The Hard Truth

Starts off with a large amount of violence, but then turns into a heist and series of double- crosses. There's a sex scene that isn't even softcore (bra stays on), but another where it is (bra comes off).

Beyond that, what is there to say? I wasn't motivated enough to even stay in the room the whole time it was playing, getting some chores done around the apartment, while I could hear at least some of the dialogue. There's plenty of other movies to watch with similar plots that are made much better, so why waste your time with this one unless you're a particular fan of any of the actors in the movie?

The Hard Truth is in the movie, experience, but even that doesn't count for everything. The Hard Truth is also that the movie isn't all that good.

I am not aware of another film that stars Michael Rooker and Eric Roberts together, so that alone makes "The Hard Truth" something their fans might want to see. The acting by Rooker and Roberts is acceptable. Unfortunately Lysette Anthony is also in the movie, and her acting is not even close to average. As the female love interest involved in a safe heist with Rooker and Roberts, her smarmy character drags heavily on this marginal neo-noir. Also worth mentioning, Anthony's three (count them three)love scenes with Rooker which are totally unconvincing. Other than a prolonged chase in the beginning, and a somewhat twisty finale there is little here to like. - MERK

I just want to give you the perfect example of gratuitous violence we may find from time to time in some features. This one was released in France in the nineties for rental VHS and (or) airing on TF1 channel during Hollywood Night program. Let me explain.

Just after ten minutes, we watch the two lead cop characters - Micheal Rooker and his female partner - arriving on a murder scene, where a mad man fires on the crowd, right in the street and a few minutes later in the subway. At this point of the story, we already know that it is only a subplot, just to present the two cops to the audience, before the further and lead plot. So, when the director emphasizes on the extreme violence of the slaughter of the poor people killed by the mad dude, we wonder WHY the hell show us this. The mad man is killed two minutes later and the story goes on...

I could have understood if the mad guy would have gone away and continued his killing further in the film. It would have been a way to "present" him...

Get what I mean?

Why filming the crowd slaughter in the WILD BUNCH final scenes manner? Especially if the mad gunman dies just afterwards and the film goes on with another case?

If anyone may explain to me?

For a start, the cops should go back to target practice. Their volley of gunfire completely fails to bring down the crazed gunman who in turn , in his escape bid in the subway station, manages to bring down a hundred innocents with his sub-machine gun but bith he and the copper both manage to miss each other at point blank range!( Is this gratuitous violence or is it not!). It is like the gratuitous sex scenes.(oh, here comes the gob-smacking bit now!) The makers of this film just had to have the violence and the sex because they haven't got much else. Think I'll go back to my films noir if the '40s and '50s when there was actual suspense involved. By the way, what crazy cop would even think about starting a shootout with a nutcase in a crowded subway station?

This fairly routine caper film is buoyed by three outstanding leads in Michael Rooker, Lysette Anthony, and Eric Roberts. As long as one can overlook the plot implausibilities the film holds one's attention. It's a shame that Roberts, the more talented member of the acting family, is stuck in B movies...but at least he raises them to B+ level!