dougdoepke Compelling all the way through and based on a true story. Tom (Caan) wants his kids back after the Feds have taken them as part of a witness relocation program. Seems his ex-wife Ruthie (Rae) has hooked up with a minor gangster Jack (Viharo) who's testified against gang bosses. As part of his deal with the Feds, Jack's married Ruthie and they and her two kids by Tom are secretly spirited away to a new life. Trouble is no one, least of all the Feds, bothered telling Tom whose paternal interests have been totally ignored. A working stiff, Tom tries respectfully to work through the government bureaucracy to establish some kind of paternal rights for access to his kids. Nonetheless, his access could lead the gang to stoolie Jack's whereabouts, resulting in a central conflict of interests.Clearly, there's a subtext to the storyline. Set in 1967, the narrative generally shows how uncaring Feds are about an average working guy's rights. Much of the proceedings are taken up with Tom being brushed off by ascending levels of government even up to his congressman. For Tom, it's ironic that the establishment he supports as an anti-hippie blue-collar conservative would treat him so cavalierly. In a sense, the movie suggests reasons for working class guys to despise government as much as do the anti-war hippies of the time. In effect, the governing agencies come across as basically uncaring about the broader consequences of their acts, seemingly either in Vietnam or Buffalo, NY. That's why Tom angrily identifies himself to a Fed as "Nobody" at movie's end. He's had an odd learning experience, but a learning experience it is. Perhaps I exaggerate some, but the subtextual core is definitely present in this adaptation of a real life event.Anyway, Caan delivers an ace performance as Tom. Note how his lines are delivered in rather groping and not very articulate fashion, befitting a guy more skilled with his hands than his tongue. Thus, Caan manages a convincing role without special pleading. The rest of the rather large cast also performs ably, especially rotund McMillan as a street-wise cop and Viharo as the callous stoolie. But, as much as I wanted to hug her, I'm afraid Eikenberry is a shade too sweet and understanding as Tom's new girl friend.On the whole, the movie comes across as very skillfully done, with a thought provoking storyline, and results that are generally underrated. So don't pass it up.

asc85 This film came and left the movie theaters, so I think I had seen it on HBO when it finally got there. But the fact that so few have written a review about this movie further underlines how few people have probably seen it. Which is a shame, because it's a very well-done, sensitive film, and a Best 10 film for 1980, at the very least. James Caan's performance is definitely against type, and he does a great job as the down-on-his-luck, blue-collar father who seemingly can't catch a break. Anyone who's expecting the macho character that he played in The Godfather or Rollerball will be very much surprised by this role. And the ending is so sweet and sensitive, if you're not choked up by it, then maybe you have ice water in your veins.My only criticism is the casting of Danny Aiello as the great lawyer who's going to help him out and waive his fee. As the owner of Sal's Pizzeria in "Do the Right Thing," he's believable. As a wealthy, high-end lawyer, he's not.

