Les Faucons de la nuit

This is a very good slick action thriller. Well written, well acted and very realistic to boot. It has nary a dull moment and Rutger Hauers' Wulfgar makes you shiver with fear. The international flavor of the film adds a nice quality to it and Nigel Daveports character(terrorist expert)is a treat. The pace is fantastic and even though it is an action film, we get to find out enough about the characters in it that we care about them as people. The conflict that Stallone has with his wife as well as being torn as to how to deal with a terrorist who does subscribe to the same set of rules as the ordinary New York street scum he is used to dealing with is genuinely affecting. The chase scene in the subway is thrilling, well shot and engrossing. This film, as far as I am concerned also benefits immeasurably from its New York location. It really could not have been shot anywhere else in the US except maybe Chicago. I am a native New Yorker so I am obviously partial to New York, but after you see enough movies, you arrive at the conclusion that New York is the best place to shoot a film, generally speaking and depending on what kind of film is being made. Thinking about this movie being shot in L.A. for example makes me cringe.

Long before terrorism was on the minds of most Americans, NIGHTHAWKS tackled the thorny topic. Sylvester Stallone and Billy Dee Williams are decoy cops -- that is, they venture into rough neighborhoods to bait muggers and other forms of scum -- assigned to track down the cold and calculating Rutger Hauer. It seems the devious mastermind has landed in the media capital of the world, New York City, to try and regain his place among the terrorist elite.

Although it's a fairly decent action/suspense effort, NIGHTHAWKS is difficult to recommend unconditionally. The performances are certainly solid; in fact, it's hard to remember Stallone, here sporting a thin beard, being so effective outside of boxing trunks. The action is crisp and exhilarating, with one pursuit through subterranean New York deserving of a place in the Chase Hall of Fame. The story is original and much of the plot intriguing. And Hauer, in his American film debut, is a suitably hateful villain, with his motives all to familiar to contemporary audiences.

Yet NIGHTHAWKS is not quite as good as the sum of its parts. Even though the film starts out with a bang -- literally -- there's somehow too much build-up and not enough execution. The movie has not aged particularly well, and despite its 1981 release date has the feel of a '70s period piece. And as good as Hauer is, his character is a little too incredible to believe as he pulls off massive acts of terror with little or no sponsorship; what should take a team of experts is accomplished by one man wanted by countless law enforcement agencies.

In the end, NIGHTHAWKS is a movie you're bound to like -- either a little bit or a lot. Considering the high ratio of garbage that has and will continue to spew out of Hollywood, I guess that's not such a bad thing.

It was 1981 and the world had just gone through a decade of terrorism. Casting Rutger Hauer and Persis Khambatta (she was the bald woman in the original Star Trek movie) as heartlessly cold terrorists was great casting! Billy Dee Williams and Stallone as street cops suddenly transferred to a terrorist unit do a good job. Stallone had not become a parody of himself yet and his diction is better here than it had ever been up to then. The movie's pace is unrelenting. This is a movie that I almost always have to stop and watch, easily getting swiped up into the story again and again, when I see it on television. Excellent twist ending and monorail scene. Recommended highly.

Remember a day when Rutger Hauer starred in good movies that actually saw wide theatrical release? No. Hmmmm. Hauer is one of my favorite actors and stars in two of my top ten favorite movies (Blade Runner and The Osterman Weekend), so it's hard not to already be slightly biased about the movie. I remember first hearing about Nighthawks on the Headliners and Legends biography of Stallone and how it was not as well received as his Rocky and First Blood movies. For shame, because Nighthawks does manage to be a top notch thriller most of the time. I could go into the plot, but I believe in telling people what I liked and disliked instead of parroting the plot details like almost every other review. (See, a movie to me is more fun when I only know a little about the story, instead of the first hour or so, because someone felt that they had to readers digest the entire film.)

Anyway, now that I've ranted, I have to admit that I enjoyed it for the most part, with the exception of the initial pacing. It continues to drag in places towards the middle, and takes a little over an hour to set up the crucial players backgrounds. The only real problem is that every time the film stops to focus on DeSilva (Stallone) and Fox (Williams), it spends twice as much time focusing on Wulfgar. Wulfgar is certainly a well crafted maniac, but when the movie is over we know almost nothing about Fox and only a little about Dee DeSilva. Still, the movie does succeed in making you care about our two main characters, by thrusting them into danger and having them do what is morally right (i.e. Towards the beginning of the film the two are in a drug raid, and refuse to take bribes from the perps who had apparently already paid off the cops from the first raid on their operation.

They're good cops, and it's their good guy image that endears them). I guess it would have been nice also to see a little more of Stallones relation to what's her name. (sorry, I haven't seen this in a about a month now.) I was interested in the prospect of a hero who was torn between the relation with his ex (who he was trying to re-ignite the flame with), and his duty. But, alas, she was just a narrative device who the writers have decided is only important in the last 15 minutes or so.

With all these cons, why did I still like it? Sudden scenes of high impact, good cast and acting all around, a villain who wasn't just a cardboard cutout, and Stallone's bitchin' beard, and a wholly convincing scenario.

The bottom line: This film is more akin to The French Connection than it is to Rocky. Methodical and often stylish, NightHawks deserves to at least be rented and watched with an open mind.

8 Stars out of 10

...Something that I've heard again and again throughout the eighties and nineties. It's only Stallone 's and Hauer's best performances in any movie that I've seen them in. I read a positive comment (which encouraged me to write this) about this film. I was 9 years old when this movie came out: tried to sneak into it when it played in the theaters (failed), saw it a year later on cable, and I LOVED IT! I resembled a little Rutger Hauer and lived in Los Angeles at the time, so I found myself almost relating to this film. But I was so impressed that it wasn't like all of the other dreck that came out that year, too.Now international terrorism is simply a satire in today's films until 9/11. However, I think that "Die Hard" changed the industry forever in a bad way. To them more is better- to me, more is more. This movie does not glamorize violence (like the before mentioned) and shows how serious it is when it hits home. This movie did not play very long in theaters (in 1981), and hardly anyone can recollect it. It was made on a modest budget, and so many films have surpassed it since, it is now been archived.

I wish Stallone returned to this kind of role: he's so enamoured with John Rambo, Rocky Balboa, every other action-hero-cardboard role that he lost credibility. Hauer went down a separate but equal path in demonstrating his difficulties with other directors, he's a strait-to-video icon.

To this day, I still remember the lines "...I do not enjoy killing-- but it's my job!" and "...now this is for the press...Now you may drop the child, but don't drop this..."

Why can't people watch this instead of Steven Segal movies? I guess Serpico's out, Marky-Mark's in...