A Masterpiece!

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Yes, there is some action, but this cannot save the film from being unacceptably stupid. Neither the famous names can change anything in that. As to comedy, I have been unable even to smile with all these nonsense. The film is just pathetic. My vote 1/10.

"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".

I must admit this is not one of my favorites of Bruce's. Some bits of it work which, are the excitingly dangerous bits, with some "You gotta be kidding stuff", where the rest just bore, a bad concoction of the two. The movie is just stupid, what can I say, with not the best of scripts, and Bruce's acting isn't something to brag about. He plays a cat burglar, who's just got out of the can, and no sooner is he forced into stealing something from the Vatican, where some other baddies are after what he has. The music sequence of "Would You Like To Wish On A Star", sung by dangerous duo Willis and Aiello was admittedly and undoubtedly the best thing about this misfire of a movie, left in the hands of a trio of writers, one of them being Steven De Souza, where we would expect more from the guy. If into fantasy, and you want something different, this is a fifty fifty gamble, and Willis is offered some funny lines, the one involving ".... the hat convention, truly memorable. But really this movie will only be remembered for how bad it was. Winner for worst screenplay of 1991.

Hudson hawk is shanghaied by various powerful people the moment he gets out of prison into pulling a museum job but of course this is just the beginning of his troubles. One of those hilarious underrated classics that pop up every now and again.The world and his wife lined up to criticise this film . They were ,of course, all completely wrong. Its part smarmy heist caper, part musical, part buddy action movie it does not clearly fit into one genre so of course people hated it.The comedy works the stunts are good and the plot is strangely compelling. Id advise you disregard everyone's opinion (except mine of course) and see it your self