KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

philosopherjack During his rather brief but glorious heyday, Arthur Penn seemed incapable of generating a merely functional scene; his work was at once thrillingly intimate and engaged and yet full of weighted, often melancholy implication. His work has the quality of a cinematic barometer - at its most vivid in the sixties; silent for much of the misbegotten seventies and then disillusioned and wayward; and then never fully himself from the eighties onward, as if America had lost its power to stimulate. Target is no doubt one of his least-cherished films, although by some measures (the more conventional ones) it's among his most proficient - it's seamlessly plotted, compellingly paced and entirely on top of its action scenes, especially the car chases. Gene Hackman's Walter Lloyd is a small-town lumber yard owner, so boring he won't even accompany his wife on a European vacation, until she disappears and he heads over with his son (Matt Dillon) in search of her: the first dead body shows up at the baggage claim, heralding Walter's past identity as a CIA Cold War super-operative, the detritus of which now provides a resurgent threat. Hackman is surely in tune with the broader idea, that however much the 80's might have seemed like a time of settling and resignation, nothing had been resolved; the surface might still crack both for worse (undermining all concepts of stability and predictability) and for better (Walter's resurrection of his buried self, and the consequent rewrite of his relationship with his son, portends a healthier and more vibrant future for the family). It's no surprise of course that the peril turns out to be caused by rot within the system, by duplicity and weak character. I suppose the degree to which you think the climactic fire symbolizes a broader possibility of cleansing might depend on how optimistic you felt at the time about peak-Reaganism. But it seems certain that the younger Penn would have found stranger and groovier patterns in the flames.

grubbyjeans-1 I've read the comments about this movie and agree with many; however, I don't watch movies as a critic. I watch movies for enjoyment. Many reviewers commented on weaknesses in plot, or acting, or directing and while I share some of them, I'll offer what I tell my wife frequently when she observes a "hole" in a movie: "It's a movie". It isn't real life; the plot doesn't HAVE to be perfect. The movie DOES have to be enjoyable and I have thoroughly enjoyed this movie every time I've viewed it. I like the plot, I like the acting, and I'm a huge fan of Gene Hackman. His character offers probably my favorite line of all time: "If I see you again, I won't see you again".Just enjoy the movie and don't get so bent up over the small stuff.

Bob Stout I can't add too much that hasn't already been said. A 1985 film, the plot should be familiar to anyone with or without basic cable by now. Where this film shines is in the relationships between the characters and the quality of the acting. Mind you, the plot and action aren't shabby, either, despite some comments here to the contrary.Perhaps this is merely middle-age fantasy - how many middle aged dads (or moms) haven't had the fantasy of showing their sullen kids how cool they once were and could be again if necessary? I was fortunate not to have any sullen kids (or grandkids), but I've been in this guy's place and I recognized the looks on both faces. (OK, I was never a spy or anything so overtly cool, but I did have my moments.) The point is that there come inevitable times in the relationships between kids and parents when the kids suddenly realize that the old folks may have actually been cool before the kids even knew what cool was all about, and that's the heart of this film.Contrary to some comments, the plot is quite coherent with only a few holes which I won't elaborate. Some of the carping about plot points I've read here must have come from people lacking in either imagination or comprehension. The action is credible both in its pacing and execution. Not Arthur Penn's best film, but this is as much of an actor's film as a director's film.The acting is uniformly good, but Hackman holds the center of the film. If he weren't completely believable, the whole effort would fall apart. Matt Dillon gives a very good performance as Hackman's son/foil, but isn't in the same league. The usually reliable Josef Sommer gives a surprisingly weak performance - OK, but not up to his usual work. The late Herbert Berghof (husband of Uta Hagen and co-founder with her of the eponymously named HB acting studio) gives a master class in his portrayal of a truly sympathetic, tortured soul - not much screen time, but a real gem. Another standout is Viktoriya Fyodorova, who offers some of the films most poignant scenes as Hackman's love-who-might-have-been, who devotes herself to helping him and his son find his kidnapped wife.Highly recommended, but it won't really resonate with the kids...

nugent-2 Ever think your dad was boring? Really good movie, classic Gene Hackman. Nice twists from the start to the end. Great car chases. Who would have thought those tiny Eastern Euro cars could do so much? Development of relationship between Hackman and Dillon is good. Recommend a rental.