Chirphymium
It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
Ketrivie
It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.
Janae Milner
Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.
bob the moo
Following his extended break in San Diego, Hunter has accepted the offer of a move and now works robbery/homicide with Dee Dee McCall, who has switched roles following the loss of her fiancé. When Hunter learns that a murderer (Randall Skags) he thought had been given a death penalty, he is obviously pretty annoyed but, before he and McCall have time to launch on a rightwing rant about liberal parole boards they are called to a bank robbery. They lose the gang in the mall but get enough to find out they are dealing with a crew of four young women. While this investigation continues, Skags starts killing his way across San Diego in an attempt to draw out Hunter and take deadly revenge on him.As if proof was needed that I have too much spare time on my hands, I decided to give Hunter another go on a wet Sunday evening even though the previous movie had been nothing special. Now that all the characters have been re-established from "Return to Justice" the plot has more of a freehand to carry on as if nothing happened so I had hoped this would make it flow a bit easier. In a way it does but this doesn't meant that the plots are that good. The main thrust is actually about the bank robberies and is dragged out for so long with the twist that one of the suspects is in jail already. This is so-so stuff that didn't really engage me that well. Without a strong and urgent narrative the toughness is very superficial and, although it distracts on this level, it doesn't do much else.The other thread sees Skags sort of drifting in the background and his part doesn't mean a great deal. It gets tiresome after a while because you quickly realise that he is being kept for a strong finish. Neither plot is strong enough to fill the film but what surprised me was how half-baked the film was even with the two of them. Attempts to dove-tail one into the other towards the end is clumsy and too little too late. The action count is low and the bagginess of the plot means the inherent toughness of Hunter's approach is for naught.In fact, apart from one early bit of a moan about Skags getting released there isn't much that makes Hunter Hunter in this film. Dryer continues to grimace and squint his way across San Diego but really he has no character to speak of. I'm not sure why they made such a personal aspect to the plot but then did nothing of interest with it in regards Hunter himself. Despite this Dryer is good enough for this level of material. Kramer is better than the last movie because she actually fits into the story this time round and she seems more natural leading on the "bank robbery" aspect. Cummins is a strange villain – I was never sure if I was suppose to hate him or sympathise with him. His late scenes suggests he was trying to find depth but he can't do it and, if he was, the film generally doesn't share his interest.Overall this is a basic cop TV movie that is a bit of a mess but might satisfy those with very low expectations. Waste potential is all around the film as two plot threads are dumped on the screen and not a great deal is done with them. Serviceable but nothing more than that.
icelandknight
*may contain some spoilers*Starts with a blue eyed latino-like prisoner being released who has a grudge against Hunter. As the film progresses two main stories emerge: "The Con's Revenge" being aimed at Hunter and "Prisoner Criminals" is a side plot for McCall. The length of time spent on establishing how COOL the villain is makes one wonder about whom the movie is. In fact this movie seems to come across as some sort of "Villain Worship" rather than just another cop flick.This is such a "formula" TV movie that it really has no surprises for anyone. What I find surprising is that they hint towards violence in this movie, then when it is supposed to happen, they "hollywoodize it" (focus away from it so as not to offend anyone). There are many examples of this and it makes the movie "impotent". Example: When the brother kills the motel girl, and later, the female cop. They never SHOW anything... almost like trying to say "you never saw it, so maybe the guys never did it." ... but when you don't see the crime they are never really made out to be villains, so the audience never develop a grudge against them.The side plot is an interesting idea: Female prisoners rented out at night as hookers (who start to rob places and kill people, with a perfect alibi! They were in prison at the time. Seems like a good idea!) but you will never see any of it! You hear about it, and it's investigated, but you never get to see them committing the crimes. A great opportunity to get in some gruesome forced sex shots and depravity... but no. There is none of that. It's all kept in dialog. It's all about as impotent as that low IQ guy who can't screw his wife from his guilty conscience after prostituting the prisoners. Oh, we're so sympathetic! That he can't get off still gets him off - the hook! (sarcasm)Talking of "hook": There's lots of bait here, but no hook. A lot of scenes seem to be put in there to appeal to a certain audience: It woke me up when I heard the motorcycle rolling to a stop outside the biker bar, the biker getting off with his girlfriend and parking the bike. The suggestion of a motel next door to the bar, but they never made anything of that. The moment they got into the bar it was back to the boring old villain adoration scene setting.Lots of "scene setting" shots... but the movie never really gets off the ground. The bad guy is set up as much cooler than Hunter, so he will eventually lose? Proving Hunter may be a balding old fart but still cooler than the villain? Something like that. The characters are very superficial and dialog is terribly "written".The DRAW scene (towards the end) was probably to try and borrow from epic westerns, but they never built it up so the audience take a side... SO one is left not caring who shoots who: The picturesque young male-model-like villain, or the balding gray haired cop guy.Might help if you were a Hunter fan... but since they had done practically ANY police scenario to death in the series. One could conclude that releasing this movie was a crime... So, to conclude, using police terminology: "Just move along, people... There's nothing to see here."
