My first title was "I love the 1980s, but not to this extent!". On second thought, I found that this is a bit harsh and mean to this movie.
It got a fine ground for: a funny revenge story, the kid who beats the monster; or the playful resistant who beats the unjust sheriff, and the suppressed objections against a reign when go off by a hero to overthrow it. However, the dealing wasn't as fine.
For all the time, you're asking yourself: where is this plot going to?! It's nothing but one practical joke after another. I thought that the lead would go and investigate the corruption of the mayor deeply with a game of many disguises, exposing more evidences every step ahead. But sorry. All what we had was just exposing for (Zimmerman Flew and Tyler Knew) for endless times! The enemy / the mayor looked so nice and helpless more than menacing or tough which weakened the conflict utterly. His men were talking more than doing, seeming old and defeated without anything to fight with; so more weakness for the conflict. Actually all of that turned the movie into the dullest, most boring, Robin Hood story ever!
Moreover, an annoying question: How the young lead could pull off all of these tricks, to sneak into highly guarded places many times without anybody seeing him?! We didn't have the chance to watch him carefully while doing that. Seriously, that could have made some thrilling scenes instead of a torpid sequence of photos! Then the matter of the climax. The mayor was finished anyway, so what this last move was going to add? It looks perfectly goofy. And what's the motive to kill Turk AND opposite to hundreds of witnesses, let alone all of these TV cameras as well?? And after the end, sure that Turk would be prosecuted for deforming the city, so how about bringing back his brother's lost rights?!
So by now, it'll be cruel already to talk about things like the role of the heroine and how it was so empty, to sound eventually like an extra. For example, why she wasn't the mayor's daughter? Or at least a girl from his staff who believes in him then gets sympathetic with Turk's case?!! Anyway, I won't do this scriptwriter's work for him. Simply there had to be a love interest anyway, and they did it.. anyway. Generally, this script wanted a lot, but truly what it wanted the most was some reformation!
The second killer element was the lead himself. (Timothy Hutton) ranged between blank, bland and idiot, missing the charisma and the credibility. He was throwing his good lines badly, acting so uninterestingly like he's in a cold rehearsal. This is a Razzie worthy material folks (to a degree where I suspected it was deliberate!).
In totally painful irony, the supporting role of the brother went to the one who got the charisma, the talent and the wit (Robert Urich). This man assured here that he was undoubtedly a good actor, and one of the unluckiest too. True that he would be saved by being cast as the lead role in the TV hit series, and one of my favorites, (Spenser: for Hire) in the same year, but to tell you the truth, still (Turk 183!) is his better work as an actor I have ever seen, if not the best, in spite of the fact that his cinematic career was dead and gone after it. It kills me even more when he got nominated for the Razzie of the worst supporting actor for his super performance in here, while in the same year (Jon Voight) got nominated for the Oscar of the best actor for his disastrous performance in (Runaway Train). This is a mystery for me. A real provocative one!
Technically speaking, it's only the editing at the last sequence which celebrated the lead to an exaggerated extent that bothered me. Because aside from that, the directing was so intense and attractive. The image looked bright and sharp. And there was a sweet lovable spirit all over the movie. Nevertheless, director (Bob Clark)'s name was related to some of the most infamous movies like (Rhinestone - 1984), (Loose Cannons - 1990), and (Baby Geniuses - 1999). Well, sometimes the director's taste for not-so-good scripts, while leading his actors clearly bad, can destroy him!
Although it got a well-meaning goal, but it isn't well made, having a miscast as a lead. Plus it doesn't stand a chance in front of its competitors in the same year: (Back to the Future), (Brazil), (Mask), (Rambo: First Blood Part II), (White Nights), and (The Goonies). But it's still watchable and nice compared to the year's horrible pieces: (Rocky IV), (Legend), (Death Wish 3), and yes.. (Runaway Train)!
The most interesting thing about this movie is that it was made. In the 1980s, there was a room for little goofy and childish movies such as this one. The executives were having the carriage to make a product with no-star, no-nudity, and no-explosion. It is a feel good movie from the 1980s, with its distinct innocent entertainment. Now, you have to feel real good about that apart.
