LAST ACTION HERO
A film review by John Walker
Copyright 1993 John Walker
My form of "rating": I saw it twice at first-run prices, and
*wanted* to see it more. It had left (I don't get much
time for movies), so I bought the baseball cap as a
token of loyalty. I'll buy the tape when it comes out.
<>
If you leave your expectations behind, you'll find LAST ACTION HERO to be an enjoyable film worth recommending to others. If you like a movie that explores the fantasy/reality dichotomy, you'll find an *extremely* enjoyable flick worth at least a second viewing.
And if you like movies that allow layers of interpretation where one level unfolds to another, then you may wind up boring your friends with continued discoveries. (If, further, you're a movie freak who enjoys humorous references to other films, watch it with a friend who's similarly minded. You can compare notes afterwards.)
<>
Well, for those of us in the States, this is post mortem. But I've heard one too many comment from folks who seem to have seen a totally different LAST ACTION HERO than I saw. If nothing else, maybe some folks in Europe will benefit from a different point of view.
The story is probably known, but it can be recapped briefly:
Danny (Austin O'Brien) is a fan of Jack Slater (Arnold Schwarzenegger) movies. He gets two gifts from Nick (Robert Prosky), a theater projectionist: one, being allowed to sneak in on a pre-screening (at midnight) of the latest Jack Slater flick; and two, a "magic" ticket given to the projectionist when he was kid by none other than Houdini.
The ticket has "a mind of its own" and throws Danny right into the film. He and Jack must deal with a gang lord (played by Anthony Quinn) and his hit man Benedict (Charles Dance) as they plan to pull off a major slaughter of the competition. Benedict will get hold of the ticket and find that our world (Danny's) is a place where "bad guys can *win*." Jack and Danny have to defeat him.
<>
One thing about expectations becomes obvious at the outset: this ain't an action flick. And yet it's not *not*-an-action-flick. It might better be called an action-flick flick.
Those who expect a satire of action flicks will be only partially satisfied. The spoofing of the genre is coming from people who basically *like* action flicks. And Danny is the chief representative of that crowd. As he settles down to his first viewing of the new Jack Slater flick, he *knows the rules*. Watching the Jack Slater film's first explosion, Danny practically lists out the body count before we even see what's really happened.
"He's okay. ... All the cops dead."
Of course, he's right.
If it's all so predictable, some might wonder why he bothers to go. It's not novelty of plot; presumably there's *something else*. We never get told what *he* thinks the something else is in the Jack Slater flick. But LAST ACTION HERO's something else is Danny himself and his relation to the Slater film (*and* to LAST ACTION HERO).
<>
As LAST ACTION HERO progresses, there are two quite separate "lines" going: the first is the plot of the Jack Slater flick that Danny is trapped in. The second -- the something else -- is a sort of dialogue between Danny and Jack. Danny repeatedly tries to prove to Jack that they're in a movie. For instance, he points out that there's an *animated cat* at police headquarters. And he points out that all the telephone numbers begin with 555 -- which allows only 9,999 possible phone numbers for millions of people in Los Angeles alone.
The interesting thing is that from Jack's perspective, there's a perfectly plausible reply: he knows the cat is there -- the cat is a *good cop*. And they have *area codes*! Nonetheless, Jack does seem to recognize that this kid has something. Danny knows things he should have no means of knowing.
An important point is reached when Danny writes something on a piece of paper, shows it to Jack, and asks him to say the word. Jack won't. Of course, he won't -- he *can't*. This is rated PG!
Although nothing is said of this, my own conclusion is that Danny has hit a weak point in Jack's logical armor: why *can't* he say it? Jack's expression is one of confusion and consternation.
For his part, however, Danny is recognizing that the movie is in some sense *real*. At one point the villain is escaping in his car; Danny, on a girl's bike, decides it's the time to play chicken. After all, this is a movie: the car will swerve to avoid him, and it'll crash. Right?
"Chicken it is. ... This is *gonna* work. It's a movie,
I'm a good guy. This has *got* to *work*!
But as he pedals on, something dawns on him:
"I'm a comedy sidekick! It's not gonna work!"
He's *expendable*! So *he* swerves and crashes!
Danny has recognized this may be a movie, but he's *in* it. He's not immortal. Even if this is a movie, he still doesn't want to get killed. He has to *act* as if it's real, because in some sense it *is*.
