Hard (1998) User Reviews

"Hard" is aptly named

[ninetyninedegrees · 7/10 · 19 February 2005]

"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!

Admirable and unique no-budget serial killer thriller

[ThrownMuse · 6/10 · 6 April 2005]

A gay serial killer preys on young men that are in rough situations. A closeted cop gets promoted to detective and takes on this case. Unfortunately, after a night out at the bar, he ends up going home with the killer! You have to give it to this one for its original premise. It sounds a tad like "Cruising," but it is not as offensive as that film. Considering "Hard" had no budget (apparently, it was financed on a few credit cards and everyone involved worked for free), the average acting is (sometimes) forgivable and it is a well-made film. The violence is mostly implied and you see the nasty resulting images, which are certainly creepy enough. I saw the R-rated version (damn it!) and was annoyed that the screen faded to black during most of the sex scenes (except the one heterosexual one, of course).

"Hard" makes several attempts at social commentary, some of which are muddled and not entirely successful. The serial killer's motive is severe internalized homophobia. On the outside, he doesn't seem to have a problem with being gay, but he can't stand that American society treats Queer youth as disposable. So instead of doing something to change this, he disposes of the kids himself to save them from the abuse they'll face throughout their lives. Yeah, it is pretty ridiculous, especially considering he tortures his victims, many of which aren't even Queer youth. Related to this, but explored much more satisfactorily, the film portrays how difficult it is to be a gay cop, and the extreme homophobia that goes on in police departments. Much of the tension and suspense in this film, interestingly enough, comes from whether or not the lead character is going to out himself or be outed. Once he finally is, he is subjected to hatred and violence from his coworkers. I've read several accounts of things like this happening, but have never actually seen a film portray it, so "Hard" gets kudos for that. While it isn't always effective or successful as either a serial killer thriller or a social commentary, Hard does have its moments and is an admirable no-budge film.

My Rating: 6/10

Nice try, interesting, but ultimately silly and unbelievable

[johnxmackay · 6/10 · 26 December 2001]

A great idea... a gay thriller about a gay serial killer... and the production values are not bad... BUT... the lead actor who plays the cop is just terrible, and the serial killer is also not menacing enough. At the end, it's just a silly and laughable film with a good idea. Has some camp values though.

Credible Serial Killer Film

[Lechuguilla · 31 October 2007]

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.

Gay Rookie Detective Takes on Gay Serial Killer

[sf_fred · 4/10 · 4 December 2004]

I recently rented a DVD version of "Hard". There were some extras, most notably two commentary tracks and some Q&A sessions at gay film festivals. For me the most interesting part of the whole experience was listening to the ex-police advisors discuss the problems they had when their departments found out the advisors were gay. Examples from these experiences (harassment, beatings, no back-up, etc.) were on display in the film. If you rent the DVD, be sure to check out the extras.

The film-makers make the statement that they wanted to show how the police disregard low prestige victims (e.g., hustlers), how the police make life a misery for gay cops, how serial killers really behave, and depict the plight of street people in general. Well, hustlers and others just show up in time to be victims and then are turned to bloody messes. So the focus is really on police behavior and on the killer.

Several scenes, especially the torture and darkened interior scenes, are lit and photographed well. The victims all come across with some personality. The bad guy was the most effective actor. The rest of the adult actors were just OK. Pacing was all right. The protagonist is a closeted gay man who has just been promoted to detective; he has to learn some things the hard way.

Your liking of the movie will depend some on your own fantasies. The police environment and issues raised are useful for everybody to consider.

Disgusting mediocre violence

[jtuohini · 3/10 · 28 August 2000]

Hardly ever have I seen such a disgusting film as this. There are specially few factors which spoiled otherwise acceptable idea of this "gay" story:

First of all, violence. Why is it so necessary to offer the friends of cinema such a simplified view of horrors? Is it fault of the producer or the director to believe that audience is not capable to realize the activity of the killer without showing his victims miserable situation? Naïveté is always bad merit for a film, also this time.

