Al Pacino Stars In One Of Metacritic’s Lowest-Rated War Movies

Between 1971 and 1983, a new Al Pacino performance was an event … most of the time. No one was excited to see Pacino follow up the supercharged “Cruising” by playing a stressed-out papa in Arthur Hiller’s abominable 1982 family dramedy “Author! Author!” Other than that, there was always the promise of greatness with Pacino, whether presented in the form of “Panic in Needle Park” or “Scarface.” And when your peak is “Dog Day Afternoon” and/or “The Godfather Part II,” that’s pure, transcendent craft.

There was, however, a growing sense with Pacino around the time he did the controversial “Scarface” that the actor was eschewing nuance and depth for scenery-devouring showmanship. His Tony Montana was the culmination of a tendency towards growling and gesticulating (which began in films like “…And Justice for All” and “Cruising”), topped off with a thick Cuban accent. It’s a towering performance, but it’s also one that proved difficult for him to shed. The seeds of his “hoo-hah” 1990s were planted here.

Pacino might’ve done well to take some time off after “Scarface,” but he instead hurled himself into a historical war epic that called for a level of physical and emotional commitment that was every bit the equal of what he poured into the Brian De Palma gangster classic. The potential payoff of raves and awards, coupled with simply the pride of having done great work in a great movie, was too much for him to turn down. He would come to regret his decision.

The war film is an enduring, popular genre, so it’s strange that the American Revolution has been so rarely visited throughout the medium’s history. On a superficial level, it’s got a much more upbeat outcome than the Vietnam War, yet the latter has been grist for many more movies.

Producer Irwin Winkler was struck by this in the early 1980s, so he decided to remedy this underrepresentation by making a grand Independence epic with “Revolution.” Rather than tell the tale from the perspective of the founders, Winkler went with a script by the underrated Robert Dillon (“Prime Cut,” “French Connection II”) that focused on the experiences of a father (Pacino) and son (Dexter Fletcher) caught up in the tumult of a colonial uprising. Curiously, Winkler tapped a Brit, Hugh Hudson, to direct this American tale, but no one batted an eye because the filmmaker had helmed Best Picture-winner “Chariots of Fire” and the critically acclaimed “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan.” With Pacino on board, it was expected to be a major awards contender.

Ultimately, Hudson’s “Revolution” was a quiet fiasco. Though it was a far bigger box office disaster than notorious flops like “Ishtar” and “Cutthroat Island” (grossing a paltry $346,761 on a $28 million budget) and drove Pacino to take a four-year break from acting, it’s rarely discussed. Why? Because it’s so crushingly dull and devoid of behind-the-scenes turmoil (aside from Goldcrest rushing the film into production without a polished screenplay) there’s not much to talk about. Yes, The New Yorker’s Pauline Kael called it a “loony picture” that’s “so bad it puts you in a state of shock,” but that’s wild hyperbole. Its Metacritic rating is probably too low at 22, but good luck finding someone to throw down in its defense.

Hudson recut “Revolution” in 2009, excising 10 minutes from the run time, and, well, shorter is better. It’s still unfocused and staid, but you can see the glimmers of something great. Pacino completists and historians should take a look. Everyone else should check out the best Revolutionary War film currently in existence: John Ford’s “Drums Along the Mohawk.”