Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

classicsoncall I guess with guys like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, you're either going to like them or hate them. Personally, I like them both and take their pictures for what they're worth - martial arts action and mayhem. "Hard to Kill" isn't very believable as a story, but the revenge theme is fired up to white hot, and Mason Storm (Seagal) is unstoppable in his quest to burn the bad guys. What I like about his fighting style is that it's generally realistic. It leaves out the fancy kicks and punches and simply goes for demolition with the least amount of energy expended. It goes with the whole 'superior attitude, superior state of mind' thing that exemplifies a character with perfect confidence in himself. I could try to be cute here and say you can take that to the bank, but with Seagal, you at least have an idea you'll get your money's worth.

SnoopyStyle There is some good stuff here. But we do need more Seagal action. The best thing is maybe the super hot Kelly LeBrock as a nurse. Can we get a sponge bath? Steven does some Eastern Medicine stuff, does some fighting, and you know.... Seagal needs to expand his acting skills. Or else they need to cover the bad acting with a funny sidekick or a lot of big action. At least they got LeBrock as a distraction.Mason Storm (Steven Seagal) films Senator Vernon Trent (William Sadler) in a compromising dockside conversation to corrupt cops. Then they come after him. His wife was killed, and they think they killed him, too. Unknown to them, he was only in a Coma. Seven years later, he comes out of the coma, and the senator comes after him again. Nurse Andy Stewart (Kelly LeBrock) is caught in the gunfight, and she helps Mason escape the hospital. This time, Mason need to take down the senator once and for all.

Scott LeBrun Good, straightforward actioner with Seagal in his second feature film vehicle (after debuting in "Above the Law"). He plays Mason Storm, an undercover detective who digs up some dirt on a mobster and a crooked politician, and receives multiple bullets to the chest as a result (turns out some of his fellow cops are crooked, too). His wife is murdered, and his son disappears. Meanwhile, he spends the next seven years in a coma, and when he awakens, he's ready to get his revenge. Efficient direction by Bruce Malmuth in this enjoyable diversion that gets right to the point, and delivers enough violence to keep us happy. It also gives us a smoking hot love interest in the form of luscious Kelly Le Brock (Seagal's wife at the time), as the nurse who takes an interest in him and helps him get back to prime ass kicking condition. The supporting cast is all quite capable, from the always fantastic William Sadler as the weaselly, cowardly senator (who should have known better than to give himself an identifiable catch phrase), Frederick Coffin as Storm's loyal old buddy O'Malley, Charles Boswell, Branscombe Richmond, Andrew Bloch, and Dean Norris as various corrupt detectives / thugs, and lovely Bonnie Burroughs as Storm's ill-fated wife. There are some amusing touches to this screenplay, as it initially takes place in 1983, during the night of the Academy Awards, and there's also Storm's reaction to the changes that have taken place, such as President George Bush, Sr.; his reaction to seeing Geraldo Rivera on TV is particularly funny. We also get to see Seagal with his hair down for once, and sporting a very nice moustache and beard (cultivated by the nurse during his coma). Then there's the opportunity to see Seagal play a character who's very vulnerable during one section of the movie, and who's obliged to orchestrate an escape using a handy mop. The pace never flags, and it's fun as always to see Seagal doing his thing, at least during these early years of his career where he really gave more of an effort. And the villains are wretched enough scum that we just can't wait to see them get what they deserve. A solid film of its type, "Hard to Kill" delivers the goods for fans of this genre.

DaRick89 There's not a great deal to say about Hard to Kill; it's a passable revenge thriller with obvious flaws, but this shouldn't necessarily put off action film buffs and most certainly not fans of Steven Seagal. Indeed, nobody would seriously expect great acting and plotting in your typical Seagal film: the moviegoers flock to see Seagal kick ass and take names (sometimes quite brutally). Hard to Kill certainly delivers this, with ample bone-breaking action scattered throughout the film. However, films don't usually deserve high ratings based on action alone; Hard to Kill is no different.Why? Well, there are many other flaws, starting with the plot. On a very basic level, the plot just about works; Mason Storm's (Seagal) family was torn asunder by assassins working for a corrupt senator and police lieutenant and he went into a 7-year long coma as a result. Now he wants revenge. Fair enough, I say.However, there are many obvious plot holes: if Storm's would-be killers were led to believe that Storm died 7 years ago, how did they know it was HIM that awoke from a coma? How did Seagal know that Jack Axel killed his wife if he was masked and O'Malley (Coffin) never told him? Would Senators REALLY meet with criminals directly? Why didn't Jack Axel try to shoot Storm in the hospital? The acting was also very much a mixed bag. Seagal is Seagal; in other words, he is unconvincing when doing anything other than talking and fighting despite his solid screen presence. Kelly LeBrock looks good, but that's about it. Coffin is alright playing a role that often doesn't demand much in the way of emotion bar a brief altercation with Hulland (Bloch). Bloch is more or less in the same boat as Coffin regarding his role. However, the other villains are a bit better: Sadler is suitably slimy despite his limited screen time, while Boswell and Richmond are suitably callous and evil. The dialogue was often fairly typical action movie stuff, with some profanity, some hilarious lines ('blood bank') and some of that subtle bravado that Seagal specialises in ('we're gonna win because we have a superior attitude etc.').On the other hand, it was quite watchable. Time rarely dragged. Ultimately, this film is probably worth a view if you're an action buff. I also think that Seagal fans would enjoy this, given that this probably looks heavenly compared to most of his later stuff. It's not like Seagal fans would necessarily expect competent acting or good plotting, anyway. Not from Seagal, at least. However, it's ultimately nothing more than an adequate, standard-issue revenge thriller, so I'd be hard pressed to recommend it to anybody else. 2.5/5 stars