1990 Oscar Viewing Project

"It's the nineties, for God's sake," and indeed it is as we encounter our 34th Oscar Viewing Project (see links to the other 33 below).  The Oscar Viewing Project is now in its 2nd third (we'll likely never be below that at this pace, as I try to get through 5-7 of them a year), and we're entering the first year of what my brother & I refer to as our "wilderness period" of movie watching.  I was born in the 1980's, but the movies didn't become my life until the mid-1990's.  This was driven by a series of events, specifically watching my first Oscars at the 1995 ceremony (i.e. the Braveheart Oscars) on repeat after my brother & I taped it, the inclusion of AMC (and eventually TCM) in my parents' cable package, the advent of the AFI 100 Years TV specials, the discovery of Entertainment Weekly at our school library, the opening of a standalone video rental place in my town, my parents letting me watch PG-13 movies, and my mom instituting Tuesday night movies, where she would take my brother & I (regardless of what was showing) to the 7 PM showing (i.e. the G/PG/sometimes PG-13 slot) while my dad had golf night, and so pretty much every week in the summer from roughly 1995 to 1998 we would watch a movie.  This gave me a pretty extensive vernacular with what was going on in the world of movies, and generally meant I had seen 20-30 films from the calendar year by year's end.

From 1990-1994, though, it's a weird spot because these are not "classics" that I had to seek out or have no memory of watching in real-time, but were really when movies were still just a "normal" thing for me, not something I was obsessed with and made my entire personality.  In 1990, I definitely watched at least two movies (The Rescuers Down Under and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) in theaters, and so I have at least some context for this year in real-time, even if the bulk of these movies are me watching them later at home.  By 1995, Oscar-related films like Apollo 13 & Babe I'd seen in movie theaters, and had known they were going to be Oscar nominees beforehand, and so the early 1990's feel like a weird time of catchup for me as a teenager, a feeling that has stretched well into adulthood.

I give you this preamble in part because this is a personal journey of Oscar exploration, and in part because I think it's good context.  The early 1990's are a time where I see some of these movies from a child's eyes (I remember my parents' VHS copies of films like Ghost & Pretty Woman, and secretly watching them when I was too young to understand what they were wholly about), and revisiting them as an adult has shifted some of my perspective on them, but in other ways they are immobile.  As always, to ground you in the films of the year, the domestic Top 10 at the box office in 1990 was:

1. Home Alone

2. Ghost

3. Dances with Wolves

4. Pretty Woman

5. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

6. The Hunt for Red October

7. Total Recall

8. Die Hard 2

9. Dick Tracy

10. Kindergarten Cop

I have actually seen all of these movies, and to underline my point about growing up with them, I had seen 70% (save for #7-9) by the time I turned 16.  Honestly, you have to go Another 48 Hours at #14 on the domestic box office list to find a movie I haven't caught from the top box office that year.  While I have seen all of the Oscar nominees below, there are a couple of precursor contenders that I haven't seen yet, namely The Russia House, White Palace, and Q&A that I haven't caught yet, but plan on doing so before we get to the My Ballot.  

But now, it's time to go back to a time when Nelson Mandela was being freed in front of the world, the Hubble telescope was having us reach for the stars, Roseanne Barr was teaching us new ways to never sing on national television, and the entire nation was mourning the loss of Jim Henson.  And of course, let's remember the movies...

Note: For the last time (likely ever) the Visual Effects category was not a competitive category, but instead was given to Total Recall as a special prize.  We'll have a proper category for this when we get to it for the My Ballot with five nominees, and it's worth noting that it's relatively accepted that Dick Tracy, Ghost, and Back to the Future, Part III were shortlisted for this but none of them got nominated (all of which I've seen as well), but I want to note that Total Recall was seen by me for this project, and I generally was impressed with the visual effects, particularly the way that they used makeup effects toward the end of the picture. 

Picture

1. GoodFellas

2. Ghost

3. The Godfather, Part III

4. Dances with Wolves

5. Awakenings

The Lowdown: Let's begin with me saying that 1990 is, collectively, one of the first years I ever saw all five of the Best Picture nominees (I've had this lineup completed since before I graduated high school, which was a while ago), and also a year where (both for Oscar and in general) I don't love the movies themselves as much as others.  The glossy movie star-driven blockbusters that would become the decade's calling card hadn't started yet, and we don't have some of the best prestige work that I enjoyed in the 1980's.  Of these films, it's an easy call for GoodFellas, one of the best films of Martin Scorsese's career.  Ghost ages better with reappraisal, and Godfather 3 is not as bad as its critical reputation allows, but GoodFellas is an easy champion.

Director

1. Martin Scorsese (GoodFellas)

2. Stephen Frears (The Grifters)

3. Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Part III)

4. Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune)

5. Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves)

The Lowdown: It's weird to think about now, but at one point in time Martin Scorsese was basically the Hitchcock or Kubrick of his era-a man who was constantly nominated for Academy Awards but never was able to win any of them.  Meanwhile, I'm giving him his third statue for the OVP (again, links below) for the really incredible way that he upended the gangster flick after decades of hero-worship of it through the Godfather pictures (which of course in this case he competed alongside).  I will also acknowledge I have some respect for Dances with Wolves, but you're going to find out they do not extend to Kevin Costner's involvement in the film (and this ain't its final 5th place finish).

Actor

1. Richard Harris (The Field)

2. Jeremy Irons (Reversal of Fortune)

3. Gerard Depardieu (Cyrano de Bergerac)

4. Robert de Niro (Awakenings)

5. Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves)'

The Lowdown: A very odd lineup, and not a strong one (this isn't Oscar's fault...my My Ballot for 1990 is going to be very weird unless I start discovering some stronger stuff in the upcoming viewings...this is much more a year for actresses).  Oscar went with Jeremy Irons, and honestly this wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened for the OVP-Irons is a really good actor, one who somehow only got one Oscar nomination despite being in the AMPAS wheelhouse (British, handsome, classy, constantly in prestige fare), but I'm going to go with Harris over him.  Harris's part is a bit more theatrical, but it also has a stronger build, and he's also batting in a lesser movie while still excelling.  The rest, even Robert de Niro, don't really need mention.

Actress

1. Anjelica Huston (The Grifters)

2. Kathy Bates (Misery)

3. Meryl Streep (Postcards from the Edge)

4. Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman)

5. Joanne Woodward (Mr. and Mrs. Bridge)

The Lowdown: While I will own that I'm not inspired by 1990 as a whole, that doesn't mean that I don't have moments, and this is one of the best Best Actress lineups Oscar ever pulled together.  Any of these women would be a winner, and I wouldn't be stunned if my My Ballot looks a lot like this-even Woodward in fifth place is doing a lot of strong work.  I ended up going with Huston over Bates (a controversial choice, I know) not because Bates isn't splendid (one of the best Oscar upsets), but because Huston nails this part so well that I have long been obsessed with it.  The interiority in her work, the way that she nails the animal instinct of that final scene...she's honestly never been better.  I'm aware this means that Bates may never get an OVP statue from me, but...that's why we decide this in a vacuum, and I prefer Huston in a vacuum.

Supporting Actor

1. Joe Pesci (GoodFellas)

2. Andy Garcia (The Godfather, Part III)

3. Bruce Davison (Longtime Companion)

4. Al Pacino (Dick Tracy)

5. Grahame Greene (Dances with Wolves)

The Lowdown: Joe Pesci is one of those truly spectacular actors who rarely works...but when he does, it always felt like an event.  In 1990 you've got him not just nailing the fiery persona behind GoodFellas but also playing the funniest henchmen outside of a DC Comic in Home Alone.  Davison is subtler than I would've expected given the subject matter (his final scene is the best in the movie) and I actually think Andy Garcia brings a hot-headed style to Godfather III (and no, this is not just because I palpitated every time he was onscreen...Andy Garcia in Godfather III was a formative experience for a teenage John watching this on VHS for the first time), but they just aren't in the same hemisphere as what Pesci brings to his doomed mob hitman.

Supporting Actress

1. Whoopi Goldberg (Ghost)

2. Annette Bening (The Grifters)

3. Lorraine Bracco (GoodFellas)

4. Diane Ladd (Wild at Heart)

5. Mary McDonnell (Dances with Wolves)

The Lowdown: While I didn't go with the consensus choice for Best Actress, that won't be the case here.  Whoopi Goldberg owns Ghost, giving us a lesson in comedy, and totally nailing the frequently cliched role of "best friend to the leading lovers" that has long been the bread-and-butter of the romantic genre.  I do really like Annette Bening, particularly the glossy over-her-head feeling she gets the further The Grifters goes (without ever totally telegraphing it), and Lorraine Bracco has strong moments even if she's pitched a little to the hilt in some scenes of GoodFellas, but like Oscar said-this is Whoopi's year.

