Critics are savaging the Bruce Willis starrer Hostage with some of the most virulent reviews of the year. The first paragraph of Stephen Holden's review in the New York Times reads: "More than sad, it's slightly sickening to consider the technology, talent and know-how squandered on Hostage, a pile of blood-soaked toxic waste dumped onto the screen in an attempt to salvage Bruce Willis's fading career as an action hero." Lou Lumenick in the New York Post asks, "Is the overbearing thriller Hostage a warm-up for Bruce Willis' fourth Die Hard movie -- or an attempt to hype his flagging career by revisiting past glories?" Carrie Rickey of the Philadelphia Inquirer comments: "In a singularly sadistic and degrading way it has something to offend everyone." Bob Longino in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution calls it "moviemaking by sledgehammer." Glenn Whipp in the Los Angeles Daily News describes it as "an overstuffed exercise in gore and stupidity that will leave your ears ringing and your eyes rubbed raw from disbelief." On the other hand, Willis has the reliably contrarian Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times on his side. He writes: "Made with energetic flair and no small dose of violence, mercifully handled with discretion, Hostage exemplifies taut, confident filmmaking. Bruce Willis draws upon the full measure of his strong physical presence, his intelligence and his considerable emotional resources held in reserve."
I've never been much of a Willis fan. The DIE HARD role of John McClane fit him well, but many of his other movies have missed for me: ARMAGEDDON, BLIND DATE, HUDSON HAWK, THE FIFTH ELEMENT...I have the novel HOSTAGE on the shelf. What's readers' consensus on it?
2 comments:
Then again, Roger Evert loved it.
Was your namesake, Dispatch Officer Sarah Weinman, in the movie?
Post a Comment