WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Bradley Anbro I purchased a new copy of this movie from a seller who listed it on one of the internet "for sale" sites; I had checked with my library and also with the video rental store in my area and neither one had the movie available. I had just finished reading the 400+ page book, "Hoffa," by Arthur A. Sloane, Ph.D. Mr. Sloan's book told both the good and the bad about Jimmy Hoffa. I learned by reading the book that Jimmy Hoffa typically worked 16-hour days, six and sometimes seven days a week. I also learned that Jimmy Hoffa neither smoked, drank liquor or ever cheated on his wife. The movie realistically portrayed Jimmy Hoffa as doing his utmost for his Teamster members. The movie also realistically portrayed that the two paramount concerns that Jimmy Hoffa had were for his family and for the rank-and-file members of his union.In my opinion, Jimmy Hoffa's downfall was that he chose to associate himself with organized crime, which in the end cost him his life.

gavin6942 A film based on the story of legendary union figure Jimmy Hoffa (played here by Jack Nicholson).Can I first say this was strange casting for Bobby Kennedy? It just seems like someone doing a very poor Kennedy impersonation, not a serious attempt to really capture him. Which is unfortunate, given how central his role is. (This film, more than anything, seems to be Hoffa versus Kennedy.) The Nicholson casting is not perfect, either, because it is hard to hide his distinctive voice... but I think he pulls it off ,and the makeup helps.The Hoffa story is a fascinating one, and one that deserves to be explored on film again. This was 1992, and I write this in 2015. In the past two decades, more memoirs have been written, more government documents released... we need another biopic, and maybe a really serious documentary?

wildreviews This is a really bad movie! It's such a shame that Danny De Vito doesn't stick to directing comedies because he is much more suited to that style. Jack Nicholson acted very well but not outstanding, however his acting i believe did redeem the film a little. The films story line was all over the place and very confusing if you did not know the history behind it. Many of the scenes were filmed on built cardboard sets which was very obvious throughout and looked shockingly bad. Danny De Vito's character was completely fictional and seemed to have been placed in the movie due to his own admiration for Jimmy Hoffa. A number of scenes in the film were laughable , very over dramatized and patriotic. I do appreciate how difficult biographical movies are to make but this one is awful and considering the amount of highly skilled actors involved a complete disappointment.

MisterWhiplash Hoffa needs a director that has a vision that knocks you on your ass, much like the man at the center of the film himself. Danny De Vito takes the directorial reins in a style that is, frankly, emptily flashy. He moved on from doing dark comedies into the realm of the dramatic bio-pic, and boy does he love high flying camera movements, ones that pirouette and move like Hoffa is the biggest cheese to ever cheese. He brings forth a story of a man that isn't told entirely A to Z, but skips around in getting a slight portrait. He's not a bad director, which is to say he doesn't make it at all unwatchable. But the inherent flaw to point here is more-so in a lack of the proverbial "umph".David Mamet's script could also be pointed at for Hoffa offering a road-map of historical attractions- some of which might have not even happened- but his strengths could be elevated with a master at the helm. Hoffa calls for it, with his personality with the edge of a man who takes no s*** from anyone, and even when wrong has a sort of glow about him one can't shake. But Hoffa is fascinating because it is, inherently, fascinating stuff, no matter how simple the direction gets as a mainstream Hollywood effort. Here's a man who can't be pegged down because he's not, in a way, a well-rounded kind of character. He riles up workers into a union, and rallies them for a glorious cause to get what they want. Then he makes a back-door deal with the mob to get in on pension loans, and defends to the end that what he's got is legit when under investigation by RFK. He believes in "justice" before the law, and there's never a tear shed for anyone. Hoffa should be a very simplistic character, easy to peg in the scope of history as a (not quite obvious) question mark end.But there's so much that Nicholson brings to him that he's hard to shake off as a this-is-what-you-get character. With Nicholson there's the physicality, where he goes through the kind of barking and yelling and cursing and yelling and, ultimately, self-preserved ego that somehow makes Hoffa more human than the character would be played any other way. Even in scenes that feel like the most conventional of biographical stories, like the verbatim hearing between him and Kennedy, there's a lot to look for under those quintessential eyebrows and the layers of make-up. He has something that one wants to guess that he's thinking, or has in mind when he's going off on someone, or in talking with his second in command Bobby (DeVito himself, also very good in a role that, in his own right, requires just as much skill as his star to act out as a common man put in a unique position). Just a squint or a furrow can get a new angle in a scene, which helps since he has to put on such a bigger-than-life persona. I'm reminded of the best of Cagney here.Shame then that he can't quite bring up the picture to greatness. It's a rousing, handsomely made picture, and I'm sure the filmmakers wouldn't have it any other way. When one sees the big epic battle with the teamsters, the workers, with bodies going blow by blow and the music pounding and rising like a storm, it's easy to get involved in the action. It's got the production values to go however it wants. But there's something missing to it making it a classic, as opposed to just a good, above-average TV movie (yes, I used the vehement description). It goes without saying the dialog is almost as filthy as another Mamet project from 92, Glengarry Glen Ross (matter fact it's fitting both films have practically all men in the casts). However there's something too clean and lean to the direction. It sounds as though I can't criticize it well enough, but... it's depth, basically. We're given facts, speculation (i.e. the ending), and bombastic personalities. But in the end, it's still the factor of Nicholson that makes it a bit more special that it would be otherwise.