LAH was a bad movie, if Jurassic Park didn't exist, people would've watched something else once the word-of-mouth got around. LAH is one of the most smug movies I've seen, it's almost as smug as Ocean's 12 (note I said almost, lol).
Don't blame Spielberg for Arnold being in a shït movie.
Yup exactly right Last Action Hero was considered DOA in '93 not because of JP but because there was so many poor reviews and the production was a mess and went way over budget. It was and is a god awful movie. However I do admit it is also a favirot guilty pleasure of mine. But I totally agree JP didn't hurt this movie. It was a disaster before it was released.
sharePeople were hearing that it was a train wreck of a movie from the critics. it was definitely flawed in its editing, and I think people, Arnie's fans in particular, were not ready for Arnie satirizing Arnie.
____________________
The story is king.
I think its a smart idea, I concur its a badly edited and a bit too long.
Off the back of T2 people weren't ready to see Schwarzengger parody himself. They couldnt digest it and the crtics turned on it because it was a film that deconstructed a genre infront of audiences...which is what smug critics enjoy doing best
No one blames the dinosaurs. They did rub salt in the wound.
Somewhere there was a better film trying to get out. It was just a little bit too messy.
Its that man again!!
I disagree with all of you. This was a very good movie. I also doubt any of you who are saying it was badly edited have even watched the Widescreen version of the film on DVD or Bluray.
Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw
@GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 You want us to sit through this mess again? No thanks, I'd rather rewatch Total Recall, Terminator 2, or True Lies.
And all the editing in the world won't change how smug LAH is.
I think that the reality is that the moviegoing public does pay attention to the opening-weekend "horse race", as they call it.
And there's only so many movie goer dollars to go around. If they're going one place, they're not available to go to another.
So the financial failure or disappointment is affected by competition, as is the perception of quality.
The words "LAH was a bad movie..." make it sound like you have a pedantic scorecard for judging movies.
____________________
The story is king.
@virgiltx The words "LAH was a bad movie..." make it sound like you have a pedantic scorecard for judging movies.
LAH is at 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, it bombed loudly at the box office, and Arnold won't even mention it (maybe Rekall had it erased from his memory, lol). I wouldn't call that a pedantic scorecard.
To justify the "bad movie" rubber stamp, you say it got predominantly bad reviews and bombed "loudly", whatever that means.
And then the false statement that Arnie won't even mention it.
By your pronouncement, scads of cult favorites were simply "bad movies". The Wizard of Oz was a bad movie. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a bad movie. Blade Runner was bad movie. Wet Hot American Summer was a bad movie. The Night of the Hunter was a bad movie.
Yes, I'd say pronouncing a movie a "bad movie" based on reviews and box office is pedantic. You've simply clarified that more by stating your simple little scorecard.
____________________
The story is king.
@virgiltx ...and bombed "loudly", whatever that means.
It means that it lost a lot of money.
And then the false statement that Arnie won't even mention it.
Prove me wrong.
As for your examples, I looked up the first three on Rotten Tomatoes:
- The Wizard of Oz is 99%
- Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is 89%
- Blade Runner is 89%
All fresh. Again, LAH is 37% - that's rotten.
Yes, I'd say pronouncing a movie a "bad movie" based on reviews and box office is pedantic.
Bad reviews, bad box office - if that's not enough proof, then what is? You could always read this:
http://www.empireonline.com/features/last-action-hero
Rotten Tomatoes was created in 1998, it did not exist when Oz, WW&TCF and Blade Runner were released. Those RT reviews were all made when those movies had become accepted as cult favorites and it was safe, and even expected, that you would hold them in high esteem.
And The Wizard of Oz was an initial flop. http://classicfilm.about.com/od/classicmoviereviews/tp/5-Classic-Movies-That-Were-Box-Office-Flops.htm
The statistical tracking of the reviews of movies reviews was not done then, and percentages pro and con were not tallied and reported, but being panned by Variety, or other influential critics could be fatal. WW&TCF was panned by Variety as "cynical and sadistic".