<>
Well, it's fun to have a movie let you think about how fantasy and reality work together. But the "dialogue" between Danny and Jack (and Jack's world) is not all there is.
First, we may well be learning more about Jack's world than customarily shows up on the screen. His apartment is empty and barren. He gets a store clerk to call him at headquarters so people will think his ex-wife is still interested. She ain't.
There's a reality behind the fantasy.
But, if there's a reality behind the fantasy, what about "reality"? What about Danny's New York?
When Benedict gets hold of the ticket, he uses it to go to the "real world." From his perspective, it's not the real world, it's simply a parallel universe.
Well, if there's a reality behind the fantasy, there's also a fantasy behind the reality. Sooner or later, it must dawn on us that we're *watching a movie*. The only historical/cinematic analogy I can think of is the Roy Rogers type of westerns compared to the "Gunsmoke" type. Gunsmoke *looked* real, but it was still a fantasy.
Danny's New York superficially looks real. And when Jack gets hit there, it *hurts*. But there are tell-tale signs all over. Take only one example (of many): We get at one point a virtual sea of *immaculate* cabs! And they all seem available! Yeah, this is the New York I have seen. Yeah, right away.
The time in New York apparently disappointed a number of critics and viewers. But if you see it as learning about the fantasy behind the reality, it's one of the most pleasing sections of the film. It's where the "dialogue" gets wrapped up.
<>
As some have noted, LAST ACTION HERO did pretty well -- but *not* in terms of expectations or dollar investment. (It remains to be seen whether European audiences can bring it into the black.) I think that the problem is that it's a "niche-breaker." As I said above, it's not an action flick, but it's not *not*-an-action-flick.
Action-flick fans probably saw it once, thought it was okay, but not TERMINATOR, and didn't see it again. Or worse still, expecting TERMINATOR, felt let down.
People who can't stand action flicks probably stayed away on principle.
In the "middle" we have the critics -- people who spend most of their time bewailing Hollywood's reliance on predictable niches -- and the rest of the time savaging any film that doesn't fall into a predictable niche.
Unfortunately, people who can't stand action flicks are frequently the sort of people who pay attention to critics.
My own litmus test of LAST ACTION HERO's potential was a woman who usually likes relatively "serious" films. A Schwarzenegger flick would *not* be on her must-see list. But, having heard my praise, and being in a spur-of-the-moment mood, she and her husband saw it. They both enjoyed it -- and more than the serious film they'd been looking forward to (THE FIRM).
<>
First, I haven't got into all the "references" in LAST ACTION HERO. I'll give one that I didn't notice the first time. Early on, Danny watches a Roadrunner cartoon, and it includes the requisite product from ACME, where *everything* comes from in Roadrunner cartoons. After Danny's thrown into the flick, villains are throwing dynamite sticks. What's the label on the side of the box? Yup, "ACME."
LAST ACTION HERO is packed with these. If you don't see them, you don't lose anything. If you *do* see them, they're freebie extras. Watch it with a friend; compare notes.
(For independent research: what's the significance of the title?)
Next, I have been told that Schwarzenegger cannot act. What he has, I'm told, is "presence." Well, perhaps what that means is that he's really a character actor, that he has a range into which he fits comfortably, but the range is not as wide as other, better, actors.
As far as acting and presence are concerned, I particularly enjoyed watching "Jack" confront "Arnold" in the the "real" New York. If Schwarzenegger can't act, he can at least change presence at will. There were two different people on screen as far as I was concerned. If that's not acting, it's a good substitute.
Finally, I do hope that LAST ACTION HERO does well in Europe. Maybe if the film makes money, however little, more people in Hollywood will be willing to break niches. To do that, however, they're going to have to figure ways to circumvent the critics and the other media, and to get to those audiences (or audience segments) who are apt to like a particular flick.
I can't really blame the TERMINATOR fans who didn't like LAST ACTION HERO. People have preferences and that's that. In music, I happen to like (among others) Renaissance, late Romantics, the 30s "sweet" sound, and hard rock. Statistically, however, folks who like one are apt to dislike or be bored by *at least* one of the others. But I get tired when people seem to think that they can only defend their music by putting down someone else's.
In film, the jerks are not those who like one genre or another. The jerks are the critics who get locked into niches while pretending to be above them all.
Alas, poor Arnold, you did a flick that was meant to be seen by people who tend to pay attention to critics!
John Walker, walkerj@digex.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews