StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

robinski34 A strong opening sequence, reminiscent of titles straight from a Hitchcock movie, bodes well and it's Denzel to the max from the opening frames. 'Ricochet' is very much a product of the 80's in its look and sound, and there's a hard edge and some snappy dialog that really pushes the action forward without pulling any of its numerous punches. This is most likely down to the screenplay being penned by Steven de Souza who wrote Die Hard; DH 2; 48 Hours and Another 48 Hours, some of the previous decades' defining films. John Lithgow's performance is suitably deranged, Kevin Pollack provides solid support (nice impression in the early stages). It's a good story, not without a Hitchcockian twist or two, arguably not particularly polished as a final product, but still a barrel load of kitschy '80's fun. Worth a look, especially for Denzel fans.

oneguyrambling Nick Styles (Denzel Washington) is an ambitious up and coming policeman studying law with an eye on entering the legal system sooner rather than later.His big break occurs when another similarly ambitious man – albeit in another field of endeavour – transgresses the boundaries of the law directly in front of Nick, and more tellingly a man holding a video camera. The ensuing media coverage makes a minor 80s viral star of Nick, allowing him to rapidly advance into the offices of the District Attorney, while simultaneously ending the fledgling criminal career of one Earl Talbot Blake (John Lithgow).Blake stews in his own juices in prison for years, allowing his grudge against Nick to become an obsession. An obsession that is not helped by the frequent media coverage his more popular nemesis continues to garner.Blake formulates an escape / vengeance combo that is as impossibly convoluted as it is (apparently) embarrassingly easy to pull off. After his daring and bloody escape that leaves many dead – according to the authorities Blake among them – he easily and painlessly infiltrates Nick's family, career and inner circle within mere days, somehow managing to turn Nick from a local law abiding hero into a pariah wanted by the law, hated by the public and mistrusted by his own friends and family.In case you haven't guessed by now Ricochet is unbelievably silly, but unbelievably silly fun, back in the days when R rated movies were still allowed that indulgence.Lithgow has a ball as the profane, violent and intense Earl Talbot Blake, some of his disgusting statements and retorts are blackly quotable, and his over the top mannerisms and facial gestures are so serious they're hilarious. Denzel too allows himself to get a little dirty, he swears up a storm and even though it is not his intention manages to bang a hooker and ingest a powerful cocktail of illicit substances, all in the one scene.Having Ice T around as a smack talking ne'er do well just adds flavour to proceedings, and Kevin Pollack gets to try a couple of his character impressions as Nick's former partner and best buddy.Ricochet is violent, silly, implausible and somehow absurdly entertaining. It is over the top in all the right ways, stopping short of Crank level histrionics, but thankfully going a lot further than many of today's PC influenced sober snoozefests.Final Rating – 6.5 / 10. I can't say that it is that great a movie, but you'll never be bored, and the film pulls out all the stops to hold your attention, even if for much of the time your eyes are bugged and you are mouthing 'Really?' incredulously.I liked Ricochet as a gormless kid in my late teens, I am pleased to say I enjoyed it almost as much today, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.

Rodrigo Amaro In "Ricochet" a dangerous man escapes from prison with the sole purpose of getting revenge on the man who put him behind bars many years ago. John Lithgow plays Earl and he goes on a limitless hunt trying to destroy the reputation of the former cop, now a respected district attorney played by Denzel Washington. Let's say that the formula of "Cape Fear" gets really twisted, really messy, at times outrageously funny trying to be very serious in here. What makes this movie worth viewing is the way the villain executes his plan of destroying the hero bit by bit without killing him, he makes better: he makes the honorable man looks like a crazy fool who'll lost respect of the society he helped to improve by condemning guys like Earl, and will try hard to get the love and respect of his family and friends. The plan was interestingly performed, things are quite surprising in this department and the film succeeds in this. It also succeeds with Lithgow playing an scary antagonist stealing the show from everybody, and Denzel does his routine acting, very good.However, this film cannot be viewed just for those things. The main problem of the film was some absurds put on the screen to make us impressed by the plot. And it's strange that director Russell Mulcahy and writer Steven E. De Souza (the future director of "Street Fighter") wants us to make not only shocked, entertained and all but also wants the audience to take this story seriously, but it's really hard to do that. Here's some moments and things that puts this film on a lower level: the violent jailbreak scene almost got right with the excess of violence (very unbelievable that prisoners would have access to such dangerous tools like a saw and would be fast enough to use right away on the guards); a sex tape being broadcasted on live TV in the morning (one of Lithgow's tricks against the hero), very laughable. But the one who is really absurd but was interesting to watch was the fight between Lithgow and another prisoner, both wearing an armor made of books glued with duct tape, where director Mulcahy recreates his famous fight in "Highlander". That would never happen in real life but it's sure funny to see that happening. It's hard not to laugh at some of those things and some even might find this a silly movie because of that; it loses all of its seriousness just to appeal to audiences.It certainly produces memorable moments, it's quite entertaining and it is very exciting. Don't expect much and don't even pay attention to the nonsense talk about the racial issues brought up by some mongoloids viewers who watched this film way over of what was proposed. Take a look at some of the amazing extravagances of 1990's cinema and enjoy it. 8/10

nelliebell-1 If there is an adult reading this particular comment please be advised though adults we are,it can be assumed that the ability to determine right from wrong is as well the difference in being able to determine how suitable this motion picture is for viewing.This film is not for a young audience and even more so it is so impure in its address of issues it may very well deserve a stricter consideration other than merely "R" as in Restricted.The wording of such a rated film says the following,"May contain very strong or sexual language,strong explicit nudity,strong violence and gore,or strong drug content".I would of preferred that this film was given a NC-17 rating due to the very disturbing assumptions placing children in harms way.It is a very perverse offering and should not be viewed by younger persons at least any younger than 17 years of age.Though the controversy here is not in the rated category,that category being"Restricted", The contoversy here is that perhaps there is to much of a certain element present whereby this type of consideration is encouraged.There should not be any attempt expressed or otherwise that would allow this perverse intent to breathe,a NC-17 rating would of accomplished that.It is that there is too often politics that make for the allowances of such as this particular motion picture provides for in both its content as well as in its not being more strictly defined.That being said it is only rated "Restricted".If there was a "0" value available I would of given this particular motion picture a zero value as it represents a worthless offering.I would rather not know of its existence however as I suggested I think there was some Hollywood politics that allowed this kind of assault to occur.The assault is that this film was rated "R" and not NC-17.The following is being provided as a reference as it pertains to the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system.There are two web sites that I will provide there URL addresses so that a better perhaps understanding of the Rating System can occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system There is but one final note. This is not in any way to be assumed that these referred to web sites nor in fact is this review itself to be so construed as providing any consent nor any willfil participation in this motion picture, in its meaning,value or intent.This is a hands off motion picture.It may very well serve notice as to be a threat.