Foreign Language Film

1. Cyrano de Bergerac (France)

2. The Nasty Girl (Germany)

3. Ju Dou (China)

4. Journey of Hope (Switzerland)

5. Open Doors (Italy)

The Lowdown: For me, this is a pretty tight contest between France & Germany.  I liked elements of Ju Dou, but honestly Raise the Red Lantern a year later leaves a much longer shadow.  Cyrano is more conventional, a space we've gone to before, but this is also my favorite adaptation of Rostand's story, and it doesn't have the not-always-successful narrator tricks of The Nasty Girl, even if the latter has a more compelling story (and honestly, a better lead performance).

Adapted Screenplay

1. GoodFellas

2. The Grifters

3. Reversal of Fortune

4. Dances with Wolves

5. Awakenings

The Lowdown: Adapted Screenplay goes to the crooks, and the two films I pretty much universally love of this bunch: GoodFellas and The Grifters.  There's something wonderful about The Grifters, a movie I find I champion more than most do, as it strips down some of the best elements of the neo-noir (the sex, the deceit, the ability to have a non-Hays Code ending) and creates something that feels fresh and calculating, but I can't deny GoodFellas in the end, the extremely rare screenplay so well-written it even makes the narration work.

Original Screenplay

1. Ghost

2. Metropolitan

3. Avalon

4. Alice

5. Green Card

The Lowdown: A pretty middling field, even if none are objectively bad.  I'm picking Ghost not just because it's the best, but also because it takes a really challenging genre to make without it turning camp or cloying (the romantic drama-fantasy) and really makes it sell (it's also genuinely funny).  Metropolitan is the most sophisticated (I was stunned to find out it's not based on a play or novel), and part of me wants to go with it but I think its ending doesn't work at all, and neither Avalon nor a weak default nomination for Woody Allen really compare to the Unchained Melody of Ghost.

Sound

1. Dances with Wolves

2. Total Recall

3. Days of Thunder

4. The Hunt for Red October

5. Dick Tracy

The Lowdown: We're shifting into the Oscar era for Best Sound where we are very much valuing the big, action-film even over the prestige fare of the giant epic (Dances with Wolves is the only epic in this bunch, and it's not without its battle scenes).  I actually really like what the team does with Dances with Wolves, between the Civil War beginnings to the way that it adds elements of "the last western" realism to the scenes with Costner off finding himself, all while beautifully bringing in that lush John Barry score.  Total Recall and its futuristic & impressive battles would also have been a good idea, but I think I'm ready to give a statue to Oscar's Best Picture winner here.

Sound Editing

1. The Hunt for Red October

2. Total Recall

3. Flatliners

The Lowdown: It's a running joke with Oscar that he tends to, when it was a separate category, always think first of submarine movies when it comes to Sound Effects Editing (look at the history of the category-it pops up way more than you'd think), and to some degree I agree with him.  The water effects, constant claustrophobia, & many buttons & levers of The Hunt for Red October are really done and a large part of what builds the suspense, even if the space age adventures, and especially some of the final scenes in the dying planet of Mars in Total Recall hold their own.

Score

1. Dances with Wolves

2. Home Alone

3. Avalon

4. Ghost

5. Havana

The Lowdown: I feel like a lot of these OVP Score contests from the 1970's through the 2020's is a battle of "to John Williams or not to John Williams" and this is a particularly tough one as I adore the score to Home Alone (and honestly Avalon or Ghost would be a good winner here too...there's only one true dud in this lineup).  But John Barry's score to Dances with Wolves is just a perfect piece of music, and adds the best parts to a movie I really did not care for overall.  It deserves the W.

Original Song

1. "I'm Checking Out" (Postcards from the Edge)

2. "Somewhere in My Memory" (Home Alone)

3. "Sooner or Later" (Dick Tracy)

4. "Blaze of Glory" (Young Guns II)

5. "Promise Me You'll Remember" (The Godfather, Part III)

The Lowdown: You know that line that I said above about how movies have connections to your childhood you can't really escape.  For me, one of the few true memories of childhood, specifically around Christmas, that I need to bring back every year is hearing "Somewhere in My Memory" playing in the background.  It's also a movie that reminds me, more than maybe any other, of my little brother as I know how much he loves Home Alone, which gives it a nostalgic necessity I really cherish.  I'm judging on a scale (and honestly all of these movies are good), and for me "I'm Checking Out" is better (and better-used in the film) so I'm giving it the trophy, but it's tight and you should expect both to end up in the My Ballot.

