Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Monique One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

grizzledgeezer "Hudson Hawk" is not so much a story about itself, but about other action-adventure films -- almost any one you can think of, but most significantly "North by Northwest" (with a bit of "It Takes a Thief" thrown in). * As its only purpose is to make self-aware references to other films, why should the viewer be interested? If the movie's creators don't take the material seriously -- why should we?"North by Northwest" is hardly a serious film. The climactic scene on Mount Rushmore is //intended// to be ridiculous, a parody of Hitchcock thrillers. ** It gets away with this silliness by doing a slow build in which the normalcy and predictability of everyday life are gradually stripped away. What ought to be absurd is accepted as realistic.You can't have a film that's ridiculous/absurd from the beginning -- unless it's an obvious farce ("Airplane!") or a Warners cartoon. "Hudson Hawk" is neither.There are moments of real humor, especially one involving a ketchup bottle. But these are too few and far between to even begin to save the film. (As Rossini said of Wagner... "Great moments, but terrible half-hours.")For what it's worth, Michael Lehmann's direction is superb -- perfectly paced and timed. It's hard to imagine this film being worse than it is -- but it could have been.* If this isn't obvious, note that James Coburn's character is named George Kaplan.** The working (tongue-in-cheek) title was "The Man in Lincoln's Nose". Roger Thornhill's matches bear the monogram ROT -- rot -- and Thornhill says the O "stands for nothing".

jessegehrig Everyday, people try to accomplish goals. They struggle and sometimes fail and other times succeed. Sometimes the goals have meaning, other times it's the struggle to reach those goals that has meaning, and sometimes both the struggle to achieve a goal and the goal as well, are meaningless. They made this movie- it was a goal they struggled to achieve, and having completed their task the end result was/is Hudson Hawk. I mean, who am I to pass judgment on this movie, maybe it's really hard to get jokes on paper to become jokes on film, I don't know. And its too easy to call this movie self-indulgent, oh, accurate as hell, but still, too easy. Soundtrack available for purchase- you can own it!

Zoooma My second time seeing this and first time since it was in the theaters... so it's been awhile and there's barely anything at all that I remembered. I knew it had a reputation for being spectacularly bad and that's exactly what it is. Well, I've seen much, much worse but it's still pretty stupid. I do like Bruce Willis so I wanted to give this a completely fair shake. He actually does a great job with the material he's given but the script is just ridiculous. It looked quite promising for the first five or ten minutes but it goes downhill fast and stays there. Moronic characters appear and the plot takes strange twists. Lame. Just lame. Anyone watching the Bruce Willis catalog should either save this for last in case you die first and never have to see it or watch it first to get the worst out of the way.5.2 / 10 stars--Zoooma, a Kat Pirate Screener

classicalsteve It isn't enough to come up with a good premise in terms of a storyline for a film script. The script has to realize its potential. Unfortunately the talents of Bruce Willis and Danny Aiello weren't enough to save this disjointed and largely un-entertaining excuse for a movie. What makes "Hudson Hawk" so frustrating is that the initial premise is actually a good one which had a lot of potential. While I understand the filmmakers probably wanted to make a movie which was a kind of comedy-caper, much like similar films of the 1960's, they made so many over-the-top efforts to "to be funny" that "Hawk" is nearly unwatchable in some scenes.Usually heist films and other similar fair where the baddies are essentially the main characters have a lot of comedy which can evolve out of the situations rather than being forced. "The Hot Rock" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" are cases in point. I wish the screenwriters of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and/or "The Hot Rock" had been the ones to write this screenplay, or at least they should have offered advice to the writers of "Hawk". In "Butch and Sundance", some of the funniest moments are when the two outlaws are arguing with each other about what to do next and how to handle the situation. Never do we feel like the jokes are forced upon the characters. That's what I felt with "Hawk", that the humor was forced by the hand of the screenwriters rather than coming from the characters' mouths naturally.The premise is simple but could have been affective if handled better. A cat burglar is let out of prison and takes on some "jobs" to lift some of Leonardo da Vinci's artwork. Unfortunately, as a kind of introduction, we meet da Vinci and his world and it looks like a bad scene from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part 5". From here on out we know the film is not only going to be over-the-top in the humour department, but it's never going to take itself seriously enough for there to be any real meat to the story. It's over the top humour for humour's sake, and I felt I really didn't care about anything the characters were doing, unlike "Butch and Sundance" where at every moment I was riveted by their actions.Even films like the first Superman film with Christopher Reeve had a lot of humour but ultimately took itself seriously enough that we cared what happened to its characters. Hawk could have been a really good film if the writing had been better, the characters less cardboard, and the humour less cheap. Instead, the filmmakers made a film not unlike many of the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940's and 50's. The action is over the top, the acting is over the top, and the lines were just downright ridiculous at times. And yet at other times, the plot seemed a bit more serious, as if the film didn't quite know what it wanted to be. Great potential wasted.