User reviews

2 pawns who are making up for their past are living the present like they may have no future. Hackman and Pacino are amazing. Some of the 1 shot scenes last for 2-3 minutes. The magic created on screen by these two actors are mind blowing. The opening and closing scenes are so "different" it can be classed as poetic in a way. This is not your regular Hollywood movie, although it has 2 of the greatest actors in American movie history. Check this film out! 1973 never looked so real.

The highlights of this movie are the expected standout performances by a young Al Pacino and a young, well younger, Gene Hackman. Their range of facial expressions and absoulutely convincing characterizations are a joy to behold. Also since Hollywood usually deals in glamour, it's a nice change to see characters with more modest aspirations. A very good road movie, a genre I usually don't gravitate to, 7/10.

This overlooked film features Gene Hackman's best performance as an introverted ex-con. Al Pacino gives one of his best performances. Director Jerry Schatzberg and cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond capture both the squalor and the grandeur of the American landscape. Garry Michael White's screenplay is filled with richly nuanced characters, religious symbolism and a deep sense of humanity. One of the best of the 70's.

Scarecrow is a low-key film that succeeds on all its ambitions, but not because it tries to aim low. That the tone at times doesn't feel as emotionally incredible or intense as some other films Gene Hackman and Al Pacino got their star-making turns in the 70s (French Connection, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico) doesn't mean it's unsuccessful either. Jerry Schatzberg and his writer are out to capture a kind of outsider view of men trying to find their places in society, almost like how Michael Cimino would do (to a more genre-oriented extent) with Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. It's not a movie a lot of people would go out of their way to see, even with the star power involved. It's about two guys who've been released from confinement from the world around them, Max from six years in jail (Hackman), Francis from five years out at sea in the Navy (Pacino), and how the two meet up unintentionally while hitchhiking, unlikely pair up, and Hackman gets Pacino to go in with him on opening up a car wash in Pittsburgh.

Why Pittsburgh? Just one of the peculiarities of Max, mayhap? More-so a thing of pride. There's characteristics to Max and Francis that make them compelling for the honesty in what they are: Max is a tough guy, tending to get drunk, get in fights, sex it up with women (who knew Hackman had such, um, animal magnetism), and Francis (also named Lion by Max) is a clown, a little boy who somehow made the mistake of having a kid with a woman before he left the Navy, and has a present ready to give to the kid in Detroit- an androgynous lamp- despite not knowing entirely what to expect. It's an odd couple movie, but also one that has a more affecting view into a world of men on the fringe of society. These guys don't have big plans, and wouldn't want any anyway. It's refreshing to see that, and how it pans into the nature of them and their environment: the small towns, the local dives, the bad drunks, and, when things go bad after a big brawl during a drunken hoopla, the subtle horrors of prison for the both of them. Did I mention train-hopping?

A film like this, despite having on its side gorgeous cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond (who, along with Badlands and, in its own way Mean Streets, captures a vision of Americana that is pure and unique to its time and place), needs strong acting. Who better than Hackman and Pacino? They're playing big personalities, with Hackman doing great as always in a somewhat typical part of a guy who's aggressive and pig-headed but does have a hear. And Pacino doing a rare comedic turn as he gives some of his funniest (genuine, not unintentional scene-stealing) moments, like his 'diversion' gone wrong in the clothing store, or his classic "teach me how to handle a drunk" bit at the bar. Sometimes its too much, but it leads to a bittersweet side to the story that turns even more bitter by the time Schatzberg reaches the emotional climax in Detroit. What's been alternately crude and crazy, sometimes in ways that remind one a little of Altman, turns towards what is a small but great tragedy for these characters. And doing the script one better, the actors are able to get subtle, crushing, telling moments in scenes that others wouldn't be able to grasp with a ten-foot pole.

It's also a fun movie, with a feel that you could only get in one of the truly great years in all movies (look at the year this came out, and realize how many films of its ilk were released, be they independent-like from Scorsese or Altman or Ashby or even Romero, or even Friedkin's Exorcist). Scarecrow is of its time, but it doesn't mean it can't be greatly liked in the present; it's even a near classic of genre subversion, doing a service to drama and comedy by not paying lip-service to either form, but enriching what comes naturally out of life, which is both sometimes, harrowingly, at once. 9.5/10

Scarecrow (1973)

A seemingly simple drama about a guy out of prison...but with Gene Hackman as the leading role expect something special. And then Al Pacino plays the sidekick, and an interesting, and little talked about, New Hollywood film is under way. The setting is a kind of revision of the American West, the big dry outdoors no longer the wild West, but still something unique in the visual lexicon.

