On H List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Hoffa (1992)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
3/14, 8/26
3/14:
Jimmy Hoffa is famous for one thing: nobody knows where his dead body is.
That being said, I'm not sure why it matters. Anyway, let's get one thing out of the way: Jack Nicholson
is excellent as Jimmy Hoffa, the corrupt Teamsters boss. He has immersed himself into the role and does
everything as possible to be him. It's true that the real Jimmy Hoffa looked closer to Harvey Keitel,
but Jack Nicholson has the upper hand in the acting department. Although Hoffa is good at times,
it has big problems.
One is the constant presence of Danny DeVito. He robs too much screen time and takes away the much-needed
character development from Jack Nicholson. His sympathetic Cocker Spaniel eyes are condescending. Is
Danny DeVito trying to pretend he can bag beautiful women or has sexual prowess? Most importantly,
is Danny trying to pretend he's Hoffa? Or is he trying to be the next Joe Pesci? Or is he trying to get
a role in a future Scorsese picture?
Two is the overly simplistic key events during Hoffa's time. I can't believe, as complicated as his deals
were, the film would make them to be that easy to understand. The riot scene is implausible to swallow
as well.
Three is the movie doesn't explain Hoffa's importance very much. I don't feel I learned much about
him. Can it be that David Mamet didn't understand Hoffa, either? That's why most of the dialogue is filled
with derogatory references to the neanderthal regions or ethnic groups. Even more so, why is there a movie
about Jimmy Hoffa in the first place? Is he really that important of a figure to merit a biographical
film? I just don't think so.
All in all, if you need a reason to watch Hoffa, it's for Jack Nicholson's performance.
8/26:
I wanted to check out Hoffa again after seeing The Irishman
and decided to raise my rating from '6' to '8'.
Although the story is largely fictional, it generally does a good job of telling the audience who
Jimmy Hoffa was and why he was an important figure back then from the 50's to the 70's. If anything,
Jack Nicholson gives a riveting performance that's clearly better than Al Pacino's in the other film
by staying true to a quote of the man himself: "Mr. Hoffa was a tremendously intimidating man. This man
had no fear at all, of nothing, showed very little emotion, had completely no sense of humor, and was
dedicated to the people that belonged to his union."
However, there are three chief problems. To start off, it's light on substance. How exactly was Hoffa
corrupt and in bed with the Mafia? What about the funding of Las Vegas? How did that work, especially
when it came to the pension fund which acted like a slush fund for the Mafia? Second, Danny DeVito's
character serves no purpose. The director-actor is more interested in showing off women he's
sleeping with. By the way, is he supposed to be Frank Sheeran? Third, the ending isn't what happened.
There was no shooting at the Machus Red Fox in Detroit, Michigan, on July 30, 1975.
All in all, Jack Nicholson got robbed of an Oscar nomination for his performance in Hoffa.