Blue Steel - Bersaglio mortale

"Blue Steel" features a solid pe4rformance from Jamie Lee Curtis and the stylish direction you've come to expect from Kathryn Bigelow, but its story about a crazy serial killer preying on a rookie officer is predicated on some sketchy writing. So, Curtis is the tough lady cop who foils a grocery robbery, and Ron Silver the bystander who witnesses the shooting and (by the way) pockets the robber's gun. None of the witnesses come to Curtis' support that she fired in self-defense? From the outset, she's on the defensive from everybody, including her own brothers in blue. And from then on, it's one contrivance after another that lets Silver slip through the cracks. After awhile, you just start pulling your hair.

This is forgettable stalker material, but Bigelow at least keeps things moving.

5/10

This film begins well enough, building to what looks like being a promising study of a psychopath pitted against a feisty, but vulnerable, policewoman. Drawing on fear as a driver of eroticism, the unlikely relationship between Curtis and Silver develops to the edge of what might have been a great film. But sadly, at the halfway point, the story becomes unbelievable as both characters undertake actions that render the plot risible.

Silver turns in an impressive performance as the deranged commodity trader and Curtis plays it adequately enough. But neither can do anything to save the plot line and the whole thing ends in a mess, with the hardware of weaponry taking over from the software of psychology that would have provided a far more intelligent film.

I am A huge fan of Kathryn Bigelow and Eric Red. I loved "THE HITCHER" (the OG one), "NEAR DARK", and "BODY PARTS". Who cares if there are parts that make you go, "Oh, yeah right, that doesn't really happen to a cop". It is a horror flick, it is designed as a horror flick, not a psychological Morgan Freeman cop thriller. If you can humor a story about Vampires, Zombies, Werewolves, and Killer Toy Dolls, then you can bite into a well made story about a wall street slasher running crazy in the city that uses a GUN instead of a Hook, Claw, Chainsaw, Axe, or whatever tickles you fancy. It is a Scary Movie, nothing more. Like "The Hitcher", the antagonist gets worse and worse and in the end it is a classic Goodguy-vs-Monster battle. Jamie is fantastic, Ron is superb, as always and so is Clancy Brown. A special appearance by Tom Sizmore also makes this movie a cool collector's item.

Many people confuse this movie as a cop suspense thriller and have passed judgment too harshly throughout the years. Most of Kathryn's and Eric's early movies are designed to scare you with the story itself than by using Scary Camera Tricks. It's an old flick, so don't expect any CGI. Many people simply judged it by looking at it as a psychological cop thriller. Don't go out like that. It is an authentic, original, stand-on-its-own, scary movie like "THE HITCHER" and "BODY PARTS". Watch it again as a Horror and you will know what I'm talking about. Be nice. Don't give in to hate. It leads to the Darkside.

Get off the Band Wagon and Enjoy it for what it is. Just watch it and pretend you're living in the 90's for Pete's Sake

This is a bit of an oddity. Usually movies are either really good or really bad all the way through. Rarely do I see a film where there are a ton of good moments, but just as many dumb ones. I mean, this film really tries to take cop movies in a different direction in many ways. Example one: our hero cop is female. Example two: our obligatory psycho is a commodities trader(???). Example three: something I've never seen from a movie wacko: he actually hears voices! So many times the killer is without explanation doing what he's doing. But here, Silver actually has extended scenes where he's hearing someone(?) and possibly trying to fight them. It's never explained. Which is where we get into the negative elements, as Silver's motivation isn't fleshed out. Was he a psycho before the early scene shootout? Why is he a nut? We never know, except that he feels a certain power in killing. Plus, even though I appreciated the attempt, his freaky moments of hearing whomever come off a bit silly. But back on the good side he has some very effective moments with Curtis, which mix psychosis and sexualitly nicely. The NYC locations are also well used thanks to some nice cinematographic touches. Ah, alas, we must go back to the junk side, particularly Curtis' cliched superiors. All the typical "My ass in a sling! Mayor's ass in a sling! Chief's ass in a sling!" Or TWO superiors, who in reference to a scene from the beginning, falsely say that Curtis blew the guy's HEAD off. Her shots were grouped in his chest and never at his head. For them to TWICE proclaim otherwise put a big hole in their credibility. Then you have a totally underdeveloped subplot about Curtis father, who is apparently beating her mother. He is rightfully arrested only to be forgiven moments later and back at the house (what is veteran Bosco doing in such a poorly defined roll??). Or how bout when Jamie Lee beds down with a superior...right after the killer has just run off into the night in front of them!!! Tack on an overlong and predictable ending and you have something that started off in the right direction but quickly veered into an NYC pothole.

A psycho killer scribes Jamie Lee Curtis' name onto the brass shells of some cartridges, loads them into his big revolver, then blows away strangers in a park. Detectives find the empty shells, so investigate JLC. Never mind that revolvers don't eject shells as semi-auto pistols do. Never mind that detectives would have known that the shells had been planted deliberately. Never mind that people don't write their names on cartridges. Correcting this film's technical inaccuracies would destroy its whole plot. Could the reason behind such silliness be a profound misunderstanding of the phrase, "a bullet with your name on it?"