Hard

Being a new detective can be hard. And surrounded by a group of narrow-minded, homophobic cops, Detective Raymond Vates finds it even harder. Deciding to keep it a secret to his fellow men, he and his new partner Tom Ellis starts to investigate the murder of a young boy. Pretty soon it becomes clear that they have a serial killer on their hands.

Hard portrays one of the most realistic serial killers I've ever seen in a movie. There's no doubt that they borrowed a lot from Jeffrey Dahmer (especially one scene in a car is very similar to something Dahmer did), because Malcolm Moorman's Jack is intriguing, manipulative and extremely self-centered. Sure, he doesn't run around with a chainsaw or build enormous killing machines. No, Jack is just like any other guy, which makes it even more frightening.

The mere fact that we get to see so much of the killer lends a new perspective to the story where one has to admire his manipulative games. The acting for this side of the story is very impressive. Moorman is fantastic and Michael Waite is very convincing as the insecure man who lets Jack into his family's home, and his bed.

While these characters are very well developed and easy to relate to in one way or the other, I do feel something is lacking in the police department, so to speak. The gay detective, played by Noel Palomaria, is somewhat hard to relate to and even though he's going through, basically, all the circles of hell there is, you don't really feel that bad for him.

Even so, this is a brilliant movie that any fan of thriller and drama should watch. It's not predictable, it's very interesting and never boring. It has been labeled a gay movie, and while there's a lot of just that, this is by no means close to anything coming from the gay-cinema movement. It's not a gay movie. It's a thriller. And, quite frankly, one of the best and most interesting I've come across so far.

Here's the cold, hard truth about John Hukert's "Hard": it is arguably the best film featuring a Gay lead character, and may very well be the only the film that features a Gay hero who also happens to be Hispanic. In my book, the lead, Ramon Vates, played by Noel Palomaria, is an instant icon for those Gay Hispanic men looking for visibility on the silver screen.

The story is simple: Ramon Vates, a rising star in the Los Angeles police department, is promoted to detective. His first assignment: to catch a psychopathic pedophile who serially kills young, Gay Caucasian male prostitutes. Vates, played effectively by Noel Palomaria, is himself Gay but desperately trying to keep his professional and personal life apart; it is a struggle he continually loses.

Vates' antagonist, Jack, wonderfully fleshed out by Malcolm Moorman, is the serial killer who is completely devoid of sympathy and single minded in his goal to kill and/or maim anyone and everyone who he comes into contact with regardless of their age or sex.

Hukert's directing may be a freshman outing, but it's a good one. I thought that Noel Palomaria had the more difficult job of trying to play a man disoriented by his burgeoning sexual identity which he continually tries to distance and keep from overwhelming him. Moorman's job as an actor was simple: No one is safe.

I also believe that Huckert's treatment of the actors translated well into the actor's treatment of the characters, respectful without being judgmental. I came away from the film feeling contented that sexual identity was not explained with casual, campy humor and bland caricatures.

Noel Palomaria and Malcom Moorman, visually, are an interesting pair to watch. Palomaria imbues his character's eyes with surprising adolescent earnestness; Moorman engenders his character's eyes and facial features with relentless malice: he was born to deceive as much as the other was born to be truthful. Their first meeting is fraught with palpable tension.

If Huckert's casting was accidental, it was an incredible stroke of luck; if it was planned, his tactic and strategy deserves much admiration.

Ultimately, however, if there is any fault that this piece has to bear it is probably lighting and cinematography. For some reason, in my mind I thought that the cinematographer and lighting could have worked better together. For some reason, I got the feeling as though there was a struggle between the camps--much in the same way that Palomaria's and Moorman's characters struggle with one another. That struggle is a distraction and the only reason that I did not rate the movie greater than the 9 stars I have assigned it.

Finally, Hukert's "Hard" attempts to undo the damage that William Friedkin wrought with his film, "Cruising", that suggested, minimally, that if you're Gay, there's already something wrong with you; a Gay man, pursuant to Friedkin's film, is sexually insatiable and deviant; he cannot be anything else but flawed.

Huckert's outing attempts and successfully draws the line between being Gay and being a sexual predator.

Moorman's Jack is a pedophile, a sick and twisted version of a man, homosexual sex for him is a by-product of his madness and offers no love.

Sex for Jack is an extension of his madness, and that extension, in every scene, is an exertion of power before he devours them. Only Palomaria's Vates manages to navigate Jack's abyss and avoid complete submersion.

