MovieChat Forums > Romancing the Stone (1984) Discussion > Watched it again last night after many y...

Watched it again last night after many years

posted 5 years ago by arflexit (2376)
24 replies | jump to latest

This movie was not anywhere near as good as I remembered it being. I remembered it being more Indiana Jones like but with more Rom-Com. This is not at all the case. The movie realies way too much on the 'mcguffin' device the side characters are all caracitures with no real motivation fleshed out, the potential of exploring some essence of lore or mystery on the Stone the history the worth and motivations of those that left the map are completely wasted, and overall the film is pretty boring.

Combined with poorly choreographed fighting (with everyone having unlimited ammo) and car chases that leave something to be desired, and humor that often times falls very flat. Michael Douglas does not deliver an inspired performance and Kathleen Turner is mostly annoying in a majority of the movie and then unconvincing at the end. Overall, not a 'terrible' movie, but much worse then I remember it.

Side Note: I was amused by Danny Devito's Batman line when they were in the cave knowing that years later he would play Penguin in Batman Returns.

[–] TandyMan (11185) 5 years ago

yeah, this movie is a weird one. i still love it despite the many accurate flaws you point out. I actually watch this every few years with Croc Dundee, another movie that's never as good as you remember. i'm not sure why this film leaves such an impression of adventure and romance in the memory cause it's not on screen. i guess when they do hit those big beats, they do it pretty well.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Croc Dundee is closer to being as good as I remember; watched it a few years ago and it did not have the type of jarring difference impact that Romance did. And at least the humor in Dundee doesn't fall flat, at least IMHO.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

Forgot to mention, Dundee is a good comparison, BUT I recognized it as an overall weak but friendly film at the time.

Funny what a difference a few years' cynicism can make

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

which one do you think was overall Weak but friendly; Dundee or Romancing? Both are a bit remembered through rose colored glasses I think; neither is probably as good as we 'feel' like they were. Of the 2 though I think I prefer Dundee; I think the humor worked much better.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

Dundee is what I meant ... I agree it works better in retrospect than Romancing

Specifically, I meant that, at the time, I knew I wasn't looking at a "great film," which is what I (wrongly) thought when I first saw "Romancing"

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

interesting take; Romancing seemed to be more of an epic film than Dundee but Dundee ended up being the film that stood the test of time better. I think that is true; the big difference is how each film realized its potential. Dundee is a very simple story and uses its potential to the best effect. Romancing had a lot more potential, with a deeper more complex story but ended up under performing its potential in many areas; probably even more than the ones I point out in my OP.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Kathleen Turner's star power carried this movie over a LOT of weaknesses.

Damn, she really was something in her day; talented, funny, glam, and magnetic.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

She does have some star power, especially in those days. It was more the character she was portraying that was the problem. There are some good scenes with her here; but mostly she is annoying and then is 'supposed' to transition to more capable suddenly at the films end; at least I think that is what they were going for. I am not sure because her performance at the end was not really convincing, IMO.

[–] PaladinNJ (21588) 5 years ago

Wow! I saw this in the theater.
Has it really been 35 years already?

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I know right. Damn watching some of these 80's movies now it hits you; we are not young anymore. This came out right around the time I was born so I did not see it in theaters. I saw it few years later a couple of times when I was young because my older sister loved it.

[–] PaladinNJ (21588) 5 years ago

You’re young. I took a date to see it

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

Also took a date, here.

Personally, despite the (accurate) flaws pointed out by this thread's OP, I still think it's a great film for the exact reasons I thought back then.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

It is still a good film; but not as good as I remember it being. I think the thing that frustrated me after this first time after a long time viewing was I recognized the potential it had to be so much better.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Lol; okay I am younger than you; all things are a matter of relative perspective.

Funny how time works; I can't believe it has already been 6 months since I first posted this discussion. feels like it was just a few weeks ago.

[–] blue1981 (7951) 5 years ago

I just bought the digital version off of Vudu and watched it this weekend for the first time in many years. The plot still plays as well as I remember watching it as a kid. The major improvements for me is watching it in widescreen and unedited. I only watched it off of a taped version on VHS as a kid.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

oh yes, the quality and unedited version was better than what I saw on TV 30 years ago for sure. In fact I specifically remember the last scene in the crocodile 'lair' was almost comically bad quality on TV; looked much better than what I remembered.

but still the film itself was good but in many was wasted potential to be much better.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

I tried to watch it a few weeks ago and stopped about 10 minutes into it.

[–] pjl69 (2647) 5 years ago

This was Kathleen Turner's movie and story. Michael Douglas was a side kick. Maybe that's the source of the problem with people expecting another "Indiana Jones" adventure. I think its Robert Zemeckis' better efforts, altough its been years since I last saw it. He managed to direct a movie standing on its own feet in a genre Indiana Jones defined few years earlier.

[–] blue1981 (7951) 5 years ago

Yeah I don't quite get the complaints about her as she was front and center. Also watching it again its funny to see Holland Taylor much younger in the movie as she is now known for being Charlie and Alan's mom on Two and a Half Men.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

My problem with Turner in this film was that she was annoying in her delivery of the cliche "fish out of water"; maybe that was the desired effect but it made her somewhat unbearable. Than suddenly at the end she supposedly become hyper competent (which comes out of nowhere) but her delivery of having new found confidence was not convincing in the slightest; perhaps as a result of the 'transition' happening almost instantaneously at the end and was not a graduated change.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Not really a side kick; Turner is the protagonist and Douglas's character was more of a paragon character. I just think the film focused too much on her and neglected a lot of the other potential for a deeper story and lore; more fleshed out characters and perhaps some action scenes that weren't either boring or comically bad choreographed. I mean the actors are acting like they are shooting and fighting like they know what they are doing but you can clearly see they did not put too much effort into professional consulting and training so the actors look ridiculous in most of the action scenes.

I think that the expectation was a Indiana Jones type of story focusing more on the romance and from the POV of the female love interest. Which is fine, the film is not really bad at the story part of it. I think though that it had more potential to be something better but the action scenes and humor just do not hold up well.

[–] liscarkat (18897) 5 years ago

My wife and I experienced exactly the same thing. We had seen the movie back in the '80s and enjoyed it very much. We decided to watch it again a few weeks ago and found it to be disappointing. It's not that it's bad, it's just weak.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

" It's not that it's bad, it's just weak."

Yes, that is a nice summary; not bad, just weak. I think the thing that got me was that I noticed there was potential for something more and it left something to be desired.

[–] alv790 (87) 4 years ago

I know where you are coming from but I don't really agree. I loved it as a kid, and after rewatching it as an adult I agree is not in the same league as the original three Indiana Jones movies. Those have a deeper lore, and they capture the imagination more. However, it's a bit unfair to condemn a movie just for not being as good as the best pulp adventure movies ever. This is fun, fast-paced, exotic, with a bit of romance... Not the best ever, but it's a good adventure film.