SCREEN-L Archives

August 1993


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Edward Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 31 Aug 1993 01:45:54 -0400
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (19 lines)
Mindy -
Actually, I saw it with two friends who hadn't really caught the media
death-buzz, and neither of them could figure out what was supposed to be
so bad about it. Hollywood sends up these sacrificial megaflops every year
or so, as a kind of innoculation against the rest of its generic product -
critics can bash on Last Action Hero, and pretend that Jurassic Park isn't
twice as wasteful and vapid. The thing is, the films Hollywood picks on
are usually the ones that exhibit a little spark - something that makes
them distinguishable from the more familiar brand of mediocrity. So
they usually have a lot more interesting stuff going on.
The real bummer is that the film seems to have derailed Michael Lehmann's
career - I heard he was recently bumped off one project, and I don't know
of anything else he's done since HH. (He was the director of Heathers.)
Meanwhile, Bruce Willis, who was even sort of funny in HH, just dusted
himself off and got a lot more boring.
-- Ted Friedman