El gran Halcón

As the title of my review suggests, this movie got better with age. Don't believe me, check out the reviews. Check out the score timeline. The more time expires, the higher the ratings. That's because when this came out it was panned as a vanity piece - a work of Bruce's ego. But it really wasn't. It was a bunch of mostly A list actors at the time having fun with the script and in general, over acting every scene. When I first saw it, I laughed the entire movie and then the hate started. This was pre-internet so it was mostly movies reviews in magazines or TV like Siskel and Ebert. I began to wonder if there was something wrong with my humor. Was it me? What did I miss? Or was it simply some people just didn't get it. I think it was the latter and with the internet to quickly overrule the critics, this movie went down the tubes.

So it depends on how you approach it. If you look at it as a serious "Cat Burglar" or "Heist" movie, you're going to say, "WTF did I just watch?" If you watch with a big bowl of popcorn and want to se some actors having fun with a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, you'll like it. Bruce said him self in several interviews that Hudson Hawk was intended as a satire of the genre. He insisted the absurdity was supposed to be part of the charm. Meant to be a joke, but few at the time saw the funny side. If it had been made, just a few years later, maybe after Pulp Fiction, it could have been viewed differently. Don't panic - I am not comparing Pulp Fiction with Hudson Hawk. Where Pulp Fiction sewed comedy and drama perfectly, Hudson Hawk was ham-fisted and comically awkward. Both were ahead of their time with it's mixture of genres: the movie spoof and a violent action film common of the time. Audiences and critics weren't ready for Hudson Hawk's sometimes shaky deliver and thus, by and large generally misunderstood since it fit into neither category neatly.

Is this a great movie? Not really. Will I absolutely stop and watch it if I happen to see it's on? Yes, I will. It's truly an oddball comedy, most definitely not every joke works, but its manic energy and silliness still manage to crack me up.

The real credit, for me, goes to the movie's two ridiculous scene-chewing villains, Minerva and Darwin Mayflower who pretty well have to be seen to be believed. If you looked up over the top in a dictionary I think you could possibly see a picture of them, and yet they're played with such conviction and flair that I love every scene they're in. For me, without them, the movie wouldn't be anywhere near as fun.

This movie was on my list of movies generated by actors as personal projects. That's because you really get to know these guys when you see what they really want to do. Bruce worked on this for a very long time.

If you check out Willis' acting stuff, it is a particular style, very much like Mel Gibson's. The idea is to focus on the character in a serious way, but always let the audience know that there is a carefree guy doing it. The formula is subtle and depends on the genuine take on life that the actor has.

If you allow for the incompetent editing and execrable score, this is a very clever movie. In particular, it is a very clever placement of a movie about other movies. It walks through the various motions of a real movie, with lots of references to remind you. But it is really a bunch of jokes that make the broadest fun of movies. The position and distance that this film has to real movies is precisely the same as Bruce's acting stance to the job he does in portraying the character.

Check it out. It's got some problems, but it tells you a lot about Bruce in whatever of his other films you like, and will likely enhance that film.

...no, don't take it seriously, as the movie doesn't take seriously itself. It's as funny as it's silly, and that's what makes it enjoyable. Characters are all dumb, the good guys are no saner than the cartoon-looking bad guys, the story is just the basement for a set of somehow childish jokes that, even being a grown up, I really enjoyed when I watched it a couple of decades ago. I decided to watch it again today, to find that it's still funny enough to have a nice time in the couch.

This was one of the first films that I saw when I came back from the Persian Gulf War. It is listed as among the biggest money losers of all time and when it came out it generated some of the most scathing reviews of all time. When Bruce Willis made The Last Boy Scout later that year, one reviewer said "He gets punched in the mouth so many times, he must feel like he's still reading reviews of Hudson Hawk" Willis wrote the story for this film, so I'm sure this must have particularly hurt him, this film put his career in the toilet before Pulp Fiction revived it. I don't think the film was all that bad myself, even though it wasn't Citizen Kane and wont go down in history as a classic I am at least hoping that it might generate a cult following. At least it attempts to be original, you have to give it credit for that. So many movies these days are just rip offs. Willis gives an engaging performance as the cappachino-drinking, wise-cracking cat burglar who is forced to pull off one last hiest. I really laughed at the scene where he and Danny Aiello pull off that robbery while doing such a wonderful rendition of "Would You Like To Swing On A Star". Aiello is a great actor as is Andie McDowell and James Coburn who also give great supporting performances. Coburn has a lot of fun spoofing his tough guy image. It sort of reminds me of In Like Flynt. My best advice is leave your brain at the beginning of the movie and just have a good time. Yes this film wont cure cancer or anything like that, but its still a lot of fun if you just give it a chance.