Hard

Hard is one of those independent films that keeps you thinking long after the film is over. Exploring two segments of our society - police and street hustlers - for whom violence is a frequent occurrence, the film poignantly shows the internal struggles of being gay in a straight world, and graphically shows the external results of society's indifferent attitude toward gay victims of violence. The attitudes and results can easily be extrapolated at some level to the experiences of other segments of American society - minorities, the religious right, even smokers. Human beings can ignore, and thereby endorse, the repression of other human beings, so long as the repression doesn't personally affect them.

Hard is beautifully shot, but a few flaws will jump out at you - a couple of clunker lines, some low-budget props. But if you ignore those and look at the underlying message, you'll find your time well spent. I'll take Hard, warts and all, over a perfectly made but brain-deadening Miss Congeniality any day.

Being a new detective can be hard. And surrounded by a group of narrow-minded, homophobic cops, Detective Raymond Vates finds it even harder. Deciding to keep it a secret to his fellow men, he and his new partner Tom Ellis starts to investigate the murder of a young boy. Pretty soon it becomes clear that they have a serial killer on their hands.

Hard portrays one of the most realistic serial killers I've ever seen in a movie. There's no doubt that they borrowed a lot from Jeffrey Dahmer (especially one scene in a car is very similar to something Dahmer did), because Malcolm Moorman's Jack is intriguing, manipulative and extremely self-centered. Sure, he doesn't run around with a chainsaw or build enormous killing machines. No, Jack is just like any other guy, which makes it even more frightening.

The mere fact that we get to see so much of the killer lends a new perspective to the story where one has to admire his manipulative games. The acting for this side of the story is very impressive. Moorman is fantastic and Michael Waite is very convincing as the insecure man who lets Jack into his family's home, and his bed.

While these characters are very well developed and easy to relate to in one way or the other, I do feel something is lacking in the police department, so to speak. The gay detective, played by Noel Palomaria, is somewhat hard to relate to and even though he's going through, basically, all the circles of hell there is, you don't really feel that bad for him.

Even so, this is a brilliant movie that any fan of thriller and drama should watch. It's not predictable, it's very interesting and never boring. It has been labeled a gay movie, and while there's a lot of just that, this is by no means close to anything coming from the gay-cinema movement. It's not a gay movie. It's a thriller. And, quite frankly, one of the best and most interesting I've come across so far.

A gay serial killer preys on young men that are in rough situations. A closeted cop gets promoted to detective and takes on this case. Unfortunately, after a night out at the bar, he ends up going home with the killer! You have to give it to this one for its original premise. It sounds a tad like "Cruising," but it is not as offensive as that film. Considering "Hard" had no budget (apparently, it was financed on a few credit cards and everyone involved worked for free), the average acting is (sometimes) forgivable and it is a well-made film. The violence is mostly implied and you see the nasty resulting images, which are certainly creepy enough. I saw the R-rated version (damn it!) and was annoyed that the screen faded to black during most of the sex scenes (except the one heterosexual one, of course).

"Hard" makes several attempts at social commentary, some of which are muddled and not entirely successful. The serial killer's motive is severe internalized homophobia. On the outside, he doesn't seem to have a problem with being gay, but he can't stand that American society treats Queer youth as disposable. So instead of doing something to change this, he disposes of the kids himself to save them from the abuse they'll face throughout their lives. Yeah, it is pretty ridiculous, especially considering he tortures his victims, many of which aren't even Queer youth. Related to this, but explored much more satisfactorily, the film portrays how difficult it is to be a gay cop, and the extreme homophobia that goes on in police departments. Much of the tension and suspense in this film, interestingly enough, comes from whether or not the lead character is going to out himself or be outed. Once he finally is, he is subjected to hatred and violence from his coworkers. I've read several accounts of things like this happening, but have never actually seen a film portray it, so "Hard" gets kudos for that. While it isn't always effective or successful as either a serial killer thriller or a social commentary, Hard does have its moments and is an admirable no-budge film.

