Editing Hudson Hawk (section)

==Reception==
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a rating of 31% based on 45 reviews, with an average rating of 4.6 out of 10. The site's critics consensus: "''Hudson Hawk'''s kitchen-sink approach to its blend of action and slapstick results in a surreal, baffling misfire."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hudson_hawk/ |title= Hudson Hawk |website= Rotten Tomatoes |access-date= March 1, 2023 |archive-date= May 30, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160530043251/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hudson_hawk/ |url-status= live }}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a weighted average score of 17 out of 100, based on 15 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hudson-hawk |title= Hudson Hawk |website= Metacritic |access-date= August 30, 2016 |archive-date= May 17, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160517131134/http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hudson-hawk |url-status= live }}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "C+" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title= Cinemascore |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181220122629/https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |archive-date= December 20, 2018 |access-date= August 30, 2019 }}</ref>

In the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', Terry Clifford observed that: "The end result is being thrown up on ''selected'' screens this weekend, and the suspicion that this was a pooch turns out to be undeniably correct. Boring and banal, overwrought and undercooked, ''Hudson Hawk'' is beyond bad."<ref>{{cite news|title=Smug 'Hudson Hawk' Looks Like A Turkey|work=Chicago Tribune|date=May 24, 1991|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/1991/05/24/smug-hudson-hawk-looks-like-a-turkey/|access-date=October 29, 2010|first=Clifford|last=Terry|archive-date=June 10, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610201337/http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-05-24/entertainment/9102160454_1_hudson-hawk-eddie-hawkins-heathers|url-status=live}}</ref>

As [[Kenneth Turan]] wrote in the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'':
{{cquote|The saddest thing about ''Hudson Hawk'' is that director Lehmann and co-screenwriter Waters were previously responsible for the clever, audacious ''[[Heathers]]'', a film that represented all that is most promising about American film, while this one represents all that is most moribund and retrograde. Perhaps they both earned enough money here so that they won't be tempted to indulge themselves in similar big-budget fiascoes. Here's hoping.<ref>{{cite news |title= Bruce Willis' 'Hudson Hawk' Fails to Fly as Comedy Caper |work= [[Los Angeles Times]] |date= 1991-05-24 |url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-24-ca-2308-story.html |access-date= 2010-10-28 |first= Kenneth |last= Turan |archive-date= 2012-11-03 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121103073250/http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-24/entertainment/ca-2308_1_hudson-hawk |url-status= live }}</ref>|}}

[[Roger Ebert]] and [[Gene Siskel]] gave the film a "two thumbs down" review on their ''At the Movies'' TV show. Ebert described the film as a complete disaster: "every line starts from zero and gets nowhere". Siskel's review was marginally more positive, saying that Willis had a few funny moments and furthermore that the film might have been salvaged if Willis and Aiello had been the only zany characters against a cast of [[Straight man|straight men]], as opposed to a cast full of [[overacting]], where everyone tried too hard to make each line funny.<ref>{{cite AV media | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq0r-t-xljM | title = Siskel and Ebert review Hudson Hawk | via = [[YouTube]] }}</ref>

''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' called the film "a relentlessly annoying clay duck that crash-lands in a sea of wretched excess and silliness. Those willing to check their brains at the door may find sparse amusement."<ref>{{cite web |url= https://variety.com/1990/film/reviews/hudson-hawk-1200428876/ |title= Hudson Hawk |website= Variety.com |date= December 31, 1990 |access-date= December 11, 2017 |archive-date= August 9, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170809042234/http://variety.com/1990/film/reviews/hudson-hawk-1200428876/ |url-status= live }}</ref> [[Peter Travers]] of ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' said of the film: "A movie this unspeakably awful can make an audience a little crazy. You want to throw things, yell at the actors, beg them to stop."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5948221/review/5948222/hudson_hawk |magazine=[[Rolling Stone]] |title=Hudson Hawk |first=Peter |last=Travers |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616083946/http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5948221/review/5948222/hudson_hawk |archive-date=June 16, 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref> James Brundage of ''AMC filmcritic'' said the film was "so implausible and so over the top that it lets inconsistency roll off like water on a duck's back."<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071106060928/http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/Hudson-Hawk |archive-date=November 6, 2007 |url=http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/Hudson-Hawk |website=Filmcritic |title=Hudson Hawk |first=James |last=Brundage |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Janet Maslin]] in the ''[[New York Times]]'' called the film "a colossally sour and ill-conceived misfire" and denounced the film for "smirky, mean-spirited cynicism."<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D0CE2DD173BF937A15756C0A967958260 |title= Review/Film Bruce Willis as a Hip Cat Burglar |first= Janet |last= Maslin |author-link=Janet Masking |newspaper= [[The New York Times]] |date= May 24, 1991 |access-date= August 30, 2016 |archive-date= September 13, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160913222440/http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D0CE2DD173BF937A15756C0A967958260 |url-status= live }}</ref> Writing in ''[[The Washington Post]]'', Joe Brown said: "To say this megamillion Bruce Willis vehicle doesn't fly is understatement in the extreme... ''Hudson Hawk'' offers a klutzy, charmless hero, and wallows dully in limp slapstick and lowest common denominator crudeness."<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/hudsonhawkrbrown_a0adc7.htm |title= Hudson Hawk |first= Joe |last= Brown |newspaper= Washington Post |date= May 24, 1991 |access-date= August 30, 2016 |archive-date= March 4, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035613/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/hudsonhawkrbrown_a0adc7.htm |url-status= live }}</ref> Chris Hicks wrote in the ''[[Salt Lake City]] [[Deseret News]]'': "What is most amazing is the pervasive silliness that has the cast acting like fools without ever getting a laugh from the audience. It's hard to imagine a major, big-budget movie that could come along this year and be worse than ''Hudson Hawk'', a solid contender for the longest 95 minutes in movie history.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700000828/Hudson-Hawk.html |title= Film review: Hudson Hawk |first= Chris |last= Hicks |newspaper= [[Deseret News]] |date= May 27, 1991 |access-date= August 30, 2016 |archive-date= October 7, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161007092204/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700000828/Hudson-Hawk.html |url-status= dead }}</ref> [[Owen Gleiberman]] in ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' called the film "a fiasco sealed with a smirk."<ref>{{cite magazine |url= http://www.ew.com/article/1991/05/31/hudson-hawk |title= Hudson Hawk |magazine= Entertainment Weekly |date= May 31, 1991 |access-date= August 30, 2016 |archive-date= June 6, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160606010703/http://www.ew.com/article/1991/05/31/hudson-hawk |url-status= live }}</ref>

