Watch Target For Free

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

This movie is often dismissed as just an average Cold War spy flick. But in fact it is quite a bit more than that. It can well hold its own, thanks to the solid direction and first-rate performances by Hackman and Dillon.These two never disappoint and seem to have had fun working together. They relaxedly fill in all the little character incongruities.The story is interesting, but could have used much more exact local detail instead of this chain of insipid cutouts from travel brochures. The locals, but also the spies talk and behave like cardboard figures and tend to lessen the atmosphere a little. The same goes for a lot of the locations.Recommended for fans of Dillon and Hackman, but also for those of you who like a solid spy movie.

The first time I saw this, about ten years ago, I thought it was pretty cool. Zippy car chases, nicely staged, up and down stairs in Hamburg, in and out of passageways, and so forth. Three -- count 'em -- three gorgeous women. Gene Hackman and Matt Dillon, a couple of engaging actors. And it had an interesting premise, too. Young man doesn't get along well with his dad, discovers dad was a CIA spy, develops new respect for him.But I just saw it again, less distracted by the puzzling plot, and it was something of a disappointment. The women are just as gorgeous, Gene Hackman is as good as he almost always is, and the shenanigans with the cars are as exciting, but the rest seems pedestrian, almost amateurishly done -- from the script to the direction.I'll give you an example of what I mean. Hackman and Dillon are driving on a crowded road outside of Paris. Hackman is driving slowly and Dillon impatiently urges him to speed it up. Hackman, his eyes on the rear-view mirror, says, "We've got company." Then he shifts into a lower gear and the Peugot leaps ahead. "What are you doin'?" Dillon exclaims. "Seeing how good he is," replies Hackman with a slight smile. There follows a high speed chase with cars twirling around on wet sandy roads, through some kind of quarry, and it ends with Hackman confronting the other driver and telling him to quit following him. The chase is fine. But it's pointless. Why is the car chase in the movie anyway? "Seeing how GOOD he is?" That's the reason these lives are put in danger for five hectic minutes? Not to mention the Peugots? That would be a great motive for a car chase in a kiddy cartoon.The rest of the plot is almost as weak. Matt Dillon's character is a complete irritation for the first third of the movie. He seems to have nothing but contempt for his father, although Hackman doesn't seem to be guilty of much more than losing the kid's jitterbug bass lure. Dillon is always noodging him, the way Captain Ahab was always noodging Moby Dick. The kid is a dumb, self-indulgent slob and Hackman can never do anything right. Well -- that's okay as a proposition, but it's very poorly delivered, and Dillon's character is turned into a strident stereotype. Furthermore, Dillon himself gives an artless and unconvincing performance in a role that maybe nobody could convincingly enact. When Dillon finds out his father, whom he'd thought to be an ineffective stick-in-the-mud, was a spy, he almost begins to weep as he goes through his lines -- "You've been lying to me all this time." Dillon ought to be elated at discovering his Dad's secret identity.Another curious incident, among so many curious incidents: the evil guys (and man, do they LOOK evil with their black leather coats and their rimless spectacles as thick as Coke bottle bottoms) have kidnapped Hackman's succulent wife, Gale Hunnicutt, because he has information they want him to spill. So the first thing they do when he steps off the plane is try to massacre him in a drive-by shooting? Did I miss something? Why kill someone you need to wring information from?I won't go on, I guess. It's still an engaging movie if you're seeing it for the first time because you don't know where it's going to turn next. And the location shooting is interesting too, reminding us that in the middle of a chill wintry drizzle even Paris doesn't look so hot, never mind Hamburg. It has other exciting moments that I haven't mentioned. Identities twist themselves inside out unexpectedly. I don't want to get into that and possibly debase the film's chief virtue.

How a talent like Gene Hackman ever got involved with this tripe I do not know. 1985 - not exactly a golden year for movies - maybe he just needed a job.The action is driven by an initial kidnapping and the plot turns on a series of twists that don't just stretch the bounds of possibility they snap it! How come everyone seems to know when Hackman will be arriving in a new city and are duly waiting for him, for example? And not once but repeatedly.Indeed, the basic premise of the movie insults the intelligence.Hackman's character argues that the person kidnapped will be kept alive until the kidnappers have their hands on him. Why does he think that? WHY??? It doesn't make ANY sense!! Especially, in the given circumstances.Add to this, the corny dialogue, Matt Dillon playing the dumbo (again!), and an actor who turns out to be the corrupt official/bad guy in every film I've ever seen him in (so no surprise twist there!) and you get a film that should have been thrown out at the development stage.

I'm a huge Gene Hackman fan and I remembered seeing this film many years ago and thinking it was quite cool, and when I saw the title in the paper again, I thought I would find out how right I was.Well Hackman is once again excellent. He has such a natural and believable way about him in his roles that I find it hard not to be drawn into his character. He's definitely one of those actors who always plays himself, but it doesn't matter as his ability and style just carry it off without a thought. A truly great actor in my mind.Matt Dillon is also very good, although his younger trademark look of startled deer is ever present.The plot itself is a good one, in that Hackman plays Dillons father, a boring and very dull man with an equally dull job, in his sons eyes anyway. What quickly transpires is that he is not the speed limit sticking man that his son first thought, he is actually a ex CIA agent.This change is done very well, with a short set piece in an airport. With the smallest of physical changes, Hackman flips from average father to confident and action ready agent. You can see it in his manner, and it shows his excellent capability as an actor.The rest of the movie reveals the story as father and son are pulled deeper and deeper into his life, revealing the true extent of his agent activities. His son quickly realises that this is not the father he knew, and quickly grows from off-handedness to total rejection and then to acceptance again.It is an interesting movie, and the plot is quite good with some interesting action sequences. Where it fails are some of the other actors and the hectic pace of the movie, it seems as though either in filming or editing that crucial parts of the movie have been missed or removed.Big shame, but it is still good to watch for a Sunday afternoon movie. I think this may kick off my <i>watch every Gene Hackman movie</i> campaign.