Secondly the music. How on earth is it possible that music in this kind of a film can be like from MTV, again as naïve as possible. Pop music of lowest level. I naturally understand that there are persons who feel classical film music perhaps a bit too dull, but clearly discrepancy between audible and visual information was too great. One very good example of this is the sex act between the main actor and one of his one-night partners.

Also the lack of visual beauty reduces value of this "masterpiece"; I saw only few aesthetically interesting pictures during this a bit too long film. Acting was nothing special, story offered hardly anything but a glimpse of possibility to make a truly interesting cinematic work. A disappointing film indeed - or powerful, if the whole idea of making film is to have audience to feel something very strong (i.e. to loose idealism). This is one of the titles I hardly can forget.

An underrated, but powerful drama/action/adventure film.

[Boricuaex · 9/10 · 15 November 2005]

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.

Question About The Ending

[brando7604 · 3/10 · 3 January 2006]

So who is it in the basement whose head was missing from the shotgun blast?

How did he get away at the end to pick up the Army kid?

It was an okay movie. Kinda slow and drags.

The villain and the rookie's partner are the only decent actors in the movie.

I give it kudos for trying something more, but overall it is a slow/rookie attempt at an interesting concept.

One other issue I had was the rookie cop is kind of an ass; you don't really feel sympathetic for him. (at least i didn't)

Thought Provoking

[planetxbrain · 8/10 · 17 April 2005]

Hard is one of those independent films that keeps you thinking long after the film is over. Exploring two segments of our society - police and street hustlers - for whom violence is a frequent occurrence, the film poignantly shows the internal struggles of being gay in a straight world, and graphically shows the external results of society's indifferent attitude toward gay victims of violence. The attitudes and results can easily be extrapolated at some level to the experiences of other segments of American society - minorities, the religious right, even smokers. Human beings can ignore, and thereby endorse, the repression of other human beings, so long as the repression doesn't personally affect them.

Hard is beautifully shot, but a few flaws will jump out at you - a couple of clunker lines, some low-budget props. But if you ignore those and look at the underlying message, you'll find your time well spent. I'll take Hard, warts and all, over a perfectly made but brain-deadening Miss Congeniality any day.

If you're a serial killer and think the police are a bunch of jerks this movie was made for you.

[Catboys · 2/10 · 28 June 1999]

The serial killer and everyone associated with him are the best presented aspects of this twisted flick. He's the best actor in it, his victims are equally believable, his "friend and family" are just about right too. The detective, and everyone associated with him (his co-workers, friend, etc.) are right off cable access acting workshop. They stink. They drag the movie, which is already predictable, down deeper than the sick mind of the killer. On the "up" side, the production values are quite good. I've never seen such graphic sexual/violence. Half the theater (of gay men) walked out and yes, I did use the singular "friend" above for both characters who had no more than one friend each in life.

Needs one more revision and new actors

[iago-6 · 19 April 1999]

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

Garbage

[cb-spencer · 1/10 · 18 March 2008]

I gave this movie one star because no stars was not available. Poorly written, and even more poorly acted. The people reading the lines--not actors--sounded like they were reading them for the first time.

Dead-behind-the-eyes emotions abound in this steaming pile from a guy who has some serious issues. Seriously, John Huckert, you should seek professional help as soon as you can. And DEFINITELY before you write, produce, direct and give yourself a bit part in the next pile of crap.

I watched this with two other gay guys and we were entertained by making fun of the attempts of a gay man trying to show people how cops act. You are gay aren't you John Huckert? A self hating, straight fearing, never quite made it in life because your homosexuality has always been an issue gay man? STOP MAKING FILMS!!!

Please see something else. Go paint your house and watch it dry. Cut your lawn and watch it grow. Beat your face against a wall until you forget. This movie blows.....

Complete, utter garbage

[awerling · 1/10 · 28 March 2016]

I always feel bad for performers who do nudity for films that turn out as terrible as this one.

I mean, at least in this culture it seems, it's kind of a big deal to do that. You make yourself vulnerable to the world and you don't even get a good entry for your filmography.

Take a tired serial killer plot, add wooden acting, lots of nudity, sex and more sex, implications of torture and gore, and some shadowy warehouse scenes, and you have this movie. Oh yeah, toss in a severed penis for shock value.