The director is also little discussed-Jerry Schatzberg-and this might be his best film, aided by the elegant, searing cinematography of Vlimos Zsigmond (famous for "Days of Heaven"). Seeing how the film unfolds you might agree that it's Zsigmond's film, for it carries forward with a brilliant, quiet choreography. Elemental scenes where actors move through space, or through a diner, are made almost gripping by how the camera tracks them.

Of course, we eventually have to admit this is a two-man show. Hackman is his usual comfortable best, filled with loud nuance. I mean, he is a strong character, but his actions are loaded with little, natural details. And Pacino plays an unexpected sweetie with a cute smile. It's a compelling pair.

Things are slow, for sure. It's an easygoing flow with often little really plot. We get into their lives and their heads. This is no "Midnight Cowboy" by any means, but it comes from the same intention, it would seem. Two slightly mismatched outsiders find they need each other, and a bond deeper than mere friendship is formed.

I saw Scarecrow when it originally came out in 1973. Like so many movies of that era (late 60's - early 70's) it didn't have the requisite "happy ending" that Hollywood force feeds us today. Instead, we're presented with the desolate lives of two drifters searching for redemption at their respective destinations of Pittsburgh and Detroit. Hackman and Pacino are at their best here, providing the same type of brilliant acting and on-screen presence that Voight and Hoffman gave us in Midnight Cowboy (1969). In fact I've always thought these two movies would make for a great "compare and contrast" assignment in a Theatre Arts class.

Hackman has been quoted as saying that this was his favorite role. No argument here, it's my favorite too. Thanks Gene. You too Al.

This excellent movie has been overlooked for too long. Its a great film on every level. It is entertaining as well as deeply profound. Schatzberg's directing is outstanding, Hackman and Pacino deliver acting on a level rarely found in any films, and the script is funny, while retaining a quiet note of tension and melancholy throughout. Its an exceptional film, largely overlooked by American audiences in the years since its release (despite winning the grand prize at Cannes, as well as the acting prize for Hackman and Pacino).

Don't overlook this film. Rent it!

Essentially, the film reveals is that people use different ways and personas to protect themselves from being hurt. Max is obviously confrontational and aggressive. Francis is a clown. Each disarms those around them so that they don't get too close. You can look at a scarecrow in many ways, but the purpose is the same.... to keep the crows away. Max uses fear, Francis uses jokes. At the end of the movie, Francis' scarecrow doesn't work anymore when strong feelings break through surface. The dialog and acting in this film are first rate. Two of my favorite actors in break-out roles. Hackman as a sensitive guy... Pacino as a comedian... who would have thought?

This is a forgotten classic from the 1970s and a film which few will find on the list of great films made by Al Pacino and Gene Hackman, although it is close to both actors' best work. As with most road films there is very little plot but what plot there is concerns two drifters (Pacino and Hackman), who meet while trying to hitchhike and, after quickly bonding, decide to become partners in a car wash.

They are both very different characters with Hackman dominating as Max, an irritable tough guy, and Pacino, for once underplaying, in the lesser role of Lionel. Although Hackman can play hard-nut characters in his sleep, the role of Max offers him more range than he often gets. This comes mainly through the quirky aspects of his character, such as his obsession with having to wear several layers of clothing, and also in the more tender and comical scenes.

Despite a running time of nearly two hours the film never drags, unlike many road movies, and this is largely due to the performances, especially that of Hackman. There is also another excellent sinister turn from Richard Lynch, a token 1970s villain, who befriends Lionel (Pacino) after he and Max (Hackman) have been sent to prison.

If there is one aspect which lets the film down it's the ending. "Scarecrow" is one of those films in which very little happens and thus it is tagged with an unnecessarily dramatic ending, which is pure Hollywood schmaltz. It would have benefited far more if the film-makers had simply ended the film where it began, rather than struggling with the choice of an overly happy or sad conclusion (I won't tell you which).

No pun intended but 1973 was a 'good year' for road-movies, "Paper Moon" in comedy and "The Last Detail" in drama, both featured characters crossing a crisis-stricken America, learning to know each other in the process and to embrace the future with brighter hopes. All things come in three with "Scarecrow", Golden Palm winner at Cannes Festival.

