Hard

Here's the cold, hard truth about John Hukert's "Hard": it is arguably the best film featuring a Gay lead character, and may very well be the only the film that features a Gay hero who also happens to be Hispanic. In my book, the lead, Ramon Vates, played by Noel Palomaria, is an instant icon for those Gay Hispanic men looking for visibility on the silver screen.

The story is simple: Ramon Vates, a rising star in the Los Angeles police department, is promoted to detective. His first assignment: to catch a psychopathic pedophile who serially kills young, Gay Caucasian male prostitutes. Vates, played effectively by Noel Palomaria, is himself Gay but desperately trying to keep his professional and personal life apart; it is a struggle he continually loses.

Vates' antagonist, Jack, wonderfully fleshed out by Malcolm Moorman, is the serial killer who is completely devoid of sympathy and single minded in his goal to kill and/or maim anyone and everyone who he comes into contact with regardless of their age or sex.

Hukert's directing may be a freshman outing, but it's a good one. I thought that Noel Palomaria had the more difficult job of trying to play a man disoriented by his burgeoning sexual identity which he continually tries to distance and keep from overwhelming him. Moorman's job as an actor was simple: No one is safe.

I also believe that Huckert's treatment of the actors translated well into the actor's treatment of the characters, respectful without being judgmental. I came away from the film feeling contented that sexual identity was not explained with casual, campy humor and bland caricatures.

Noel Palomaria and Malcom Moorman, visually, are an interesting pair to watch. Palomaria imbues his character's eyes with surprising adolescent earnestness; Moorman engenders his character's eyes and facial features with relentless malice: he was born to deceive as much as the other was born to be truthful. Their first meeting is fraught with palpable tension.

If Huckert's casting was accidental, it was an incredible stroke of luck; if it was planned, his tactic and strategy deserves much admiration.

Ultimately, however, if there is any fault that this piece has to bear it is probably lighting and cinematography. For some reason, in my mind I thought that the cinematographer and lighting could have worked better together. For some reason, I got the feeling as though there was a struggle between the camps--much in the same way that Palomaria's and Moorman's characters struggle with one another. That struggle is a distraction and the only reason that I did not rate the movie greater than the 9 stars I have assigned it.

Finally, Hukert's "Hard" attempts to undo the damage that William Friedkin wrought with his film, "Cruising", that suggested, minimally, that if you're Gay, there's already something wrong with you; a Gay man, pursuant to Friedkin's film, is sexually insatiable and deviant; he cannot be anything else but flawed.

Huckert's outing attempts and successfully draws the line between being Gay and being a sexual predator.

Moorman's Jack is a pedophile, a sick and twisted version of a man, homosexual sex for him is a by-product of his madness and offers no love.

Sex for Jack is an extension of his madness, and that extension, in every scene, is an exertion of power before he devours them. Only Palomaria's Vates manages to navigate Jack's abyss and avoid complete submersion.

My recommendation is that if you can find "Hard", watch it and watch it again. There is more than meets the eye upon secondary viewing, and my only wish is that "Hard" be shown to a much wider audience than the typical film festival circuit to give this important film the attention it deserves.

A serial killer terrorizes and kills young gay men, urban drifters whom society couldn't care less about. And therein lies a clue to the killer's motivation, at least in part. "Hard" is not a whodunit, although, as a result of the film's editing, the identity of the killer is not revealed officially until almost halfway into the film. Up to that point, the killer, at least in theory, could be any of several people. There's also some intentional plot misdirection with regard to another character. Indeed, I think the film would have been stronger as a full-fledged whodunit, with all kinds of plot twists and turns. As is, the film reveals too much, too soon and, as a result, forgoes a sense of mystery and some suspense.

Even with a less than ideal plot, the film does a great job of conveying a sense of danger, especially toward the end. The visuals are dark, and when combined with sinister background music, create a tone that is menacing and foreboding. The finale takes place in an old, unused theater, and its creepy basement with wet floors, a holding place for previous victims. Here, at night, the cops close in. A beam of flashlight, a dilapidated stage, some rickety scaffolding, all that inky darkness, the perfect lair for a psychopath.

The film has suffered some bad press because the subject matter is not politically correct. There are lots of violent images, though very little in the way of violent action. The film also has a lot to say about police attitudes toward gays.

Edgy and cinematically risky, "Hard" grapples with difficult images and ideas. It isn't for everyone, in the same sense that the 1980 film "Cruising" was not for everyone. But even on a shoestring budget, "Hard" is a well-made film. It's an intriguing film, one that's best seen late at night, when all the lights are out.

If it weren't for the outraged conservative gay groups who made such a stink about films depicting homosexuality in a negative way, like CRUISING, more truthful films like this one, could have come along and had better budgets. For what is accomplished in HARD, with limited resources, is a very good, truthful, and thought provoking movie done with a lot more honesty than I expected. The acting, especially by the antagonist is dark and evenly good and sinister and succinct. It does not go into the area of having to justify his reasons for having become what he is. Some lines are incisive and brutally honest, while the obvious surfaces occasionally....but, life is just one great big background for clichés anyway. In its multi layered plot putting homophobia in second place, the director manages to make a psychotic thriller with some original twists and honest observations previously never employed for fear of upsetting the "gay moral majority". Too me, this is a sexy,violent and worthy of watching twice. To understand the amount of work it took to put this piece together, makes HARD all that more remarkable, and given a heftier budget,could have had some box office and made some bucks. This is definitely going to achieve "cult" status just for its daring.The lead actor is so good, he is probably responsible for holding the weaker cast believable.No "star" could have played him as well.

"Hard" is about the hard life & times of its characters, and its is hard to watch. I generally don't like murder movies, and definitely don't like graphic violence, blood & gore. But, I liked this movie.

The version I saw was the 2005 re-released DVD Directors Uncut Version, unrated. Some of the sex and violence scenes edited out of the theatrical release are restored. Pretty good production quality. Some of the acting can be wooden. Certainly not the most pleasant movie I ever watched, but was one of the most interesting.

As other reviewers indicate, it's a movie about a gay serial killer and his pursuit by a closeted gay policeman. The message is about homophobia and self loathing. I recommend you give it a try, but don't watch it alone late at night!

Hard is one of those independent films that keeps you thinking long after the film is over. Exploring two segments of our society - police and street hustlers - for whom violence is a frequent occurrence, the film poignantly shows the internal struggles of being gay in a straight world, and graphically shows the external results of society's indifferent attitude toward gay victims of violence. The attitudes and results can easily be extrapolated at some level to the experiences of other segments of American society - minorities, the religious right, even smokers. Human beings can ignore, and thereby endorse, the repression of other human beings, so long as the repression doesn't personally affect them.

Hard is beautifully shot, but a few flaws will jump out at you - a couple of clunker lines, some low-budget props. But if you ignore those and look at the underlying message, you'll find your time well spent. I'll take Hard, warts and all, over a perfectly made but brain-deadening Miss Congeniality any day.