Ricochet (1991)

People are voting emotionally.

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Absolutely Fantastic

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The Problem Here is Tone. It Wanders and Waivers at the Drop of a Profanity. The Movie is Vile and Then Cute and Cuddly. There are Individual Set Pieces that are Effective and Brutal and There are Scenes that are Cringe Inducing, Like a Switch of Allegiance with a Backstory that is Barely Hinted and Does Not Ring True.Denzel Washington and John Lithgow are the Right Actors in the Right Roles but are Betrayed by the Lame Script, Inept Storytelling, and a Style that is Pedestrian. It can be a Guilty Pleasure for Sure, but that Only Reinforces the Mishandling of the Material and a Result of Rubbernecking at Powerful Actors being Prostituted for Cheap Thrills. Kevin Pollak is Wasted in a Sleepwalking Role.The Movie Works at Times but Unravels So Often it is a Frustrating Film that Never Finds its Legs and is Herky-Jerky the Way it Fluctuates its Presentation. The Third-Act is the Worst of the Three as Characters Betray Their Previous Personas and Become Cattle Herded Into the Slaughterhouse for a Cheesy Conclusion.Yes, the Whole Movie is Cheesy but Not as Smelly as the Completely Clunky Ending.

Aside from being adept flick with so intense elements, it's most of all important. Whereas it's a climax for all the chain of the blockbusters that (Steven E. de Souza) wrote at the whole 1980s : (48 Hrs. - 1982), (Commando - 1985), (The Running Man - 1987), (Die Hard - 1988), (Die Hard 2 - 1990), and further than that it sets, in the same time, a new character for the action, thriller movies in Hollywood during more than 10 years ahead.Look closer. Why the need for seeing (Denzel Washington) stripping to his underwear or setting nude among his buddies at the locker room in the police station (let me put the !! before the ??). The answer is : simply to attract the ladies. Millions of them. Add to that one adventurous noble hero, one so smart so maniac criminal who kills only in uniquely fierce ways (a character that the whole decade will be very fond of), plus the horrible language, the continuous action, the unstoppable killings, and the truly explosive pace, then you'll have the main keys for lots and lots of big and loud movies during the 1990s. It's like a novel (Dirty Harry) of the 1970s, yet Post-(Die Hard) of the 1980s; with endless breathtaking cliffhangers. But this one in specific managed brilliantly to be satirical as well.The smartest point in (de Souza)'s script is that it has among all of this highly commercial goods a commentary about the media that can raise a man or destroy him just like that as a powerful magical mirror that, unfortunately, doesn't always tell the truth. Being an attractive movie and handling a case also is a great formula, it could be the greatest at all; it made (The Running Man) 4 years ago also for the same gifted screenwriter.Director (Russell Mulcahy) who came, naturally, from the music video world mobilizes here all the elements through what seemed eventually like naked electric wire. This raw feel, eerie atmosphere, and bundle of nerves weren't made as chintzy or dully. Actually the acute cuttings with never-immobile camera, plus strong presence for hot colors all the time-made it as so condensed, absorbing and snazzy music video. Good cinematic one, yet not brainless and it didn't lose the actors' performance in the way. This fresh directing and this kind of intelligent scripts will be both missed in (Mulcahy)'s next works during the 1990s, from half bad (The Real McCoy - 1993), to simply bad (Resurrection - 1999) he unfortunately ended up sinking in bottomless TV or V works in the 2000s.As for the character of the evil man; in the same year of (1991) there were some original milestones : a ritual serial killer (The Silence of the Lambs), a genius psycho (Ricochet), or a metallic undefeatable one (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), amazingly the 3 were produced in the same year marking or rather defining a new generation of evil men in the American action movies, as frantic, inhuman, and cartoonish. So ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 1990s, the bloody, showy, crazily violent 1990s. However in a good, somehow enjoyable, way this time. Because (Ricochet) is surely one of the sanest crazy violent movies that stroked the decade.

If there is an adult reading this particular comment please be advised though adults we are,it can be assumed that the ability to determine right from wrong is as well the difference in being able to determine how suitable this motion picture is for viewing.This film is not for a young audience and even more so it is so impure in its address of issues it may very well deserve a stricter consideration other than merely "R" as in Restricted.The wording of such a rated film says the following,"May contain very strong or sexual language,strong explicit nudity,strong violence and gore,or strong drug content".I would of preferred that this film was given a NC-17 rating due to the very disturbing assumptions placing children in harms way.It is a very perverse offering and should not be viewed by younger persons at least any younger than 17 years of age.Though the controversy here is not in the rated category,that category being"Restricted", The contoversy here is that perhaps there is to much of a certain element present whereby this type of consideration is encouraged.There should not be any attempt expressed or otherwise that would allow this perverse intent to breathe,a NC-17 rating would of accomplished that.It is that there is too often politics that make for the allowances of such as this particular motion picture provides for in both its content as well as in its not being more strictly defined.That being said it is only rated "Restricted".If there was a "0" value available I would of given this particular motion picture a zero value as it represents a worthless offering.I would rather not know of its existence however as I suggested I think there was some Hollywood politics that allowed this kind of assault to occur.The assault is that this film was rated "R" and not NC-17.The following is being provided as a reference as it pertains to the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system.There are two web sites that I will provide there URL addresses so that a better perhaps understanding of the Rating System can occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_rating_system There is but one final note. This is not in any way to be assumed that these referred to web sites nor in fact is this review itself to be so construed as providing any consent nor any willfil participation in this motion picture, in its meaning,value or intent.This is a hands off motion picture.It may very well serve notice as to be a threat.

You know what they say about sex. Well, the same applies to Denzel Washington. Even a bad Denzel flick is better than no Denzel flick.I'm not saying this is a bad flick, but the story line is pretty predictable. The racial overtones, the rough language, the hard action - all in Denzel's films, but in others it is a little more polished.John Lithgow plays the criminal out to get revenge and boy, is he scary! I wouldn't want him after me. he makes Hannibal Lecter look saintly.And, for those fans out there that like having a rapper in their movies, we have Ice-T. Totally cool!