HARD takes whatever shock it wants to impose on its audience and waters it down with cheap one-liners and unbelievable tension (as in, I don't buy it, I don't feel it).

And as for another review here, no, there is no comparison to Silence of the Lambs and DEFINITELY no comparison to Blue Velvet!

Dahmer on a road trip

[DiscoViolento · 9/10 · 27 December 2007]

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.

Good storyline, weak cast

[JEFFnYYZ · 4/10 · 29 May 1999]

This film had a late night screening at the InsideOut Fest in Toronto and had the audience laughing... in all the wrong places- just where does all the hate come from? n]

Interesting story, good (but uneven) script, decent photography, but the main problem was that other than "Jack", the rest of the cast were stiff and uninteresting. Maybe someone can get the funding together for a remake as there is lots of potential here...

"HARD" Lives, "HARD" Choices...

[cchase · 8/10 · 21 July 2009]

Newly-minted detective Raymond (aka "Ramon") Vates (Noel Palomaria) is walking a fine line between two worlds. A rookie promoted from the streets when another detective is caught 'in flagrante delicto' with a dead hooker (and is equally as dead as she is, by the way), Vates must learn to live and work with the jaded, nihilistic, testosterone-laden meatheads who are his colleagues, while he conceals his biggest secret: he himself is gay.

He somehow manages to walk with one foot in both worlds, until a series of murders he is investigating with his new partner, Det. Tom 'Lucky' Ellis, (Charles Lanyer), brings his entire world crashing down. He's taunted, enraged, aroused and entranced by an alleged witness named Jack (the disturbingly good Malcolm Moorman), whom he picks up in a bar for a night of wildly passionate sex. When he wakes up, though, he discovers that Jack isn't merely the "screw-and-run" type. No, more like "screw-run-and-kill". Because he reveals himself to a handcuffed Vates to be the serial killer that he and Lucky have been hunting, just before he steals the captive detective's badge and issues a challenge: Can Ray face what he fears most - being exposed to the department and to the world as a gay cop? Because that's exactly what it will take to catch the deranged Jack.

From the very first scene, HARD immediately lets you know that it's not going to be your average gay thriller, and with its harsh message sharply delivered like a ball-peen hammer blow to the solar plexus, it goes way beyond the trappings of a noxious thriller like William Friedkin's reviled CRUISING, which had similar things to say about homophobia and indifference, only with a more exploitative bent.

It probably helped me appreciate this movie all the more that I saw the 'new' "FRIDAY THE 13TH" remake beforehand. After ninety minutes of practically mindless wall-to-wall gratuitous sex and nudity, followed by the spectacle of cardboard characters I could care less about being made into human sushi, it was refreshing to see scenes that were a lot more intense and better acted, produced with what probably equaled the catering budget on "FRIDAY".

Sure, the acting wasn't exactly Oscar-caliber and the low-budget seams were definitely showing. But Noel Palomaria's Ray Vates is an earnest, hard-working guy who only wants to do his job to the best of his ability and maybe have a life beyond it without the risk of being persecuted, while Malcolm Moorman's Jack has turned his back on the slightest possibility of love, embracing instead the virulent hatred he feels society has for him and all his kind, using it as the weapon of choice to do "exactly what everyone wants him to do", and never feel any remorse about it whatsoever. More than any other actors in the film, Palomaria and Moorman's scenes together crackle with dangerous chemistry, which is a big part of why the film works.

Lanyer lends solid support as Lucky, while the other actors are pretty much stock company-level. But that's not the important thing. HARD delivers its message loud and clear for those open-minded and thoughtful enough to listen. It is not delivered in a polite, cultured or genteel way, but it's not supposed to be, and couldn't be in order to get people's attention. And it's my hope that more viewers will take notice, since what it has to say is more topical and timely now than ever before.

Malcolm Moorman, the actor that makes this movie good.

