The Hard Truth

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

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!

This had a definite Grade B-feel to it, but it wasn't bad. I wouldn't rate it over five stars but it did have fairly interesting action scenes and good colors. However, my summary headline tells you something.

Of the three main actors - Michael Rooker, Lysette Anthony and Eric Roberts - Roberts had the best role. This is one of the few movies I saw him in where he actually was more cerebral than physical. The dialog on some of these other characters is really stupid and the acting by some of the supporting cast isn't the best, either.

Rooker and Anthony deliver horrible performances. I guess they were in the film just for the sex scenes. There are three - count 'em - steamy sex scenes in here, all of which contribute to that B-feel because they are in here solely for gratuitous purposes.

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?

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.