No child and no sailor, but rather an ex-sailor with a child-like personality: this is Al Pacino as Francis Lionel Delbucci aka 'Lion', and no rookie who's going to jail, no streetwise bad-ass, but a robust and short-tempered ex-convict: this is Gene Hackman as Max Millian, forming with Lion one of the most unlikely and endearing pairing of the New Hollywood period. After the gripping documentary-like "The Panic in Needle Park", Jerry Schwartzberg signs another piece of art about two misfit characters, indulging in more poetical and philosophical statements about life, from two vagabonds who meet in a two-lane road penetrating deserted hills, the fitting setting for two men at the crossroads of their lives.

Max wants to go to Pittsburgh where he sent all the money he earned during his jail time, his plan is to open a car wash. And 'Lion' left his girl Annie (Penelope Allen) while she was pregnant. He was so scared he never knew if it was a boy or a girl and never made amend of his irresponsible act except by sending money for five years. Carrying a little lamp in gift-box, he wants to see his child and Annie to forgive him, before starting a new life. The gift-box is the reminder of actions that might contain the roots of his juvenile and optimistic attitude, trying to make people laugh as a way to hide a tormenting guilt. We're inclined to believe this because Max, the one who paid his debt to society, has nothing to blame himself on anymore, and exudes self-confidence and moral strength.

The contrast between Lion and Max is the soul of the movie and the cement of their relationship, almost a 'friendship at first sight' but the real decisive step was when Lion gave his last match to Max, a gesture that made Max develop a genuine fondness and instinctive trust of Lion: he proposes a partnership in the car wash business and Lion's acceptance doesn't say much because he strikes as a character who never says 'no'. As the movie goes on, we know more about his philosophy of life, maybe sometimes in a too explicit way. Lion believes that making people laugh is the best antidote against hostility and aggressiveness, in a nutshell, "scarecrows make crow laugh". Al Pacino conveys the illusion of an optimistic nature that hardly hides a desperate desire to be loved and accepted. 'Lion' incorporates within the same character the cowardly lion of "The Wizard of Oz" because he can't face the hideous side of life and the scarecrow with a heart, a big and generous heart. Al Pacino delivers one of his finest performances, even more impressive because it was made right after a total opposite role, as the charismatic and menacing Michael Corleone, indeed, this 'Lion' is no 'Lionheart'.

Gene Hackman said it was his favorite performance and I can see why. he plays a strong man, a no-nonsense guy who takes no crap from anyone, who's never reluctant to fight if someone disrespects him, and sticks to his plan of car wash no matter what happens. And unlike Lion aka the scarecrow, he has the brains; he's got intelligence and street smarts. He completes Lion's naivety and lack of realism, while Lion, in his way, injects his joyful and cheerful nature in Max. Yet it would be too convenient to take their complementarity for granted. Yes they complete each other but one has more to learn about life. There's no doubt that the picaresque journey the two characters would take, will teach them a few lessons or two but Max only has to loosen up a bit, and to use a sense of humor while Lion, is the one who'll learn the hard way the limits of his theory about scarecrows, after one crucial visit to Max' sister in Denver that would end in another conviction to jail.

Lion is the victim of a rape attempt from an inmate named Riley (Richard Lynch), in a scene even more disturbing because Lion is such an adorable character, he'll try to use humor as a defense, totally blinded by his own naivety, but Riley breaks Lion's shield as if it was made of paper. Max eventually avenges his friend, but after the jail episode, nothing would be the same. There is one crucial moment where Max avoids fighting by starting a striptease, and it's obvious that he pulled some of Lion's character in his attitude. Yet, it's a bittersweet moment, because at the same time, Lion stares at him with melancholy. This look on Pacino's face has been debated countless times, my belief is that he understood how limited he was in this rude life. His happy-go-lucky philosophy only had sense if he could handle tougher situations, a guy like Max can afford to make people laugh because he impresses too. Lion understands that a scarecrow still has to scare crows, otherwise, they eat the seeds.

Roger Ebert compared the film to "Easy Rider" and "Midnight Cowboy" with two men joining their efforts for a a better future, I myself found a deeper and more poignant connection with Fellini's "La Strada" especially through its tragic undertones. I was so upset by the film's conclusion that I hesitated to see it twice. But it's truly an absorbing and penetrating film about two misunderstood souls, one strong enough to deal with life, and another one who … well, I can only hope, sincerely hope, for an off-screen happy ending.

A film that primarily feels as aimless and tumultuous as the existence of the drifters it portrays, until its final act. It's like a "road trip" movie that's also a feel-bad movie all the way through.

