectively on screen as Pacino, but he also knows when to step back and command the screen without the use of dialogue. Teaming him with director Sidney Lumet, who always knows how to pick out a script's most dramatic moment, is essentially perfect. "Serpico" is sandwiched between both major Godfather films, and it offers definite proof of Pacino's leading talents.

The script, written partially by Waldo Salt ("Midnight Cowboy") is adequate enough to give us a taste of Serpico's moral dilemma. Most of the effective parts are the melodramatic scenes that allow Pacino to use those famous pipes. Everyone in the supporting cast is pretty much forgettable too -- they're all actors prescribed to Hollywood's older school of supporting acting roles: just speak with authority in your voice. It's fine, since the film would rather us just identify the as the collective "powers of corruption."

"Serpico" is not Lumet's best work, but it has its moments of great visual strength as all his films generally have. He's probably one of the best ever up there with Hitchcock in terms of picking his close-ups. This is really Pacino's chance to shine anyway.

What's respectable about the overall tone of the film is that it doesn't preach morals or make empty promises that the good will always be rewarded in the end and the bad punished -- instead, it says that hard honest work counts for something. Serpico takes a bullet to the face for all his grief and leaves the force and the country not long after. Not exactly a happy ending, but a different way of inspiring us in the sense that at least the corruption didn't win.

A New York police officer, played by Al Pacino, takes on deeply-entrenched corruption across several departments in New York City. The character starts out, finishing in the academy and finally realizing his dream of becoming a police officer. He is talented and dedicated to his job right off the bat. Though he quickly learns how corrupt many of his colleagues are. Deciding to take a stand, he becomes deeply isolated. He keeps fighting his way into an attempt to make an impact. Ultimately, he is put in harms way by sticking firmly to his principles. Al Pacino is outstanding in an understated and strong performance in the main role. The backdrop of New York City is so immense and the director has done a wonderful job putting this film together.

Any film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Al Pacino should be great, but "Serpico" is mediocre at best. Chronicling the true-life story of Frank Serpico, a police officer who exposed corruption in the NYPD, the film comes from that exquisite golden age of cinema, lasting from the late '60s through the late '70s, when paranoia infected the country and our most trusted and honored institutions were becoming suspect. It's got the grainy, neo-realistic feel that so many of the films from that time period had (and as many of Lumet's own films had), yet it never really works. Lumet's pacing is poor; no scene lasts longer than a minute or two. While one would think this would make for a film with some narrative drive to it, just the opposite happens. It's as if in the editing room all of the important parts of each scene got left out, and what we've been given as a final product is an outline of Serpico's story. No characters beyond Pacino's is really developed, and even he struggles to make something substantial out of his role. This came directly on the heels of "The Godfather" from the year before, the film that put Pacino on the map. "Serpico" gives testament to Pacino's abilities and range as an actor; his performance is quite different from that of Michael Corleone. But for me, it's not until his mesmerizing performance in "Dog Day Afternoon" from 1975 that Pacino really flexes his acting muscles and shows what a true cinematic treasure he is. 26 years later, Pacino was to star in "The Insider," another thriller where he played a character who helps to expose corruption, this time in the world of corporate America. My advice is to see "Serpico" for the place it holds in Pacino's career, but then see "The Insider" for a suspenseful, terrific movie.

Grade: C