[TpaBart · 10/10 · 15 March 2006]

Having read the other comments on this film I can't but agree with most as to the content, production values, and excellence of this film with it's financially imposed limitations. The subject matter and tone of the film, unfortunately wouldn't have gotten the major studio funding. What is most interesting to me is the actor, Malcolm Moorman, who portrays the antagonistic character. Checking his file here, it appears that this was his only major role, as an actor. His performance was the most outstanding of all the actors involved. I had checked to see how I had missed him in other roles. If any actor should be seen more, in roles in any of the current TV shows, SUV, CSI, or any of their clones/versions, I would vote for him. The best job done in this highly interesting film was by him. He carried his role well, throughout the film, regardless of the financing, or time issues, he was the strongest actor through it all. His timing, his reactions and the nuances he gave the character were top rate. In spite of this, it seems that this is the only credit shown for him here, as an actor, other than a basic 'walk on' in another production. I would enjoy seeing much more of him.

It's hard to be gay cop indeed

[Dr_Coulardeau · 9/10 · 9 October 2007]

This is a film that goes deeper than it says and that hurts our consciousness a lot. The film shows what anti-gay feelings can lead human beings to. They first lead a lot of men to marry and then hide in some cupboard hoping the marriage will be enough to cover up reality. This hurts the wife and of course the kids who cannot accept that reality: a man is not only attracted by women. They then lead cops to some awful carelessness and even criminal sloppiness as soon as some homosexual is concerned: gay men have only one future in their minds, to die for their crime, only one crime, gay sex. Then they lead some people to get involved and even systematically active in the perspective of serial killing with a reasoning that can vary a lot but that always come back to the idea that serial killing is more or less good for the victims that are saved from their trashy lives, from their lives that are trashed by their being gay. The film tries to capture the horror of these murders from inside the mind of the serial killer, and from inside the mind of the young cop who has not come out of the cupboard yet and is confronted to the serial killer courting him, including with his murders, then to the hostility of his fellow cops when he comes out to enable the investigation to move on, and finally to the guilt he feels in himself as for his gayness, as for his attraction for the serial killer, as for the victims of this killer who he believes his following his love and his desire for him encouraged into performing more killings, proving himself through the deaths he stages and executes. Then what is left after the film? Not much except that it has revealed the hatred "normal" people and cops feel and express against gay men, it has revealed that this hatred will survive any kind of horror though no explanation is provided, and it stages up at the end the come back of the killer who was killed on the scene of his crimes, and it can start all over again. And that is the pessimistic lesson of the film. There is no hope. It will always be with us. It will always haunt us. It will always possess us. What? Our hatred for non-standard sexual behaviors.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

A noble effort with strong performances by Moorman and Waite.

[writeguy · 10/10 · 21 July 1999]

Hard, although somewhat flawed, is a noble effort by the director. It is beautifully shot and edited. The story is compelling until about 3/4 of the way through when, for me, it no longer seemed believable. The performance of Malcom Moorman, as Jack the serial killer, is, for the most part, chillingly convincing. And Michael Waite gives a wonderfully touching portrayal of the child-like Andy, the guy Jack moves in with.

Unique in One Aspect

[danteman · 9/10 · 25 May 2002]

A poorly-acted, melodramatic thriller, this movie does address the issue of homophobia on several levels (institutional, sexual/social and self), which in itself is commendable. And, in the process, it actually dares to depict onscreen a certain kind of sexually erotic cruelty which is unique to gay cinema (and about men as victims in general cinema; only Pasolini's Salo and Jarman's Sebastiane have anything similar), in that it makes certain indulgences to an admittedly small gay subculture's fascination with male sexual torture and violence. It does not shy away from showing scenes that some of us actually fantasize about, even though they are considered socially abhorrent and perverse, not to mention politically incorrect in the extreme. Willing to show full frontal naked male bondage and helplessness in the face of humiliating exposure, certain agony, or death, as well as to make implications about gruesomely severe, sexually directed sadism, this movie consciously uses very attractive actors and seems to want to tap into some deeply unpopular taboos that do occupy more than a few gay men's psyches, if only to make sure we understand the horror of such things and never actually cross over in our actions to the extent of the movie's killer. I read somewhere that they had a difficult time getting auditioning actors to fill some of the smaller "victim" roles because of the naked bondage and implied violence, so they used willing production assistants instead. The "dungeon" settings for the final sequence depict a very specific world that some extreme practitioners of transgressive S&M will definitely want to see.

