"Hudson Hawk" is not so much a story about itself, but about other action-adventure films -- almost any one you can think of, but most significantly "North by Northwest" (with a bit of "It Takes a Thief" thrown in). * As its only purpose is to make self-aware references to other films, why should the viewer be interested? If the movie's creators don't take the material seriously -- why should we?"North by Northwest" is hardly a serious film. The climactic scene on Mount Rushmore is //intended// to be ridiculous, a parody of Hitchcock thrillers. ** It gets away with this silliness by doing a slow build in which the normalcy and predictability of everyday life are gradually stripped away. What ought to be absurd is accepted as realistic.You can't have a film that's ridiculous/absurd from the beginning -- unless it's an obvious farce ("Airplane!") or a Warners cartoon. "Hudson Hawk" is neither.There are moments of real humor, especially one involving a ketchup bottle. But these are too few and far between to even begin to save the film. (As Rossini said of Wagner... "Great moments, but terrible half-hours.")For what it's worth, Michael Lehmann's direction is superb -- perfectly paced and timed. It's hard to imagine this film being worse than it is -- but it could have been.* If this isn't obvious, note that James Coburn's character is named George Kaplan.** The working (tongue-in-cheek) title was "The Man in Lincoln's Nose". Roger Thornhill's matches bear the monogram ROT -- rot -- and Thornhill says the O "stands for nothing".

Hudson Hawk is Bruce Willis' pet project in which he plays a world renown cat-burglar. Fresh out of jail, Hudson Hawk is forced to do a job by the mafia with his best friend Tommy. This one last job however spirals out of control and leads the Hawk all the way to Italy. Here he steals the works of Leonardo Da Vinci and unknowingly becomes part of a world domination plot by the CIA and a wealthy family.I've never heard of this movie until last night. My friend had recommended it saying that it was one of his favorites growing up. Being a fan of most Bruce Willis movies I decided to give it a try. After shaking off that skeptical feeling I have to say that from the beginning to the end I was hysterically laughing. The acting is over the top, the dialog is awful, the script is plot-hole riddled, but it delivers an effect that keeps the audience laughing. It's like a movie that's playing with the Indiana Jones adventure style of film making and spoofing it. However, it's hard to tell if the filmmakers of Hudson Hawk made these jokes intentionally. It is questionable whether the movie is a self-parody, or just an action-adventure made very poorly. For example the character of Hudson Hawk is clearly the worst cat-burglar around, despite his reputation. He sings loud jazz music through heists, skateboards past guards and takes his sweet time to open up a safe. It's clear that Hudson Hawk is anything but a professional, and it is hilarious to the audience to see him act so outlandish. The film might be doing this on purpose, but sometimes it seems that it's not aware it's doing this at all. Is this is a clever spoof movie, or a movie that just went hilariously wrong and is great to poke fun at?

At the time of release this film was poorly reviewed by critics who mistook it for a straight up action film with comedic pretensions. It is, in fact a straight up farce in the manner of Mel Brooks classics such as "Blazing Saddles" or "High Anxiety" - it even has musical numbers!That critics could fail to see this is perplexing, when many of them are educated men and women, with one would assume, a functioning sense of humor. It goes to show how big an effect expectations have upon a film.I don't think anyone watching today could fail to see that Hudson Hawk is a slapstick, knockabout comedy with some very entertaining characters, a unique idea and a very original and worthwhile film.Many people object that the plot is rambling and disconnected. Of course the 'plot' is ludicrous - but the plot matters about as much as the plot of "Young Frankenstein" or "Monty Python & the Holy Grail". It simply serves to set the scene for comedy sketches and throwaway gags, many of which are hilarious and inventively surreal.If this were billed as "Terry Gilliams" Hudson hawk, I think it would have done much better in critical circles. Written as it was by Bruce Willis, they were obviously more predisposed to dismiss it.All in All Hudson Hawk is an overlooked comedy classic full of inventive fun.Hudson

We would have been so much better off if the film had remained where it started-circa 1481 with Da Vinci trying out his flying machine.Instead, we're relegated to modern times with thief, Bruce Willis, is released from prison only to get involved with a bunch of the weirdest crooks imaginable in their attempt to steal Da Vinci items at various museums so as to achieve world domination.The picture becomes one of foolish comedy with a variety of slap-stick sketches, where Willis and co-star Andie McDowall along with Danny Aiello try to outwit the nonsensical thieves. We even have a Roman priest uttering Jewish expressions.The whole thing is just one big farce.