A typical mindless entertaining adventure/action film from the 1980's involving a dangerous rescue mission in Colombia with a group of friends (Michael Schoeffling,
Thomas F. Wilson, Rick Rossovich and Glenn Frey) who need to rescue the brother of one of them, who got kidnapped by terrorists who want to exchange the man
and Americm embassador for political prisoners. The blue-collar guys get the assistance of a war veteran (Robert Duvall) and a local car salesman (Gary Busey)
who enjoys going on hunting trips. One can't go wrong with such a plot, you're probably sold with that.
But "Let's Get Harry" isn't much concerned about the action and perhaps that's its strongest point in a way but at the same time it can disappoint those in need for a "Commando" type of movie. The dramatic efforts of rescuing the poor man is interesting, specially when the friends and the man's brother keep discussing who's going with the mission and who's not, and that gorup's dynamic was good to follow but it's only when mystery man Duvall appears and gets hired by the group is that when things get really exciting.
I don't understand why the great director Stuart Rosenberg ("Cool Hand Luke", "Brubaker") was so embarassed by the picture. It's a little obvious that he had to give more room to Mark Harmon (the kidnapped man) who was becoming a huge TV star and his character in the movie was originally to be shown near its conclusion rather than showing the kidnapping and some thrilling moments where his life is put a risk. Rosenberg always managed to extract great performances from his actors and the majority of them are pretty good (I was surprising with Glenn Frey, he was awesome as the cocaine addict buddy). But if the idea of using Harmon for many scenes was the director's main objection I think he should really swap roles in this brothes case. Michael Schoeffling is an interesting face, but he was better suited for heartrob roles rather than an action star - as evidenced by his memorable roles in "Sixteen Candles" and "Mermaids". There were moments where his acting was so stiff and unconvincing that it was hard to watch. Had Harmon given that role of group leader the movie would be a lot better.
One can have some easy fun with the adventure and thrilling sequences despite many unbelievable moments or some sequences where you just get mad with the characters reactions (poor guy panicked out of nowhere and it cost someone's life for nothing. Ugh). As for the cliched message of Americans taking over drug lords/terrorists from third world countries with their unique strength rather than getting the aid from the government and army was just one of those silly ideas Hollywood has managed to sell time and again. It works sometimes and there was some fun to be found here. 8/10.
But "Let's Get Harry" isn't much concerned about the action and perhaps that's its strongest point in a way but at the same time it can disappoint those in need for a "Commando" type of movie. The dramatic efforts of rescuing the poor man is interesting, specially when the friends and the man's brother keep discussing who's going with the mission and who's not, and that gorup's dynamic was good to follow but it's only when mystery man Duvall appears and gets hired by the group is that when things get really exciting.
I don't understand why the great director Stuart Rosenberg ("Cool Hand Luke", "Brubaker") was so embarassed by the picture. It's a little obvious that he had to give more room to Mark Harmon (the kidnapped man) who was becoming a huge TV star and his character in the movie was originally to be shown near its conclusion rather than showing the kidnapping and some thrilling moments where his life is put a risk. Rosenberg always managed to extract great performances from his actors and the majority of them are pretty good (I was surprising with Glenn Frey, he was awesome as the cocaine addict buddy). But if the idea of using Harmon for many scenes was the director's main objection I think he should really swap roles in this brothes case. Michael Schoeffling is an interesting face, but he was better suited for heartrob roles rather than an action star - as evidenced by his memorable roles in "Sixteen Candles" and "Mermaids". There were moments where his acting was so stiff and unconvincing that it was hard to watch. Had Harmon given that role of group leader the movie would be a lot better.
One can have some easy fun with the adventure and thrilling sequences despite many unbelievable moments or some sequences where you just get mad with the characters reactions (poor guy panicked out of nowhere and it cost someone's life for nothing. Ugh). As for the cliched message of Americans taking over drug lords/terrorists from third world countries with their unique strength rather than getting the aid from the government and army was just one of those silly ideas Hollywood has managed to sell time and again. It works sometimes and there was some fun to be found here. 8/10.