Two outstanding performances are unable to support the entire film.

Rating: 8/10 (4 July 2000)

A film of solid reputation, having all the signs of being a classic, but which ultimately falls down on a number of levels, resulting in it being good but slightly disappointing.
The story is based on fact, about a bank robbery in Brooklyn which becomes a media event, heightened when it is discovered the lead robber needs the money for his gay lovers sex-change operation. The action takes place over the course of one day and 90% of the action is played out inside the bank, where the employees are kept hostage and outside where the police and a growing crowd of onlookers have formed in numbers.
The two bank robbers are big-time losers, both played quite brilliantly by Al Pacino and John Cazale. Pacino gives the performance of his life as the sweaty, agitated, nervous Sonny, while Cazale is if anything even better, as the forlorn, quiet, desperately sad-looking Sal. The tragedy of the two is summed up in a hopelessly optimistic conversation when discussing where they want the jet, which they have demanded for the release of the hostages, to take them. Sonny asks "Is there any special country you want to go to ?", to which Sal replies "Wyoming".
The film suffers though in its supporting characters, none of which have any depth to them. This is due mainly to the script which gives them little to do, although most performances apart from the two principals are routine at best. The bank manager and the female hostages are not developed to any degree - as the audience, we care for the two robbers, but not at all for the hostages. The police officers, and FBI agents, are all stereotypical and are unable to force either a positive or negative reaction.
Many of the scenes in the latter part of the film only repeat characterisations and themes which have already been addressed. The scenes involving Sonny outside the bank playing up to the cheering crowds are good ( repeatedly shouting 'Put your guns down' and 'Attica' to the armed masses of police ), but they go on too long and there are too many of them.
It is unfair to criticise 'Dog Day Afternoon' too much, as it is still very good. The film should have been much tighter, more evenly paced, at least half an hour shorter, and, like Lumets earlier classic '12 Angry Men', concentrated on dialogue for character development. What should have been a genuine early 70's classic is instead something of a missed opportunity.