Art Direction

1. Dick Tracy

2. Hamlet

3. The Godfather, Part III

4. Cyrano de Bergerac

5. Dances with Wolves

The Lowdown: Honestly, a really solid lineup (there are no losers in this bunch, even if I won't repeat all of them with my My Ballot).  I tend to like the Mel Gibson Hamlet more than most (for the record, people turned on this one well before they turned on Gibson), and I think the castles & work here is really beautiful.  But Dick Tracy is so inventive, it's impossible to deny-the comic book lights, the way that it feels at once like it's springing from a dime novel AND a 1940's Hollywood set, despite relatively modern makeup & visual effects surrounding it-and all that color!  Glorious!

Cinematography

1. Dances with Wolves

2. The Godfather, Part III

3. Avalon

4. Dick Tracy

5. Henry & June

The Lowdown: Leave it to those crazy pervs in the Cinematography branch to totally go for a film as banal as Henry & June just because they tastefully shot most of the sex scenes so well.  That random silliness aside, this is really a battle between the increasingly aged & sepia-hued glories of The Godfather, Part III and the gorgeous expanses of Dances with Wolves (points are due for the way that Avalon feels of another time though).  I would not be opposed to giving it to the third Godfather film (and lord knows Gordon Willis deserved a competitive Oscar at some point), but it's hard to argue with the glories of the West.

Costume Design

1. Hamlet

2. Cyrano de Bergerac

3. Dick Tracy

4. Avalon

5. Dances with Wolves

The Lowdown: Hamlet has been cited three times (to date) for Best Costume Design, and like 1948 (see link below), we are giving it the gold medal here (1996's version with Kenneth Branagh is still unseen, but don't worry...we'll get there eventually-every one of these contests I do I become more & more determined to truly finish this project...also fun fact within a fun fact-I have been to Elsinore in my world travels, and thought it was breathtaking).  For me, the biggest competition is the period costuming in Cyrano.  I think some of the comic book costuming in Dick Tracy is a bit silly, and Avalon doesn't stand out, but the gorgeous 17th Century decorations of France were on-par with 14th Century Denmark, but not quite enough to conquer to the monologuing Dane.

Film Editing

1. GoodFellas

2. The Godfather, Part III

3. Dances with Wolves

4. Ghost

5. The Hunt for Red October

The Lowdown: I feel at this point like a broken record-GoodFellas was the best, and somewhere behind it is Godfather III and Ghost.  I will own, given its really rough reputation as a movie, that Godfather III being in second here is no accident.  I think a lot of the problems with it are casting (Sofia Coppola, apologies, but you are the weakest link...and George Hamilton is not a strong substitute for Robert Duvall), but the editing works-we get a really strongly-structured story, one that feels inline with the originals even if it isn't that level of classic (like, say, GoodFellas, which basically invented a new type of editing with its cocaine-inspired manic nature).

Makeup

1. Dick Tracy

2. Edward Scissorhands

3. Cyrano de Bergerac

The Lowdown: It feels weird to end in Makeup, not Visual Effects (I believe this is the only time we'll do this as we're alphabetical and Makeup has been a category for a much shorter time than Visual Effects), but I'm glad we're doing it with two icons of the category.  There are only winners between the garish brilliance of Dick Tracy and the transformative genius of Edward Scissorhands (honestly, Cyrano ain't bad either), but I'm going with Dick Tracy both because there's more characters to be in awe of and because it feels so in-tune with the glorious silliness of a comic strip, rather than needing to take itself too seriously.

Past Oscar Viewing Projects: 1931-32, 1948, 1957, 1964, 1972, 1981, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

1972 Oscar Viewing Project

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

OVP: Supporting Actor (2019)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2019)

The Nominees Were...

Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes

Al Pacino, The Irishman

Joe Pesci, The Irishman

Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

My Thoughts: Conversations about category fraud are rampant if you follow blogs, podcasts, or social media about the Oscars (and I suspect if you're reading this article you probably do).  In general, I tend to side with those that take a firm stance against it, even if I'm aware that this is a losing battle (principles are hard to hold intact when you feel they're caving, but I like to stand my ground as long as I can).  As a result, I knock down a point from an overall performance for the OVP if I feel it is a lead work masquerading as a supporting (I don't do the same if it's supporting in lead as I think they are already at a disadvantage, and also because that's less common).  That determination is subjective, though, as we'll see here-four of these performances are bordering on leads, and I could see the argument for them being actual leads, but I don't consider all of them actual lead performances (even if they take up much of their movies).

The one indisputably supporting performance in the bunch is Joe Pesci, so we'll start there.  Pesci came out of retirement to play this part, and doesn't get the showiness of his nominated costar Al Pacino.  However, Pesci, an actor made famous for his vitriolic or even outlandish work in films like GoodFellas and Home Alone here adapts to an introverted character.  There's a sense of calm upon his Russell, someone who is always in control even when others around him think he's not in the loop.  This is a hard role to play & standout, but Pesci shows that retirement has not made him rust-a truly calculating turn, and one that compliments the film nicely.  I left the film curious, not frustrated, by his conflicting motives.

His costar Al Pacino, for me, is also a supporting player (by my measure, despite this being a big part, he is not the lead-that's completely the titular Robert de Niro).  Pacino gets a showier part than Pesci, which is usually followed by a "but," when critics say this, however that's not the case here.  Pacino is terrific in The Irishman, full stop.  His Jimmy Hoffa is meant to be both true-to-life (Hoffa bent & broke the law throughout his time in the sun), while also staying the moral compass of the film, the one character who seems to have his arrow pointed as close to north as you can find in Scorsese's epic.  Pacino could've overplayed him (he's done that often in the past few decades), but here his calibration is fully-locked.  A brilliant casting move for Scorsese to finally bring Pacino into his fold.

The other character I can't really fault as being a "category fraud" situation is Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, another case of a supporting player portraying a big & important part, but a supporting one nonetheless.  Hanks is an ideal choice to play Mr. Rogers, and honestly I wondered if this might be boring as Hanks has mined this well frequently in his career.  But he plays Rogers compellingly, and more surprisingly, with layers.  Hanks doesn't canonize Rogers, but he also doesn't shy away from the fact that he was simply a good man, driven by his religious principles & a want for equality.  That's hard to do in a movie, and to make your character worth watching for two hours when you don't have an obvious flaw to connect the audience to, but Hanks does it with a late career role I think is his most challenging part since Saving Mr. Banks.

Anthony Hopkins, one could argue, is not entirely the lead in The Two Popes, as it is more Pope Francis's story than Benedict's, but I don't really buy that.  Skirting the line, but it's over the threshold for me personally.  That said, while I know others didn't love this movie, I thought Hopkins was quite good in it (similar to Hanks, he's an actor who has been churning out under-appreciated work for much of the past decade after dominating the awards circuit throughout the 1990's).  He gives us a rage & an anger that we need from Benedict, who is haunted by not only his remote connection to God, but also the burden of his earthly legacy, clearly in shambles as Francis becomes the beloved figure Benedict never could aspire toward.

Brad Pitt is the one case of category fraud I'm not buying any arguments for.  Just because Leo's character is the headliner doesn't mean that we have to buy that Pitt is suddenly supporting here, and I don't.  Docking him for that, Pitt's great here (Pitt is always great, in fact-while not a list of my favorite performances ever assembled in this category, this might be one of the best lists of talents the Academy has ever come up with in Supporting Actor).  He is a man who has spent his life in second fiddle, knowing that any dreams of stardom went out long ago & he is best left enjoying what's left in his time alongside bigger names.  Pitt might be playing a version of himself as a handsome, sun-bleached California dude, but the best actors know how to bring themselves into each character to make the part completely theirs.

Other Precursor Contenders: Oscar & the Globes were in lockstep this year, both in terms of their winner (Pitt) and their nominees (every single performer carried over from this star-studded lineup).  SAG got a little bit different, but not much-they kept Pitt as their winner, while putting in Jamie Foxx (Just Mercy) in place of Tom Hanks.  BAFTA also awarded the trophy to Pitt, and was exactly the same as Oscar's lineup.  In terms of sixth place, we knew at the time that Hanks might miss (he'd been on a long Oscar draught), but it was hard to tell who was in sixth.  Foxx isn't a bad guess (it does feel like he's in that spot in his career where a third nomination will probably come about), but I kind of wonder in retrospect if love for Parasite would've put Sang Kang Ho into contention.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: There are no bad performances in this lineup, and it is (for my money) the best cumulative acting lineup that Oscar assembled in 2019.  That said, I would have included both Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) and Tommy Lee Jones (Ad Astra), both of whom added nice compliments to their film's stories and are undoubtedly true supporting parts.