My Rating: 6/10

If it weren't for the outraged conservative gay groups who made such a stink about films depicting homosexuality in a negative way, like CRUISING, more truthful films like this one, could have come along and had better budgets. For what is accomplished in HARD, with limited resources, is a very good, truthful, and thought provoking movie done with a lot more honesty than I expected. The acting, especially by the antagonist is dark and evenly good and sinister and succinct. It does not go into the area of having to justify his reasons for having become what he is. Some lines are incisive and brutally honest, while the obvious surfaces occasionally....but, life is just one great big background for clichés anyway. In its multi layered plot putting homophobia in second place, the director manages to make a psychotic thriller with some original twists and honest observations previously never employed for fear of upsetting the "gay moral majority". Too me, this is a sexy,violent and worthy of watching twice. To understand the amount of work it took to put this piece together, makes HARD all that more remarkable, and given a heftier budget,could have had some box office and made some bucks. This is definitely going to achieve "cult" status just for its daring.The lead actor is so good, he is probably responsible for holding the weaker cast believable.No "star" could have played him as well.

Here's the cold, hard truth about John Hukert's "Hard": it is arguably the best film featuring a Gay lead character, and may very well be the only the film that features a Gay hero who also happens to be Hispanic. In my book, the lead, Ramon Vates, played by Noel Palomaria, is an instant icon for those Gay Hispanic men looking for visibility on the silver screen.

The story is simple: Ramon Vates, a rising star in the Los Angeles police department, is promoted to detective. His first assignment: to catch a psychopathic pedophile who serially kills young, Gay Caucasian male prostitutes. Vates, played effectively by Noel Palomaria, is himself Gay but desperately trying to keep his professional and personal life apart; it is a struggle he continually loses.

Vates' antagonist, Jack, wonderfully fleshed out by Malcolm Moorman, is the serial killer who is completely devoid of sympathy and single minded in his goal to kill and/or maim anyone and everyone who he comes into contact with regardless of their age or sex.

Hukert's directing may be a freshman outing, but it's a good one. I thought that Noel Palomaria had the more difficult job of trying to play a man disoriented by his burgeoning sexual identity which he continually tries to distance and keep from overwhelming him. Moorman's job as an actor was simple: No one is safe.

I also believe that Huckert's treatment of the actors translated well into the actor's treatment of the characters, respectful without being judgmental. I came away from the film feeling contented that sexual identity was not explained with casual, campy humor and bland caricatures.

Noel Palomaria and Malcom Moorman, visually, are an interesting pair to watch. Palomaria imbues his character's eyes with surprising adolescent earnestness; Moorman engenders his character's eyes and facial features with relentless malice: he was born to deceive as much as the other was born to be truthful. Their first meeting is fraught with palpable tension.

If Huckert's casting was accidental, it was an incredible stroke of luck; if it was planned, his tactic and strategy deserves much admiration.

Ultimately, however, if there is any fault that this piece has to bear it is probably lighting and cinematography. For some reason, in my mind I thought that the cinematographer and lighting could have worked better together. For some reason, I got the feeling as though there was a struggle between the camps--much in the same way that Palomaria's and Moorman's characters struggle with one another. That struggle is a distraction and the only reason that I did not rate the movie greater than the 9 stars I have assigned it.

Finally, Hukert's "Hard" attempts to undo the damage that William Friedkin wrought with his film, "Cruising", that suggested, minimally, that if you're Gay, there's already something wrong with you; a Gay man, pursuant to Friedkin's film, is sexually insatiable and deviant; he cannot be anything else but flawed.

Huckert's outing attempts and successfully draws the line between being Gay and being a sexual predator.

Moorman's Jack is a pedophile, a sick and twisted version of a man, homosexual sex for him is a by-product of his madness and offers no love.

Sex for Jack is an extension of his madness, and that extension, in every scene, is an exertion of power before he devours them. Only Palomaria's Vates manages to navigate Jack's abyss and avoid complete submersion.

My recommendation is that if you can find "Hard", watch it and watch it again. There is more than meets the eye upon secondary viewing, and my only wish is that "Hard" be shown to a much wider audience than the typical film festival circuit to give this important film the attention it deserves.