Shocking, disturbing & ultimately unforgettable film

[calpunk11 · 9/10 · 10 July 2002]

Not since "Blue Velvet" has a movie fascinated & disturbed me at the same time. This film "Hard" combines elements from William Friedkin's "Cruising" and Johnathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs". If these memorable films captivated you then, I urge you to seek out this low-budget, yet engrossing flick. I guarantee you will either love it or despise it--just the way the now classic "Blue Velvet" was accepted. By the way, who is the distributor & why hasn't this film been brought to video or DVD?

Impressive and unexpected

[MOSSBIE · 12 February 2006]

If it weren't for the outraged conservative gay groups who made such a stink about films depicting homosexuality in a negative way, like CRUISING, more truthful films like this one, could have come along and had better budgets. For what is accomplished in HARD, with limited resources, is a very good, truthful, and thought provoking movie done with a lot more honesty than I expected. The acting, especially by the antagonist is dark and evenly good and sinister and succinct. It does not go into the area of having to justify his reasons for having become what he is. Some lines are incisive and brutally honest, while the obvious surfaces occasionally....but, life is just one great big background for clichés anyway. In its multi layered plot putting homophobia in second place, the director manages to make a psychotic thriller with some original twists and honest observations previously never employed for fear of upsetting the "gay moral majority". Too me, this is a sexy,violent and worthy of watching twice. To understand the amount of work it took to put this piece together, makes HARD all that more remarkable, and given a heftier budget,could have had some box office and made some bucks. This is definitely going to achieve "cult" status just for its daring.The lead actor is so good, he is probably responsible for holding the weaker cast believable.No "star" could have played him as well.

great movie!

[ejdiaz · 10/10 · 20 November 2001]

This movie was able to pull off a very difficult subject with great success. Imagine, a policeman getting sucked in by the very serial killer whose crimes the policeman is investigating. The topic in the story is horrific but its presentation proves that creativity is not dead.

Great film that deserves better release.

[guestar57 · 8/10 · 23 September 2007]

HARD (hardthemovie.com) From the people who brought you DINOCROC, lol ! This is one the best films I've ever seen.That having been said,Can It be recommended to the general audience ?If they like CSI, Yes.If they are open to hating violence against anyone,Yes.If the viewer is a fan of those current films that get a kick out of hurting innocents, YES (This film was made before that current spate of trash). This film succeeds at bringing the viewer on a journey to see the inner works of a serial killer who thinks way too much on hurting the obvious victims.

The camera work is great,The acting top notch…No amateurs.The release not so happy of an ending,They did what Hollywood cant do …Live the life of your characters to define realism in fiction. The extras were really great ,The press junket footage was eye-opening to the industry response to come. Cant wait for their next film: STRANGERS ONLINE !

HARD is a Riviting Graphic Indie Thriller Impressively Photographed

[comedyshorts-1 · 10/10 · 1 August 2007]

Every once in a while a Creative Crew make an Impressively Photographed Indie film. In this case, a low budget was the Mother of Creative invention to make this Graphic Thriller effective. The script was well written about a closeted Gay rookie detective Raymond Fates (Noel Palamaria) and his seasoned partner detective Tom Ellis (Charles Lanyer) who battle an intolerant police department that is indifferent to a series of brutal killings of young male hustlers. Kudos to all of you for tackling a difficult subject honestly. The acting ranged from OK to excellent with Malcolm Moorman hitting a home run in his portrayal of Jack a Psychopathic Sadistic Serial Killer of Runaways and Gay Hustlers.

After viewing the Unrated Widescreen DVD, I would Not Recommended it to those viewers who are sensitive to graphic violent situations or Gay subject matter. The extras had some interesting features including Commentary Tracks; Malcom Moorman screen test; and interviews with the film makers John Huckert, Noel Palomaria, and a must see interview with Technical Adviser Sgt. Mitch Grobeson.