The Hard Truth

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 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.

The Hard Truth is one movie that nearly stinks up the place, marred by its leads, Michael Rooker and Lysette Anthony. In fact, Eric Roberts may well be the only tolerable character in the film simply for his ability not to overact this time (he relieves familiar audiences of his usual eerie, sleaziness that you may find present in his characters in "The Voyage" or "Runaway Train," for example).

Rooker and Anthony play two lovers, Mantz and Lisa, plotting to break the safe of Anthony's boss, a corrupt city councilman (this doesn't mean that Rooker and Anthony are doing this to make up for the city councilman's moral reprehensibility in a Robin Hood sort of fashion, their in it for the greed just as much as their victim). Mantz is a weird, strung out cop with some connections that lead him to blackmail Chandler Etheridge, a clever safecracker who's reluctantly become involved in the plot (although, he too, enjoys the rewards). Little by little, their once solid scheme, begins to fall apart, namely because of mistrust among the characters, especially with the penchant to revert to the conventions of old film noir where the blonde beauty is the double crosser and the alienated cop, the sympathetic fool (even if he's just as greedy and weird as the rest). You can get the feeling of foul play right from the beginning.

Although, for the most part the story was generally entertaining due to a few interesting subplots that begin to emerge and of course, the interactions among the main characters, the movie becomes irritating with over acting courtesy of both Rooker and Anthony (who does her best to ham up most of the finale when you should be well immersed in the climactic face-off among the players). Rooker does his best to both over act and become bitterly annoying throughout the whole movie, which makes me wonder, despite several predictable story lines and the incessant need to be repetitive in the beginning (at least every three minutes, we must watch Mantz and Lisa having sex where neither are looking like their enjoy it), if the movie could have been greatly improved were it simply for the substitute of a reasonable actor. Mantz hardly evoked any sympathy from me. I just kept cringing at his ridiculous nature.

I'd say, Eric Robert fans are at least likely to enjoy his performance as, among a cast of horrible actors anyways an the ability to detached himself from his usual weird character, he shines and at least keeps you very interested in his part of the story. Otherwise, I think I've made it clear what you're getting into.

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.