Taraparain
Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.
Invaderbank
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
Humaira Grant
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Tango and Cash
Watched this movie last night, didn't expect the production quality to be so poor. Cheaply made, amateurish editing.But man, this storyline/plot is actually really cool...it's got a great deal of potential, I think. But ol' Jack as "JimBuck" - I wrote it that way intentionally, because that's how Jack says it...like it's one word. He doesn't say "My name is Jim Buck" like a regular person, he says "My name is JimBuck," like it's just one word. Hilarious.The only reason I watched this was for Jack Palance, and it was worth watching it to see him. What else, what else...I think that about covers it. A low budget affair from 1977 that could be really engrossing and cool if remade today with a talented writer and director. The storyline is great - built, of course, on an interesting internal conflict (loyalty to a friend/humanity vs obligation to employer) and the required external conflicts (good guys vs the bad guys). Put a smokin' hot chick in there (adds yet another layer to the conflict), and you've got a movie.By the way, if anyone reads this and actually does make a movie out of it, is there any way I can get in on that?jacobnunnally.blogspot.com3/10
John Seal
According to IMDb, this film wasn't released until 1984, seven years after its completion. When you watch Portrait of a Hit Man (as the title appears on screen), you'll understand why it sat in the can so long. Jack Palance delivers one of his anguished non-performance performances as Jim Buck, a professional gunman (and amateur painter) hired by Max Andreotti (a svelte Rod Steiger) to rub out Dr. Bob Michaels (Bo Svenson). Problem: Jim and Bob are best buds from way back, and Jim is most reluctant to carry out the hit. There's a ton of navel-gazing, some very boring sex scenes, an embarrassing turn from Richard Roundtree as a Jamaican drug dealer, some Asian wisdom offered by Philip Ahn, and even a brief appearance by legendary singing cowboy Herb Jeffries, who wisely chose to hang up his acting spurs after appearing in this film.
sugarbabe9
What in the world were Jack Palance and Rod Steiger thinking about when they agreed to appear in this film? It is so poorly written and the characters so shallow as to be beyond belief. It reminds me of the really trashy porn movies of the early 70's where plot and character development didn't feature, just the naked flesh. There is no porn here just the lack of plot and every other item that makes for an interesting and enjoyable film. The lack of realism is also evident and all concerned appear to be 'going through the motions' as if paying back some obligation . My vote is 1/10. why oh why did you do it Jack? you can't have been that hard up.
mm-39
I rented this movie with my girlfriend years ago. I liked the cover at the video store. Unfortuanately that and the name were the only good aspects of this film. The first 2 minutes were good, and the rest of this film is one horrible ride. If he UN arm inspectors found this movie it would be labeled a weapon of mass destruction. I remember watching this films years earlier with my dad; I for got about it because the film was that bad and I only watched half of it. The second time I watched this insomnia cure the second half made me remember this film forever. At least this time I got to cuddle with my girlfriend. This film is incredibly awful, and will haunt your memory. Not too many films merit a 1 out of 10
