Metacritic reviews

A satisfactory, if fairly standard, action entertainment. [29 Apr 1985]

Each of those fine actors has put in a performance or two; each has made a mark. Each has made a mark here, too, if one counts dark blots on the resume. Reynolds is good; they're awful. Perhaps this is because Reynolds was directing them. He may be too nice a guy. There must be a reason. [26 Apr 1985, p.D1]

Reynolds turns the emphasis from the action scenes to the depressed emotional state of his strangely disengaged protagonist, and the result is a film haunted by an unstated, largely undramatized sense of melancholy, very personal but almost completely inarticulate.

The picture is dull and the pacing abrupt rather than quick. STICK might have been a good movie about 20 years ago, before people became sophisticated and demanded depth in characterization.

Stick is quite awful.

Reynolds never figures out whether he's making a thriller or a spoof, which for years has been the problem with his performances, too. His acting swivels from gravelly, glowering tough-guyness to nudge-and-wink appeals to the audience -- Mr. T and Johnny Carson in one. And he's way too polished for the character Leonard wrote; when he enters the slick world of Miami finance, he blends right in.

Through all this, Mr. Reynolds displays little understanding of the very good reasons why audiences usually like him. He is at his most ponderous here, with none of his trademark resiliency or sardonic humor.

Unfortunately, to fit what are seen to be the particular requirements of its director/co-star Burt Reynolds, Stick has been rendered jokey, flaccid and, the worst crime of all, deadly slow. All this in spite of the fact that Leonard was the original screenwriter. [26 Apr 1985, p.6]

Leonard's tight, vivid brushstrokes have been turned into cinematic graffiti. [6 May 1985, p.73]

It's deeply flawed by Reynolds' less than lustruous but screen-hogging performance, by a tortuous but dull plot, and by leaden direction. One for completists only.