I kind of hated this movie after the first half, but thats primarily because of how frustrating its end goal is (which is likely intentional), and how annoying the two main characters are. Hackman plays his least likable character I've ever seen; volatile, bipolar, unkind, unfunny, and constantly getting into fights with everyone. Pacino is naive as can be, a doe-eyed child in a grown man's body; at all times it just feels like he's going to get himself into some deep doo-doo. It feels as if neither of them should be friends, nor do they necessarily want to be, yet they aren't really left with much of a choice. Apparently the two actors didn't get a long that well in reality while shooting the film either, and I feel like that tension really bleeds through when you watch the movie.

In the film's second half, there were a few unforgettable sequences that really sealed Scarecrow as a movie that all film fans should see, primarily a segment that takes place in a corrections facility, and even more so, one that takes place in a giant fountain. There were a few really riveting moments of intense acting and some really hard-hitting concepts written into the script that I think were pulled off really well. Proper drama.

I was surprised to see B-movie icon Richard Lynch with one of the two most memorable appearances I've ever seen by him (the other being as one of the most important characters in Larry Cohen's underrated God Told Me To). He has a jarring presence and you will never forget his segment.

Overall, I'd probably never watch it again and wouldn't recommend it to everyone, but I'm glad I watched. It's pretty wild that Hackman considers this his favorite movie he ever did when its his most despicable character. I'm very curious to see the director's previous film, and as far as I know, Pacino's breakthrough role, after this... Panic In Needle Park.

Scarecrow, directed by Jerry Schatzberg, is an intimate and powerful work that captures the fragility of dreams within the context of 1970s America. The film follows two men, Max (Gene Hackman) and Lionel (Al Pacino), whose lives intertwine when they meet on the road. Max, recently released from prison, has been saving his earnings to open a car wash in Pittsburgh, while Lionel, a wandering sailor, has been sending money to his wife in Detroit and to a child he has never met. United by a shared dream of starting a business, they embark on a journey through rural and urban landscapes filled with beauty and melancholy.

The film shines thanks to the performances of Gene Hackman and Al Pacino, two of the most outstanding actors of their generation. Hackman portrays Max with raw intensity, while Pacino brings an almost childlike tenderness to Lionel, creating a fascinating contrast between the characters. Their chemistry is irresistible, and their relationship evolves with touching nuances, from initial camaraderie to moments of deep conflict and vulnerability.

Jerry Schatzberg, along with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, crafts a visually rich film. The pastoral vistas of rural America alternate with the decaying corners of bars and cities, offering a contrast that reinforces the bittersweet tone of the narrative. Each frame is imbued with a nostalgic and rhapsodic atmosphere that mirrors the internal struggles of the characters.

The film's title, Scarecrow, serves as a central metaphor. Lionel explains at one point that scarecrows do not frighten birds because they are scary but because they make them laugh. This concept encapsulates Lionel's philosophy of life, approaching challenges with humor and lightheartedness, in stark contrast to Max's hard and pragmatic outlook. The scarecrow symbolizes the dichotomy between naive hope and harsh reality, a recurring theme throughout the film.

Yes life like it's led by this class of people in USA, very well told in images and dialogues and benefiting from the excellent acting of those two movie giants called Gene Hackman and Al Pacino on the main roles. Two half-tramps meet occasionally on a road where they were both hitch-hiking and between them a strange friendship develops itself along good and bad moments. The oldest is just out of jail and fancies opening a car washing shop in Pittsburgh for which he wants the youngest one to become his partner. On their way to Pittsburgh several lively things happen to them in a very realistic way. There is place in this story for comedy an laughter as for drama and tragedy. It shows also that sentiments and feelings can be present in every human soul despite the apparent toughness of their behaviour and the misery of their lives. The youngest of these too is also traveling to see his child whose mother he left some years before while she was pregnant, despite the fact that he doesn't even know if it's a boy or a girl. A piece of life indeed.

Scarecrow is a film about human longing, change, and growth. Gene Hackman plays Max, a cynical ex-con who just wants to get to Pittsburgh, and start a car wash business. While walking along the side of the road, hoping to hitch a ride to his destination, Max happens upon Francis (played with deft emotional poignancy by Al Pacino). Francis is also hitch-hiking, trying to get back to Detroit, to re-unite with the spouse that he abandoned when she got pregnant.

This movie moves along at a leisurely pace, as Max and Francis gradually become friends, despite their very different personalities. The two men become embroiled in several misadventures along their journey, even getting put in a prison farm for a month. The prison stint sorely tests Max and Francis' friendship. But, both men discover that the loyalty they develop to each other, transcends the chaos that threatens to tear these two pals apart.

Scarecrow was made back when movies with intense character studies, were much more common than they are now. And this film is among the best made in the 70s, regarding the complexity of the main characters. Gene Hackman is superb as the world-weary, cantankerous Max. Al Pacino gives one of the best performances of his career, as the cheerful, yet achingly vulnerable Francis.