Oscar’s Choice: It was decided pretty early on that this was Brad Pitt's year, and it was made clearer when he was competing against four men who already have an Oscar (this argument didn't work for Amy Adams in 2013, but it was a sound one for Pitt).

My Choice: I'm going to go with Pesci in a very slight nod over Pacino (I have said differently on other days), as I think it lingers better.  For third, it would be Pitt without the category fraud, but with the category fraud points docked, the bronze will go to Tom Hanks, with Pitt & Hopkins coming behind.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with me siding with Joe Pesci or are you standing behind Brad Pitt finally getting his Oscar?  How much should category fraud matter when deciding whom to vote for in these contests?  And seriously-who was the sixth place finisher?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2019: Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2019

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Scarecrow (1973)

Film: Scarecrow (1973)
Stars: Gene Hackman, Al Pacino, Eileen Brennan, Ann Wedgeworth, Richard Lynch
Director: Jerry Schatzberg
Oscar History: No nominations, but it did win the Palme d'Or
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

We're taking a mild detour in our conversation about the films of 1973 today.  This film is, indeed, from 1973, but it is not Oscar-nominated.  I keep a list of every Oscar-nominated film that I've never seen, but also on the list is every Palme d'Or winner I've never seen, and I didn't fact check, so we'll have this as one of our five 1973 movies this week (the last one, I promise, will close with an Oscar nominee).  It's a good question as to why this wasn't nominated, though.  At the time, Al Pacino & Gene Hackman were major stars, and had certainly gotten Oscar's blessing.  Two years prior Hackman had won Best Actor for The French Connection and the year before this came out Pacino had gotten his first citation for The Godfather (which he had to have at least been close to winning for).  What was it about Scarecrow that kept Oscar at bay, but made Cannes give it the top prize?  Let's find out.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is about two drifters: Max (Hackman), a hot-tempered felon who is just out of prison, and Lion (Pacino), an immature guy (but in an endearing way) who seems to view the world with a weird sense of innocence and hope.  The two set off on an adventure to Philadelphia, where Max has socked away enough money that they can start a carwash together, but in the process they meet multiple women including a girl Max woos at a bar (Brennan) and then another who seems like she might be a more permanent love interest named Frenchy (Wedgeworth).  Max gets into a fight with Frenchy's ex-boyfriend at a bar, which lands them in a prison farm for a month, and on that prison farm Lion, abandoned by Max who blamed him for the arrest, is sexually assaulted by a man who claimed he was trying to be his friend.  Afterwards, Lion is angry and no longer sees the world as a place of hope, and their roles are reversed, with Max now trying to keep Lion happy.  This ends badly-Lion ends up having a breakdown and is institutionalized, with Max, now seeing him as his one true friend, vowing to get him out one day and paying for him to get better.

The film is grim, as you can tell, and was not a hit at the time, which likely made it harder for Oscar to bless (Pacino's other movie that year, Serpico, was a huge hit and much friendlier with AMPAS).  It's also a bit dated, to be honest.  The film runs rampant with homophobia, with Richard Lynch's Riley the only outwardly "queer" character in the film (though there's an element to Max & Lion's friendship that could be read for some Celluloid Closet code), and of course he's the film's rapist.  Additionally, the only thing the female characters are expected to provide is cleavage, and it does have that aura of a Seventies film that the only important things that happen are to people who are miserable.

But this isn't a bad film by any stretch, and the leads are great.  Hackman is probably a bit better, getting the simpler role but making it sing.  There's something weird about seeing the more collected Hackman playing the hothead and Pacino getting the sweet novice (a few years later, these roles surely would've been reversed), but it works for Hackman, whose Max has a sense of entitlement and anger at the world that informs his worldview, but feels well-earned.  Pacino is good, though not quite as good as he'd be consistently at the time-it's hard to grade an Al Pacino performance that's solid but not groundbreaking when you know that there's roles like Michael Corleone and Sonny Wortzik just sitting around within a year or two ready for the taking.  But this is definitely a film that I get why it was both critically-lauded and commercially-unsuccessful...even if I'm kind of in the middle on both.