As the title of my review suggests, this movie got better with age. Don't believe me, check out the reviews. Check out the score timeline. The more time expires, the higher the ratings. That's because when this came out it was panned as a vanity piece - a work of Bruce's ego. But it really wasn't. It was a bunch of mostly A list actors at the time having fun with the script and in general, over acting every scene. When I first saw it, I laughed the entire movie and then the hate started. This was pre-internet so it was mostly movies reviews in magazines or TV like Siskel and Ebert. I began to wonder if there was something wrong with my humor. Was it me? What did I miss? Or was it simply some people just didn't get it. I think it was the latter and with the internet to quickly overrule the critics, this movie went down the tubes.
So it depends on how you approach it. If you look at it as a serious "Cat Burglar" or "Heist" movie, you're going to say, "WTF did I just watch?" If you watch with a big bowl of popcorn and want to se some actors having fun with a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, you'll like it. Bruce said him self in several interviews that Hudson Hawk was intended as a satire of the genre. He insisted the absurdity was supposed to be part of the charm. Meant to be a joke, but few at the time saw the funny side. If it had been made, just a few years later, maybe after Pulp Fiction, it could have been viewed differently. Don't panic - I am not comparing Pulp Fiction with Hudson Hawk. Where Pulp Fiction sewed comedy and drama perfectly, Hudson Hawk was ham-fisted and comically awkward. Both were ahead of their time with it's mixture of genres: the movie spoof and a violent action film common of the time. Audiences and critics weren't ready for Hudson Hawk's sometimes shaky deliver and thus, by and large generally misunderstood since it fit into neither category neatly.