It got a fine ground for: a funny revenge story, the kid who beats the monster; or the playful resistant who beats the unjust sheriff, and the suppressed objections against a reign when go off by a hero to overthrow it. However, the dealing wasn't as fine.
For all the time, you're asking yourself: where is this plot going to?! It's nothing but one practical joke after another. I thought that the lead would go and investigate the corruption of the mayor deeply with a game of many disguises, exposing more evidences every step ahead. But sorry. All what we had was just exposing for (Zimmerman Flew and Tyler Knew) for endless times! The enemy / the mayor looked so nice and helpless more than menacing or tough which weakened the conflict utterly. His men were talking more than doing, seeming old and defeated without anything to fight with; so more weakness for the conflict. Actually all of that turned the movie into the dullest, most boring, Robin Hood story ever!
Moreover, an annoying question: How the young lead could pull off all of these tricks, to sneak into highly guarded places many times without anybody seeing him?! We didn't have the chance to watch him carefully while doing that. Seriously, that could have made some thrilling scenes instead of a torpid sequence of photos! Then the matter of the climax. The mayor was finished anyway, so what this last move was going to add? It looks perfectly goofy. And what's the motive to kill Turk AND opposite to hundreds of witnesses, let alone all of these TV cameras as well?? And after the end, sure that Turk would be prosecuted for deforming the city, so how about bringing back his brother's lost rights?!
So by now, it'll be cruel already to talk about things like the role of the heroine and how it was so empty, to sound eventually like an extra. For example, why she wasn't the mayor's daughter? Or at least a girl from his staff who believes in him then gets sympathetic with Turk's case?!! Anyway, I won't do this scriptwriter's work for him. Simply there had to be a love interest anyway, and they did it.. anyway. Generally, this script wanted a lot, but truly what it wanted the most was some reformation!
The second killer element was the lead himself. (Timothy Hutton) ranged between blank, bland and idiot, missing the charisma and the credibility. He was throwing his good lines badly, acting so uninterestingly like he's in a cold rehearsal. This is a Razzie worthy material folks (to a degree where I suspected it was deliberate!).
In totally painful irony, the supporting role of the brother went to the one who got the charisma, the talent and the wit (Robert Urich). This man assured here that he was undoubtedly a good actor, and one of the unluckiest too. True that he would be saved by being cast as the lead role in the TV hit series, and one of my favorites, (Spenser: for Hire) in the same year, but to tell you the truth, still (Turk 183!) is his better work as an actor I have ever seen, if not the best, in spite of the fact that his cinematic career was dead and gone after it. It kills me even more when he got nominated for the Razzie of the worst supporting actor for his super performance in here, while in the same year (Jon Voight) got nominated for the Oscar of the best actor for his disastrous performance in (Runaway Train). This is a mystery for me. A real provocative one!
Technically speaking, it's only the editing at the last sequence which celebrated the lead to an exaggerated extent that bothered me. Because aside from that, the directing was so intense and attractive. The image looked bright and sharp. And there was a sweet lovable spirit all over the movie. Nevertheless, director (Bob Clark)'s name was related to some of the most infamous movies like (Rhinestone - 1984), (Loose Cannons - 1990), and (Baby Geniuses - 1999). Well, sometimes the director's taste for not-so-good scripts, while leading his actors clearly bad, can destroy him!
Although it got a well-meaning goal, but it isn't well made, having a miscast as a lead. Plus it doesn't stand a chance in front of its competitors in the same year: (Back to the Future), (Brazil), (Mask), (Rambo: First Blood Part II), (White Nights), and (The Goonies). But it's still watchable and nice compared to the year's horrible pieces: (Rocky IV), (Legend), (Death Wish 3), and yes.. (Runaway Train)!
The most interesting thing about this movie is that it was made. In the 1980s, there was a room for little goofy and childish movies such as this one. The executives were having the carriage to make a product with no-star, no-nudity, and no-explosion. It is a feel good movie from the 1980s, with its distinct innocent entertainment. Now, you have to feel real good about that apart.