Piège en eaux troubles

I'd be lying if I didn't admit this is yet another patterned Bruce Willis flick. The kind where he plays the hard boiled cop with a colorful past, but I gave it a chance. This one finds Willis as Tom Hardy. A cop from a family of cops and things aren't going too well. First off, he's just ratted out his violent partner (Robert Pastorelli) at an official police inquiry and that doesn't win him any fans in the department. All of the while there's this killer on the loose and when he lets it be known he thinks the killer is a cop - suddenly he's reassigned to River Patrol.

This movie succeeds on a basic level -- it's entertaining. Sure the story is loose and the film's surprises are somewhat stale, but it's all in good fun. Willis gets to look aptly serious and hunt for the killer on the waters and there's just enough suspense to sustain interest and the story moves at a good pace. Meanwhile the rounded supporting cast keeps things lively and keeps the viewer going, "Where have I seen him before?" or "Hey that's such and such".

I've read on here how people think this is stupid, dumb and lacks any suspense or thrills. Like any of the Die Hard movies had exceptionally smart stories or you didn't know what was gonna happen next. Of course not. For a entry level Bruce Willis flick, this one satisfies. Now if I can only get that 'Little Red Riding Hood' song out of my mind!

More than any film I can remember in a long time, I have never understood why this film hasn't gotten higher ratings than it has. The plot, while not ingenious (and even somewhat predictable) is still exciting and will keep you engrossed.

The film's creators get a lot of points in my book for locale creativity. Instead of setting the film in some predictable location such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami or San Francisco they set it in Pittsburgh, PA, definitely not your ordinary movie location. It's one that adds a wonderful freshness to the movie however.

The location shooting is outstanding. The scenery is different and excellent, the photography is great, even spectacular in places and the action is on a par with some of the best action films ever, including Bullitt. Who would normally think to expect extensive boating and water action in a state as synonymous with mountains as Pennsylvania is? That alone is worth taking a look at this movie.

I do not usually care much for Bruce Willis. I thought he was very well cast in this movie however and Sara Jessica Parker added extra special chemistry. The cast is much better than average overall and includes such outstanding actors as Andre Braugher, of the outstanding tv series "Homicide". I thought that the casting in general, as well as the photography, location and action very adequately made up for any possible deficiencies in the plot itself.

I would warn that there is extensive foul language in this film, more than is necessary even for a film of this genre in my opinion and probably it's biggest drawback. I would still say that the film is well worth watching when your in the mood for some escapist fun and action fare. As I said earlier, I think the film deserves higher ratings than it's gotten so far. I've watched it twice now (it was just as good the second time, in fact even better) and that definitely won't be the last time I watch it.

RELEASED IN 1993 and written/directed by Rowdy Herrington, "Striking Distance" stars Bruce Willis as Tom Hardy, a Pittsburgh detective who's demoted to river rescue. A serial killer returns after a two-year absence and bodies of beautiful women start turning up in the river, all women whom Hardy used to date! Sarah Jessica Parker is on hand as Hardy's partner on the river, Jo Christman.

The movie has a bad reputation. Roger Ebert tore it to pieces, basically saying it was too derivative and by-the-numbers, and Willis himself said he hated it. I can understand criticism to a point. The story has a melodramatic comic-book vibe, which is obvious in the opening act, almost like a TV production except with a superior cast and action scenes. But, and this is an important "but," I found myself drawn into the story & the characters and greatly enjoyed the rare Pittsburgh locations, as well as the (melo)drama and thrills. In other words, the movie is entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.

This is a cop thriller in the manner of the Dirty Harry series, especially "The Dead Pool" (1988), except it's more comic booky and taking place in Pittsburgh rather than San Francisco. It's also reminiscent of films like "The General's Daughter" (1999). Although not technically as good as the Dirty Harry movies or "The General's Daughter" due to its cartoonish-ness, "Striking Distance" nevertheless pulled me into the lives of the characters and, for the most part, furnished the requisite thrills.

The generically-named movie (also akin to the Dirty Harry franchise) was originally called "Three Rivers," a much better title simply because it's more specific, but was changed at the last minute because the marketing department feared people would think it was a sports movie due to Three Rivers Stadium, so they switched it to "Striking Distance." Why "Striking Distance"? The first hint is at the beginning of the movie when the title card shows two electrical bolts coming out from either side of the title. Later we observe the mysterious killer using a stun gun before killing his victims and, with a stun gun, you must of course be within... striking distance!

Speaking of the killer, one element of the plot I haven't mentioned is that this is a whodunit. Someone is charged with being the killer early on but Hardy knows it's the wrong guy; he and others are sure it's a cop or ex-cop doing the killings. There are a few suspects, including Hardy himself, but I honestly was unable to guess the right person. There's another twist late in the story that also took me by surprise.

"Striking Distance" may not be exceptional and is marred by cartoonish exaggeration, but it entertains as a cop thriller and that's what's most important when it comes to these types of flicks. Plus it was shot in Pittsburgh, a refreshing change.

THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 42 minutes. ADDITIONAL WRITER: Martin Kaplan.

GRADE: C+/B-

I don't understand why this film is so over-looked. It has pretty everything fans of Bruce Willis would want. He is a cop, not liked by his fellow officers, and he is on a murder case where no one believes what he has to say. There is action, swearing, one liners, and even some sex. Bruce doesn't usually have that in his films, maybe that is what threw people off. Just Kidding.

By all means, this is no masterpiece, but it is an entertaining mystery with an AWESOME car chase. One of the best. Bruce Willis fans should definitely check this movie out. It is pure Bruce and without him the "lone cop" story wouldn't work as well nor be as credible as it is because of him. 8/10

Rated R: violence and profanity

I caught this one on TV at about midnight, and I wasn't planning to see more than five minutes of it. I did (why would I write this comment if I didn't) and it kept my interest through the whole film. Bruce Willis and Sarah Jessica Parker were excellent together and the supporting cast was also outstanding.

Director Rowdy Herrington also brought us the awful A Murder of Crows (1999), but he didn't ruin this one, even if it did get a little far-fetched in places. An interesting plot line, and Willis is believable in his role.

+ (GOOD THINGS) 1.) Direction 2.) Chemistry between Willis and Parker 3.) Ending (unlike everyone else, I didn't see it coming) 4.) Length 5.) The score 6.) John Mahoney's performance

• (BAD THINGS) 1.) Believability 2.) The script (uneven in places)

TOTAL: 7/10