I don’t recall who made them, but I think this has appeared at least close to the top of lists of the worst movies of all time, which has always attracted me to it. What does it take to make a movie that bad? I’m sure Stallone fans were really disappointed to see him being embarrassed by his mother instead of blowing away mooks with dual-wielded machine rifles. But is the whole problem that it wasn’t what audiences wanted, or is it really just a bad movie? I’ve always wanted to find out.
Though the log line is essentially “Die Hard on a battleship”, the Navy setting somehow gets me thinking more of JackRyan. Thanks to the movies, I think of Jack Ryan as a civilian CIA bureaucrat, but a moment’s research turned up that he’s ex-Marine. So maybe Seagal’s character here is closer to Jack Ryan than I thought, but I was more interested on my initial discovery that Seagal is serving as a cook than when I found out he’s an ex-SEAL. It takes away from the appeal of an underdog for me the more prepared that underdog is for the challenge they face in the movie.
The fact that the terrorists are led by a disgruntled CIA operative intrigues me. Most 90s bad guys are generic terrorists, but they’re usually Eastern European, maybe with a specific ex-Soviet flavor. The head terrorist being rogue CIA opens up a possibility of critiquing American policies rather than just wrapping the good guys in the Stars and Stripes and painting the bad guys as whatever the top enemy of the US government is at the time. Though since this probably required extensive cooperation with the US Department of Defense in order to be able to use the battleship setting, I doubt it would be all that forward thinking.
Full disclosure: I went and found this movie because it was mentioned on an episode My Brother, My Brother, and Me. I don’t recall what question led one of the brothers to bring up “when Martin Short inherited a boat and knew nothing about sailing in Captain Ron, he went out and found Kurt Russell”, but all I needed to hear to be interested was “Martin Short inherited a boat knowing nothing about sailing”.
I wasn’t entirely prepared for the personality clash set up here, but it’s not terribly surprising. Martin is a straight-laced man dumbfounded by Ron’s party animal ways. That’s a pretty standard setup, and those are types they slot into well.
I’m not exactly sure how I missed the Mighty Ducks phenomenon of the 90s. I knew it was a thing, but not only was I not interested (it’s a sports movie, and there aren’t any real ducks), it was never foisted upon me. I do recall noticing it (or one of the sequels) on a muted TV across the room once in the orthodontist’s office, but that’s it.
The spinoffs this movie had were ridiculous though. Two sequels is one thing, an in-name-only animated adaptation about superpowered hockey-playing cartoon ducks is another, and creating an actual NHL hockey team off the success of a movie is bizarre.
I didn’t intend to do two Disney movies concerning ducks in a row, it just happened. They’re so far apart in time and subject that I didn’t realize until I was set on this movie.
Yet another that’s been sitting on my list forever, continuing what will hopefully be a trend for the next few weeks.
I first saw this on a library shelf what seems like millennia ago. It probably was last millennium, actually. I recall it was during my period shortly after connecting the Robin Williams from Flubber to the voice of the Genie in Aladdin and deciding I wanted to see everything he’d ever done. That came to a halt long before I came close to doing that, though, which is why I can review this now.
Why didn’t I take it from the shelf then? I think the idea of building toys to go to war gave me a sense it was darker than I wanted, and also I was probably under the age of 13. We took “Parental Guidance, possibly inappropriate for children under 13” very seriously in our house. I did sneak Jakob the Liar once sometime when I was twelve. I probably would have been better off with Toys.
I’m kind of glad I didn’t see it then, though. Not only is it going to provide me with review fodder now, but I’ve also lately been revisiting some things I saw at a very young age and musing on how I wasted my First Watch of them when I wasn’t capable of appreciating the subtleties of storytelling and acting. And I wouldn’t have known who Michael Gambon was then.
This has a reputation of being a terrible misstep in Sylvester Stallone’s career. For a career built on major action spectaculars, maybe so. As a movie, we’ll see. I think Stallone could be good in the role, I think the premise is good, but maybe it doesn’t add up to a good whole. Maybe Stallone phones it in. Maybe he has no chemistry with his costar. But I’m optimistic right now.
It’s my understanding that this film is Roger Rabbit, if Roger Rabbit stopped beating around the bush and said what it was hinting at. It’s adult oriented, and apparently only PG-13 because the producer wouldn’t let Bakshi publish the R-rated cut.
Also there are no familiar characters. So one should have an easier time hiding it from their kids. I figure it’s more like the book Roger Rabbit was based on.
I’ve always kind of wanted to see a movie knowing nothing more about it than who’s in it and what genre it is. Once Upon A Crime is a murder mystery spoof with John Candy. I found it on Hulu and decided to watch it on those credentials. Apparently, he wears a mustache in it.
This movie could go either way. It’s a Saturday Night Live spinoff, but it’s from the “good” years of SNL. It’s about a couple of slackers, but they’re played by Mike Meyers and Dana Carvey. I’ve seen a few Wayne’s World segments, and it doesn’t seem like they could translate to long form, but hey, at least it’s not Coneheads.
I’ve been getting away from saying why I chose the movies, but I really have little to say this time. This movie has a strong following and it’s always been my intention to see it. Between opportunity and blogging, the time is now.