I liked the movie quite a bit, especially for Shwarzenagger and the villain Benedict, but I agree completely with the point about Danny essentially trying to Mind Rape Slater into realizing he's a fictional movie character and that his whole existance is a movie. What the hell motivated him to try to do this? If he knows he's in a movie, shouldn't he just play along with it out of respect for Slater and his movieverse? He didn't have to keep hammering in all the action movie cliche "jokes" and being so damn obnoxious about it either!
I thought it was cool. Different strokes, I guess.
To be fair, the movie probably would have been a financial success if Jurassic Park wasn't around, but I doubt it would have been a critical one. Even with the bad marketing, many critics, including Siskel and Ebert, were aware that the movie was trying to be a satire, but the movie itself seemed to have identity issues. A clever send-up to action cliches and Ahnuld films? It had effort thrown into it, sure, but it felt like three different writers (who had their own idea of what kind of action satire the movie should be) worked on it. That's two writers too many. And the "Jack Slater" world just didn't make much sense. Is it worth watching? Sure, but I'm just confused at the metric ton of people who would defend this movie. I get why they like it, but it's not like we're talking about an action satire on the level of Hot Fuzz, so why are people so defensive about it? How did LAH get a fanbase that rivals Sonic the Hedgehog's?
I'm also an anime blogger.Leave a Comment:
Why Do People Defend This Movie?
Almost everyone knows the infamous NC review on this movie, and I admit to being confused with it. It was obviously a satire, and not once did he call it that during the review. But to his credit, he did make me aware of the movie, and after seeing many comments about the movie being funny from its rabid fanbase, I finally decided to Netflix it. And it was pretty funny...until Danny got sucked into the movie.
Most of the jokes in this movie consist of Danny pointing out the action movie cliches before they happened in a VERY unfunny and obnoxious manner. This kid would not shut up and seemed determined to convince Arnold's character, Jack Slater, that he was imaginary. Why? What would that accomplish? That's where almost all the humor comes from. And it's a weak joke, especially when compared to MST 3 K's riffs. Show, don't tell you stupid writers! On top of that, what is up with the world that Jack Slater lives in? Why is there a cartoon cat in the movie? Why are all of these buddy pairs in the movie? I wouldn't mind so much if Jack lived in action-movie world, except LAH repeatedly stated that the world he was living in was "Jack Slater IV" over and over again. Is Jack Slater IV the Rocky IV of movies or something? Because before the main character got sucked into the movie, it was practically normal.
Also, the movie's pacing is awful. There are long stretches where the movie has no action and doesn't even try to make a joke. And it keeps on creating climaxes, only for the movie to continue long after the climax is over. Padding at its worst, people. Even after the final climax, it takes too long to get Slater back into the movie. And why the hell was the Grim Reaper necessary? Just get him into the movie and end it!
Honestly, while not as bad as a Seltzerburg film, I don't get why people defend this. It doesn't have much action or jokes, Danny never shuts up, and I hate how the movie thinks that just because you get sucked into an action movie, you can parody any action cliche you want. The action is good, of course, and I really laughed at how the bad guy can kill with no repercussions in New York. Maybe if the entire story took place in an action movie world (not Jack Slater world) and Danny wasn't in it, it could have been good. Instead, it's really confusing, it fails as a satire, and it fails as an action film.