Ismaninb As others have been so negative, I will try to stress the positive sides. Not that there are many. After all I think the movie only worth 3/10. The reason I watched the movie until the end is the reasonably interesting plot. Sure, the director does his utter best to kill that too. Again he fails. Two cops, who dislike each other, have to protect a witness. One member of their homicide team is an informant for the mob leader of the town. The latter wants the witness to be killed and wants the money she knows about. Admit it: this does not sound too bad.Indeed, as a result there are a couple of nice scenes. I mean the the "good cop vs bad cop" trick played on the witness and the quarrels between the two.Being this not a B-movie, but a C-movie at best we cannot expect too much from acting. Fred Williamson did some blaxploitation police stuff in the 70's. It is quite revealing, that he actually is one of the better actors. Gary Busey never rose above D-level. We should be happy, we don't see him too much. But the others really did not annoy me too much. That is quite an achievement in a stupid movie like this.The main culprit is the script - or what was left from it by the director, if we are to believe Wcmartell. It is awful. My conclusion is, that the idea deserves a remake by a skilled director.

Frank Markland Don "The Dragon" Wilson and Olivier Gruner star as two cops who protect a hooker from crooked cops, mobsters and pretty much anonymous goons who killed fellow policeman Fred Williamson. Who killed Fred Williamson? The answer is obvious from the first ten minutes and the movie is deadly dull to watch. One of the saddest things is that Olivier Gruner is actually the only one trying, which is sad because he still is the worst actor on a professional level, still despite his hopelessly inept acting he still comes off better than Don 'The Dragon' Wilson who treats this awful material as if he was straining for Oscar contender quality. It is just a ridiculous performance with a complete lack of knowledge of realizing what type of movie he's in. You're not in the movie Heat, Don. The one bright spot is the hilarious portrayal from Gary Busey, who sparkles on would be zen and optimistic B.S that would feel right at home on a midnight telethon. Plus Busey looks undeniably drunk as if he was forced to go without booze for a couple weeks and his strung out look as well as the atrocious dialog is hilarious. It's the film's only enjoyment. And what of those action sequences? Well I would comment on them if I could actually make sense of what was going on in the fight sequences. Don Wilson and Olivier Gruner have always been at least competent at kicking the crap out of people, but with the awful editing and terrible quick cuts that pretty much distance you from getting into the action, one comes to realize that without even 1/3 of the acting talent of Jean-Claude Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, it becomes obvious that Don may want to just give up the movies if he can't do the required martial arts to sell the concept that he's a tough guy, since the lacking fan-base isn't going to keep buying if this is all The Dragon can come up with. Crooked is about as bad as Seagal's recent efforts (Well I haven't seen anything past Today You Die...) and with movies like Wake Of Death and Russian Specialist out on the shelves, let alone R rated action flicks making a comeback, there is no excuse for unwatchable crap such as this. I'm hoping Olivier Gruner's next movie will be at least funny. Oh and a tip for Don, after seeing Redemption and this, stay away from Art Camacho. I mean seriously I never saw a director who made me pine for the incompetence of Fred Olen Ray. * out of 4-(Bad)

Shyruban Wow... Luckyly i didn't put myself through watching the whole thing... It's probably the only thing good about this movie... You know that it stinks within a few minutes :) Bad generic cliché script...Bad acting.. Bad choreography in action scenes.. Also horribly badly cut... Gary Busey must be pretty desperate and ''has been'' to play in something like this... I just found out i have to write 10 lines to post a comment, but I've never had to write 10 lines on how bad a movie is before :) I wish there was a way to get fair quotes on movies.... Obviously it'll never happen.Go see the vote results :) 6 voted 10\10 obviously members of the crew.. i predict it'll go down to 3\10 in no time... Find something better to waste your time on.

wcmartell Here's the screenplay as a PDF file - read and compare the the finished film.http://www.scriptsecrets.net/screenplays/target.pdfThe script was once under option by a studio-based producer who couldn't get their name actor to commit. After bouncing around town, they made this film from it. BACKSTORY ON THE STORY:SOFT TARGET is about a top secret hit-man who can get past police protection to assassinate witnesses against the mob. One person has seen the hit-man's face and lived - a woman. The reason why this hit-man can bypass police? He's a detective. So the police department grabs their two most trustworthy detectives to find the woman and take her *somewhere* (don't tell us where) and when the beeper goes off, take her to the grand jury to identify the hit-man. They pick a random motel and WHAM! they are attacked. So the big question becomes - who can you trust? And that's where my theme came from. Every character has a *story purpose* (like the chief of detectives or a minor assassin disguised as a hotel maid) but they also have a *theme purpose*, too - and that provides character and subtext.So here's how I came up with my characters... What traits make you *not* trust someone?Can you trust someone who never shows their emotions? Can you trust someone who turns everything into a joke? Can you trust someone who is more intelligent than you are? Can you trust someone who is really moody? Can you trust someone who is too slick? Can you trust someone who always agrees with you? Can you trust someone who has serious substance abuse problems? Can you trust someone who is...Each of these theme traits are great doorways into character. And they are ways to show the differences in character, ways that will pop up again and again in the script (because the story keeps putting characters in situations where they must trust each other to survive... and situations where they can't trust each other).Once I had the theme traits, I thought about what kind of person has these traits and how they came to have them. I created a backstory for the characters and that backstory had other character elements - say, some guy who was in the military where he learned how to go along to get along or some guy who was in an abusive home and learned to hide his emotions or some guy who... well, you get the idea. I came up with backstories that fit the theme traits and gave me other traits that define the character.Then I looked at how each character talked - everyone has a different vocabulary. Different pet phrases. Hey, some of these pet phrases may have something to do with theme! I was using theme to explore character *and* explore story *and* take a look at society (in a world where it's hard to find someone to trust, post 9/11).Next I looked at actions and reactions - everyone has a different method for solving problems or dealing with problems. Again, these are thematic, and also *show* character through actions.Then I looked at their world view - everyone sees the world through their past experiences.Then at the way they process information - everyone has a different type of "mental filing cabinet".I know my characters, they start talking to me in their own voices and I could see the world as they see it (rather than as I see it), and they all become individuals - their own persons.Now I had three dimensional characters who are helping to explore the theme - we're going to look at trust in our modern times and why we need to trust others instead of lock the doors to our lives and trust no one. Because the story for SOFT TARGET places the characters in a world where they really can't trust others... and they maybe can't even trust themselves (what if they *accidentally* gave information to a friend who ends up being the bad detective?) we can look at how hard it is to trust someone these days but how important it is to trust people... because we can't go it alone. We can't just isolate ourselves from the world and still have a life. If we're going to survive as a society we have to work together... and that means we have to trust people. Sometimes we have to trust strangers... and that's the point of the story.Then, they made some changes. Read the original script and tell me what you think. Did they improve it... or not?Bill