Serpico

 1.5/4

Starring: Al Pacino, Barbara Eda-Young, Cornelia Sharpe, Tony Roberts

Rated R (probably for Some Graphic Violence, Strong Language, Drug Content, and Brief Nudity)

Stories about police corruption are a dime a dozen.  In one way or another, they've been around since the dawn of film.  "Serpico," which is based on a true life case, is different in that it it takes a sociological look at the issue.  It looks at how bribery and rule-breaking create a culture of malfeasance that poisons everything it touches.  The approach has merit.  The execution does not.

Frank Serpico (Pacino) has wanted to be a police officer ever since he was a kid.  A staunch idealist with unimpeachable morals, he views the occupation as a way to change the community in which he lives.  That's not the case with everyone else, as he soon discovers.  Everyone else is going through the motions and is more than willing to look the other way as fellow officers beat the hell out of suspects.  And everyone is on the take.  Frank knows this is wrong and seeks to report it.  What he doesn't realize is how widespread the corruption is.  And because he won't shut up, Frank's life is in danger.

The problem with the movie is that it's dull.  Perhaps it hasn't aged well.  Maybe we've seen this story too much on the front pages (the Rampart scandal is an example).  Or in movies like "The Departed" and "L.A. Confidential."  The notion that cops are taking bribes isn't revolutionary, taboo, or shocking.

Director Sidney Lumet's look at corruption as a systemic issue rather than a singular one is both the film's biggest selling point and its Achille's heel.  On the one hand, it shows the corrosive nature of how criminal misbehavior can spread and be rationalized.  It's synergistic corruption; the fact that everyone is on the take makes it easier to excuse and compromise one's own morals.  It isn't much of a stretch to find similarities with what happens here to what happened in the fall of Enron.

That being said, such an approach turns this into an ensemble film, which is something that tries the talents of even the best filmmakers.  More than anything, it requires the actors to be able to create specific, memorable people with only a few lines of dialogue.  That has to come from the actors of course, but also from the director.  It isn't easy, but it can be done.  James Cameron does it every time he goes behind the camera, Jan de Boot has done it, Neil Marshall has done it.  Sidney Lumet hasn't been able to accomplish this.  Apart from Al Pacino, everyone else is poorly defined and interchangeable.  That makes for a dull first hour.  I didn't know who these people were or how they fit into the story.  Thus, I just didn't care.

When the film narrows its focus in the second half, the film gains some much needed energy.  I knew what was going on and how everyone fit together.  More or less.  There are some missteps, such as Frank losing his temper without much provocation or purpose and with no consequences.  But at least it held my attention.

As for the acting, well, let's just say there are two performances: Al Pacino and everyone else.  Pacino does what he can, but he is ill-served by and inconsistent character and a screenplay with a poor focus.  Too much time is spent on his love life with two women played by Barbara Eda-Young and Cornelia Sharpe.  Both give solid performances, I suppose, but their characters are so poorly developed that their scenes should have been left on the cutting room floor.  There's not enough justification for including it.

Everyone who is a film lover (or who pays attention to movies) has seen a supposed classic that underwhelms.  For me, "Serpico" joins that list.