My recommendation is that if you can find "Hard", watch it and watch it again. There is more than meets the eye upon secondary viewing, and my only wish is that "Hard" be shown to a much wider audience than the typical film festival circuit to give this important film the attention it deserves.

"Hard" is about the hard life & times of its characters, and its is hard to watch. I generally don't like murder movies, and definitely don't like graphic violence, blood & gore. But, I liked this movie.

The version I saw was the 2005 re-released DVD Directors Uncut Version, unrated. Some of the sex and violence scenes edited out of the theatrical release are restored. Pretty good production quality. Some of the acting can be wooden. Certainly not the most pleasant movie I ever watched, but was one of the most interesting.

As other reviewers indicate, it's a movie about a gay serial killer and his pursuit by a closeted gay policeman. The message is about homophobia and self loathing. I recommend you give it a try, but don't watch it alone late at night!

Hard is about a gay serial killer and the gay detective who is forced to go after him. It has an interesting story: the closeted gay detective is abruptly forced out of the closet after the killer handcuffs him to his bed and makes off with his badge. He then becomes a suspect himself... and all that.

The script needed to be revised one or two more times. The strong plot twist and themes are too muddled here to really come across well, and many of the main character's actions are STOOPID. (For instance, this man, supposedly a detective, who has just endured a long ordeal with a serial killer, opens his door for anyone who says "pizza"-- when he didn't even ORDER a pizza! It was like an unintentional parody of the Saturday Night Live "Land Shark" routine. I personally thought he should be killed). There is a good moment when he and his partner are under a bridge where they aren't supposed to be when a body falls out of nowhere-- but this is never really developed. And for every moment like that there are three lines like "Where does all the hate come from?" This film had a strong idea and good elements, just needed to tie them together better.

The second HUGE problem is that very few of the people on screen can act. The two leads are relatively good, but the rest-- whew. The worst is the detective's partner, who cannot utter one single convincing line. At first I thought he was just being ironic. But no. There are times in this film when you just hold the sides of your temples. THE performance of the film belongs to the guy who plays Tex. I want someone to make "The Tex Story" now. He was the funniest and most convincing character in the film.

This film CAN be lauded for not being overly politically correct, for showing butcher gay men (who seem to never show up in other films), and for generally being brave and different, but there ARE a bunch of hideous clichés. Naturally, when the detective comes out, he MUST be beaten up. It's just the way, isn't it? And a lot of the angst over coming out is a little too played up, I think.

I WOULD recommend that you see it, if you're gay and interested in keeping up with gay film-- because this is the first film of this kind that I have seen, and very different from the typical "two-schoolboys-in-love -- but-can-they-tell-his-mother?" fare. And the production quality is generally good. But... the gay Scorsese is still out there, undiscovered.

--- Check out website devoted to bad, cheesy and gay movies: www.cinemademerde.com

A serial killer terrorizes and kills young gay men, urban drifters whom society couldn't care less about. And therein lies a clue to the killer's motivation, at least in part. "Hard" is not a whodunit, although, as a result of the film's editing, the identity of the killer is not revealed officially until almost halfway into the film. Up to that point, the killer, at least in theory, could be any of several people. There's also some intentional plot misdirection with regard to another character. Indeed, I think the film would have been stronger as a full-fledged whodunit, with all kinds of plot twists and turns. As is, the film reveals too much, too soon and, as a result, forgoes a sense of mystery and some suspense.

Even with a less than ideal plot, the film does a great job of conveying a sense of danger, especially toward the end. The visuals are dark, and when combined with sinister background music, create a tone that is menacing and foreboding. The finale takes place in an old, unused theater, and its creepy basement with wet floors, a holding place for previous victims. Here, at night, the cops close in. A beam of flashlight, a dilapidated stage, some rickety scaffolding, all that inky darkness, the perfect lair for a psychopath.

The film has suffered some bad press because the subject matter is not politically correct. There are lots of violent images, though very little in the way of violent action. The film also has a lot to say about police attitudes toward gays.

Edgy and cinematically risky, "Hard" grapples with difficult images and ideas. It isn't for everyone, in the same sense that the 1980 film "Cruising" was not for everyone. But even on a shoestring budget, "Hard" is a well-made film. It's an intriguing film, one that's best seen late at night, when all the lights are out.