Jo Berry from ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]'' gave it three out of five stars, noting that it "reached UK screens with the added burden of having been slaughtered by US critics who likened it to famous big budget turkeys like ''[[Raise The Titanic (film)|Raise The Titanic]]'' and ''[[Ishtar (film)|Ishtar]]''. True, the film has its flaws, but the positives do outweigh the negatives, with Bruce Willis at his wisecracking best in the title role."<ref>{{cite magazine |url= https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/hudson-hawk-review/ |title= Hudson Hawk Review |magazine= [[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]] |date= July 1991 |access-date= January 1, 2020 |archive-date= January 12, 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200112121720/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/hudson-hawk-review/ |url-status= live }}</ref>

Jane Lamacraft reassessed the film as one of the "Forgotten Pleasures of the Multiplex" for ''[[Sight & Sound]]'''s June 2011 magazine.{{citation needed|date=June 2022}}

===Box office===
The film performed poorly in the United States, partly because the film was intended as an absurd comedy, yet was marketed as an action film one year after the success of ''[[Die Hard 2]]''.<ref>{{cite news|title=No Blockbusters Among This Crop of Memorial Day Movies|newspaper=[[The Los Angeles Times]]|date=May 28, 1991|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-28-ca-2601-story.html|access-date=December 20, 2010|first=David J.|last=Fox|archive-date=November 4, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104104534/http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-28/entertainment/ca-2601_1_memorial-day|url-status=live}}</ref> It grossed only $17 million in the United States and Canada.<ref name="boxofficemojo.com">{{cite web|work=[[Box Office Mojo]]|title=Hudson Hawk |url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hudsonhawk.htm |access-date=August 3, 2009|archive-date=June 30, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090630143400/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hudsonhawk.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Internationally, it performed much better, grossing $80 million<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=[[Daily Variety]]|page=2|date=October 24, 1991|last=Archerd|first=Army|author-link=Army Archerd|title=Just For Variety}}</ref> for a worldwide total of $97 million. By the end of its theatrical run, the film had lost the studio an estimated $90 million.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://theguardian.com/film/2021/may/14/hudson-hawk-bruce-willis-hear-me-out |title=Hear me out: why Hudson Hawk isn't a bad movie &#124; Movies |work=The Guardian |date=May 14, 2021 |access-date=2022-05-16}}</ref>

The film performed well on home video<ref name=video/> and by 1995 started to pay out to profit participants, including Bruce Willis.<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=[[Daily Variety]]|page=2|date=October 19, 1995|last=Archerd|first=Army|author-link=Army Archerd|title=Just For Variety}}</ref>

===Accolades===
It received three [[1991 Golden Raspberry Awards]] for [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director|Director]] (Lehmann), [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay|Screenplay]] and [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture|Picture]] with additional nominations for [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor|Actor]] (Willis), [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor|Supporting Actor]] (Grant), and [[Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress|Supporting Actress]] (Bernhard). It was also nominated for Worst Picture at the 1991 [[Stinkers Bad Movie Awards]], losing to ''[[Nothing but Trouble (1991 film)|Nothing but Trouble]]''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Past Winners Database |url=http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/year/1991/1991st.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070106124822/http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/year/1991/1991st.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 6, 2007 |website=The Envelope at LA Times |access-date=September 25, 2019}}</ref>