Arnie discussing LAH: http://weminoredinfilm.com/2015/09/11/an-oral-history-of-last-action-hero-the-ultimate-cautionary-tale-part-2/comment-page-1/
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Action_Hero#Box_office
LAH grossed $137M vs $85M prod budget. It's been referred to as a box office disappointment. I can't find any actual reference to a tallied loss, or even a simple statement that it did in fact lose money. I think it's probably in profit with the addition of ancillary.
How much do you think it lost?
IMO, a "loud" loser would be something like Pluto Nash, which grossed $7M vs $100 budget.
____________________
The story is king.
@virgiltx Rotten Tomatoes was created in 1998, it did not exist when Oz, WW&TCF and Blade Runner were released.
You could say the same for LAH, which was released in 1993.
Good find of the article with Arnold discussing LAH, though it looks like a rehash of the Empire article from 2012 which I linked earlier, in which everyone tries to explain why the movie was a disaster. Yes, Arnold does discuss it - but it's an article about LAH, so he doesn't have much of a choice does he? It's not like he brings it up in other interviews.
How much do you think it lost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Action_Hero#Background_and_production
"The final declared financial loss for the film was $26 million."
IMO, a "loud" loser would be something like Pluto Nash, which grossed $7M vs $100 budget.
You leave Pluto Nash out of this! Nah, just kidding.
Look, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you like LAH, then that's fine. But you won't convince me that it's a good movie.
@virgiltx I just realized why the article you linked to is so similar to the Empire article: check out the sources at the bottom of the article.
Sources: Empire, Hit & Run by Nancy Griffith & Kim Masters, Blockbuster by Tom Shone, The Big Deal by Thom Taylor, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s autobiography Total Recall.So Arnold wasn't interviewed about LAH after all - the website just took excerpts from his autobiography. Those sneaky bastards. share
I frankly think Rotton Tomatoes is full of crap. Never agree with anything any reviewer on there says about a movie. They give 2 other Arnold favorites of mine Kindergarten Cop and Twins a low rating too.
Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw
Well when critics give Revenge of the Sith a higher rating than Return of the Jedi. Thats when you know they are full of Sh!t.
share[deleted]
So you think its impossible for a Juggernaut to knock down few other movies. You know like everyone see that movie because its a major thrill ride were you get see realistic dinosaurs for the first time ever on film Vs a movie that just about some kid trapped in a movie. Im not blaming spielberg. I mean Jurassic Park is a great movie. But at least be f###ing Realistic. Not that i really care about how much money a movie makes anyways. I mean if something gets a sequel great. If not, Life moves on.
Also nobody listen to Film Critics. If they did listen to Film Critics. Transformer should have never made any money what so ever. I stop listen to Film Critics when they told me that Star Trek 09 and Into Darkness was better than Wrath of Kahn. When Film Critics start basing their rating on how entertaining something is. Then are no better than the rest of us. Frankly i don't think this movie is anywhere as bad as critics say. Its a entertaining piece of satire. and it dose exactly what a parody or satire is supposed to do. Make fun of the cliche of a pictacular genre (aka Action Movies). And it dose that pretty good. Unless you don't understand what satire or parody is. But Film Critics also gave Spaceballs a bad review. Main reason given is that came out 10 years after the original Star Wars. Or at least that was Roger Ebert excuse.
If you're just going to say its horrible satires. Let point you to some really horrible satire. Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, The Starving Games or basically anything directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.
@bond_98 So you think its impossible for a Juggernaut to knock down few other movies.
No, just that people should stop saying that LAH flopped because of Jurassic Park. It flopped because it was a bad movie with bad word-of-mouth.
If you're just going to say its horrible...
I never said it was horrible, I said it was a bad movie.
You're making counter-arguments to things that I didn't even say.
[deleted]
@Marco_The_Mexican ...the target audience is the movie buffs and connoisseurs.
An $85 million blockbuster aimed at connoisseurs? No wonder it tanked.
[deleted]
Really to me since you are trying to state your opinion as fact and treating me and others who like the movie like crap, this is the only dignified response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNPvd0HE7Kk
Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw