Brubaker: Am I the only one who thinks this movie is underrated?

Okay, so I just re-watched 'Brubaker' (1980) and I'm seriously wondering why this movie isn't talked about more. It's got Robert Redford at his absolute Redford-iest, and the story is compelling as hell. The build up when he's posing as an inmate is chef's kiss. You're just waiting for the reveal, that moment when he drops the act and confronts the corrupt system, and it pays off big time. But the pacing after he reveals himself feels...off. It's like the movie becomes a different beast, almost episodic, with a lot of scenes that feel like they could've been trimmed down to tighten the tension back up. I feel the editing could of been improved. Specifically, I'm thinking of the scenes where he's trying to get the local politicians to cooperate. They feel kinda repetitive and less impactful compared to the stuff happening inside the prison walls. It's not that they're bad scenes, just... less focused. And the actual ending ending... it's a gut punch, sure, but do we really need that lingering shot of the prison as credits roll? Felt a little on the nose to me. What's everyone else think? Am I crazy for feeling like the first third of the movie is a near-perfect slow burn, and then it kinda lets off the gas? Did other editors feel this also? Was this a common sentiment? I feel like the editing and pacing could of been tighter. I'm intersted in discussing whether and how they could have improved it? Basically, I'm not saying it's a bad movie, not at all. Redford gives a killer performance, and the story itself is incredibly important and well-meaning. It's just... frustrating because it feels like it could have been so much more with some tighter editing and a more focused second act. Did the director loose motivation?