If you like films that have plenty of substance, intriguing characters, and splendid acting, then you owe it to yourself to see Scarecrow.

I really didn't get this film. I was certainly expecting better from two of the great actors of their generation. But the material is so thin, and the motivations of the characters so obscure, that they don't have much to bite into. And the cinematography, although masterful, calls attention to itself in an affected way that quickly becomes tiresome.

I suppose one could just see this as another of those depressing contemporary works from the 1970s where boredom and disillusionment are the only things to really be experienced. The cineastes at Cannes were apparently impressed. I was not.

Still, it's worthwhile to see two great actors working off each other.

A simple plot line...shards of dialogue...and brilliant acting throughout by the entire cast...Pacino and Hackman putting in some of their very best work...Richard Lynch, Ann Wedgeworth and, in particular, Penny Allen (who showed up again with Pacino in "Dog Day"), getting the most out of their on-screen time...If you liked "Dog Day", this overlooked gem should be on your to-do list.

There's nothing more frustrating than a failed drama. At least failed comedy or failed sci-fi can be laughed at. A failure like "Scarecrow" has to be endured, grimly.

What makes this movie all the more frustrating is that it features two of the greatest American actors - Hackman and Pacino - at the peak of their powers. But it squanders them on stereotyped and predictable characters. Max (Hackman) is always belligerent but fiercely loyal to his friend Lion, while Lion (Pacino) is always a clown but equally loyal to Max. In scene after scene, Hackman antagonizes people in bars and diners while Lion looks on in mute horror. Sometimes, Lion tries to diffuse the tension by acting like a goofball. Unfortunately, most of his comedy routines are painfully unfunny. I wonder if that was intentional...anyway, the movie soon feels like it's looping back on itself as this familiar tableau is replayed again and again.

Just to heighten the sense that every scene is the same, Max endlessly talks about his dream to own a car wash. The canny viewer can, of course, easily figure out what will become of Max's dream long before the climax. This is a 70s movie, after all, and hopelessness was the order of the day.

I feel guilty bombing "Scarecrow" because it is so well-intentioned, and there are moments when the rapport between Hackman and Pacino works beautifully. But the storyline is too episodic and rambling (despite being repetitive!), and the Max-Lion friendship is solidified too quickly to be convincing. The plot twists are strangely predictable, too; even the Act 2 "falling out" between Max and Lion feels scripted and clichéd. It's a nice try, but I don't even think it's worth seeing for Hackman and Pacino - they've both done better work that's more worthy of your attention.

Starring AL PACINO and GENE HACKMAN, these are very different kinds of roles for both of them. I rate these performances as good as any other by either star. Plus they work fantastically well with one another. Why haven't we seen more Hackman/Pacino pairings?

They play down-and-outters, nearly on the level of bums... but they have a goal: To start a business with some money saved up by Hackman's roughneck character. The Ultimate Loner, he only accepts the good-natured Pacino as a partner because... well, you should see it for yourself. I'll just say that they meet on opposite sides of a country road while trying to hitch-hike. The surly Hackman views the flaky Pacino as competition for a ride and silently rejects him. After all his hyper-active attempts at friendliness are rebuffed, Pacino makes one simple gracious gesture that wins over Hackman.

The title has to do with an attitude, an approach towards life. Pacino states that a Scarecrow is successful in its life's mission, not by using fear and intimidation against the crows, but because it is humorous, and the crow's respond graciously for the good laugh by leaving alone his crop of corn.

And our two main characters represent these two opposing approaches to life. It's amazing to see them transform and morph into one another, to adopt the other's philosophy. The pessimist begins to soften up, and the optimist loses his most precious dream. Pacino even LOOKS like a Scarecrow by the last Act of the film.

Pacino's final scene is heart-wrenching. The closing images of Hackman in a bus station are perfect. He has to scrounge up a couple more bucks for a ticket but comes up short. While the impatient teller tries to shuffle him aside to help other people in line, Hackman digs out the last few beans... I won't give away the details, but his victorious expression in the end is priceless.

I think this is one of the most overlooked/under-rated films of the 70's. But I include it as one of my favorite films of the 70's on its own merits (not just to somehow "correct" an oversight of the rest of the fans). It possesses a greater depth of psychology/allegory/symbolism than most people give it credit for. Beware any edited-for-tv version. The language is salty but essential. Also, the wide-screen cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond (aspect ratio of 2.35 : 1) might suffer in pan-and-scan.