zardoz-13 Rarely do you see a movie with a hero who is an ordinary everyday working stiff. A man who served his hitch in the armed forces and then returned to civilian life to settle down as an eight hour a day blue collar factory worker. Men of this caliber don't stand out in crowds. They aren't very interesting either to movie audiences that demand larger-than-life heroes caught in life and death predicaments and perform incredible feats of derring-do. In "Hide In Plain Sight," James Caan of "The Godfather" plays a real-life person in a film based on a true incident that occurred in Buffalo, New York, in the late 1960s and became the subject of a book by Lesley Waller.As Tom Hacklin, Caan is your average, middle-class, blue-collar factory worker. No, he isn't an Archie Bunker type. If Hacklin has any opinions, he keeps them to himself, and Caan doesn't portray him as a dummy either. Although Hacklin is divorced (a point that Spencer Eastman's script avoids), he is shown as an individual that treats his children, a boy and a girl, with unbridled love and affection. The action begins one day in 1967 when Hacklin learns that his ex-wife Ruthie (TV actress Barbra Rae) and his pre-school kids have vanished without a trace. Hacklin's wife had been involved with a small-fry Mafioso Jack Scolese (Robert Viharo of "Villa Rides"). Scolese staged a bank robbery and pistol whipped a bank cashier. On orders from the mob, Scolese not only marries Ruthie, but he also turns himself into the authorities.Meanwhile, a U.S. government strike force in Buffalo out to clean up crime convinces Scolese that his mob set him up. Federal authorities persuade him to inform on his former gang bosses; it seems that the government has a Witness Relocation Program. The program calls for a complete change of identity for the informer and his family as well as a new town to settle in with a worthwhile job. Scolese decides to inform. Hacklin sets out to find his kids. He is frustrated at every turn by uncooperative cops and lilied-livered politicos. The police have to stop him from finding Scolese as much as the mob wants him to find a rat that needs killing. Either way Hacklin could care less, he just wants his kids back."Hide In Plain Sight" is a brooding, low-key movie that shuns the extroverted emotionalism of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," another film about a father that wants his child back. Spencer Eastman's screenplay is a fine, literate effort that details the obstacles that Hacklin must overcome to find his children. Occasionally, the script has lapses; Hacklin is shown in a highly favorable light, but why was he divorced? You get the feeling that his wife was to blame, but how did she get custody of the kids? Most of all, however, the script is credible, especially in dealing with Hacklin's frustrations. After the court hearing, which Hacklin loses to the government, he smashes the government attorney's slick, sporty Corvette. The revenge her is so pathetic that it is real and believable.James Caan makes his directional debut with "Hide In Plain Sight." Although he isn't as innovative as Clint Eastwood, he is at best competent and unpretentious. Caan doesn't let anything or anybody, least of all himself, get in the way of the story that he has to tell. The performances by the cast are nicely etched characterizations of real people. There are no bloodbaths or careening auto chases here. "Hide In Plain Sight" is a responsible, evenly paced film. Director James Caan has taken great pains to recreate the setting and the story. He has also done an admirable job in skillfully underplaying the role of Thomas Hacklin. Presumably, Caan both admired and sympathized with Hacklin and the guy's plight for he has made one of the more notable films of the 1980 cinema season. If you aren't accustomed to movie-going because you deplore the excesses of sex and violence on the big-screen, "Hide In Plain Sight" may be just what you're searching for in good entertainment.

Poseidon-3 Based on a true story, working class father Caan is stunned to find that his two children from a previous marriage have been swallowed up by the witness protection program, leaving him with no avenue to see them or contact them. Caan, a veteran and an employee at a Buffalo, NY rubber factory, enjoys spending time with his young son and daughter until their mother (Rae) becomes involved with a hood who has ties to the mob. When the hood (Viharo) informs on a dozen of his former mob cronies, he is assigned a new name, new job and new geographic location, taking Rae and the children with him. Caan, who has just begun a new relationship with rather prim and sensitive schoolteacher Eikenberry, exhausts every method he can think of to locate and become reunited with his children, encountering governmental opposition and red tape at every turn. Caan, who also directed this film, gives a very low-key, but effective performance. He is never tempted to overplay his heartache, anger or frustration and refrains from overindulgence, though occasionally he threatens to (or does!) lose his cool. He presents an amiable, though lower-class, character but doesn't play up things like a thick accent or excessively brutish qualities. Eikenberry is a serene, endearing presence who understandably wears down during Caan's endless quest, but shows quiet strength and support when it's needed. Many familiar TV and movie faces people the supporting cast. Grifasi, as Cann's co-worker and friend, gets a rare chance to play a regular guy in contrast top the many quirky or comedic roles he's enacted. Aiello is good as a lawyer who agrees to take on Caan's case. Clennon, who would later make a splash on "Thirtysomething" appears as a snotty attorney who draws Caan's ire. The film benefits greatly from authentic location work and an overriding sense of realism. The acting is decent throughout. Where it falters some is in its period detail. The story is set in 1967 but, aside from some bouffant hair and period cars, there is precious little to suggest that this isn't the mid to late 70's. The primary difference is in the make-up. Women (especially like Rae's somewhat tawdry character) wore far heavier eye make-up, including false eyelashes. Eikenberry, in particular, rarely looks like someone from 1967. Another quibble is the apparent time-line. The true story played out over 8 years, which is a far more agonizing ordeal to live through than the approximately one year span shown here. Still, it's a thoughtful, realistic drama concerning a subject that hasn't gotten a lot of coverage in the cinema. To date, Caan has not again stepped behind the camera to direct.