Badmovies.org Forum

Hello all bad movie junkies, I am back!  I know its been two years since you read my posts on films which are bad because of their implausibility factors.  Well, I am now doing a review on a film which makes fun of these and this movie starring California Governor Ah-nuld is none other than the Last Action Hero.  I don't care what you say because this film is bad, bad, bad.  I remember back in 93 when I first had the misfortune of spending $7 on a ticket to watch this repusive extravaganza of impossibility.  This movie is filled with so many reality mistakes, its unbelieveable.  I'll give a few examples here.

1:  Explosive in a glass eye.  Yes, this one part I have a lot of trouble with.  While investigating a crime scene, one of the officers finds the villain's glass eye.  He find a seam on it.  On the top half, it says Venegeance is" and the bottom says "mine."  He twists it until the two halves align and all of a sudden BLAM!  The whole house and part of that block is destroyed in a massive explosion.  Just what was the person who wrote that scene drunk on?  That kind of explosion could not be generated by a package so small.  It completely defies all known laws of physics.  To generate that explosion, the explosive would have had to be at least 100 times the size of that little glass eye.  Even the most potent compounds couldn't generate such an explosion in a small package.  In reality, the most potent explosion in such a small package would only generate an explosion that would simply throw that officer up.  And if that's not unrealistic enough, the heroes actually survive it!

2:  Nerve gas canisters hidden inside a dead body.  This I also have problems with.  The main villain hide canisters of nerve gas to kill all the members of the sicilian mafia at the funeral.  This is completely unrealistic because the canister used to contain nerve gas is 7 feet tall and has a 1 foot diameter.  And the body was like 6'5" tall and roughly 300 pounds.  The villain was hiding two of these in this body?  And how exactly did he put the trigger in a finger of the body without dessicating it?  In reality if you were to do this, you'd severely evisscerate the body and some parts of the equipment would be exposed.

3:  Main villain tests a theory in the real world.  This is not a scientific problem, more a reality problem.  The main villain decides to test a theory by shooting an innocent bystander and seeing how long it takes for the police to respond.  If you looked closely at that scene, you'd notice people walking behind the main villain across the street.  Now when he fires the gun, they just walk by like normal.  They don't bolt at the sound of the gunblast.  Completely unrealistic.  If you heard someone shooting a gun directly across the street from you, you wouldn't walk by nonchalantly.  You'd get the heck outta there!

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  In reality, the most potent explosion in
> such a small package would only generate an
> explosion that would simply throw that officer up.


Uh, no.  Detonations travel way way too fast to throw someone up.  Have you ever seen a person killed by a blasting cap (an amount of explosive roughly equivalent to what would fit in a glass eye)?

They aren't "thrown up."  They are torn apart.

> If you heard someone shooting a gun directly across the street from you,
> you wouldn't walk by nonchalantly. You'd get the heck outta there!

Or shoot back.

I rather enjoy this movie.

You beat me to it.
HBO has been showing this film for the last couple weeks.

I hated it when I first saw it years ago but now, after a few repeated viewings, I love it!

Best line in the movie:
"It's a beautiful day, and we are out killing drug dealers.
Are there any drug dealers in the house?"

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
This movie is filled with so many reality mistakes, its
> unbelieveable.

Are you serious?!
The whole point of Last Action Hero is that it's not supposed to be believable!

DUH!!

-----------------------------------------------

I think Mr. Wizard here needs to get laid.
LOL!

Thrown up torn apart, I was just stating what the actual power of such a small explosive is.  While I'm at it, there was another problem in the movie:

Anyone remember that scene in the movie where the Chief yells for the hero and the window pane on his office door shatters?  I suppose you have all seen that one episode of the Mythbusters where they were testing the myth about shattering glass with the human voice.  They used lead-crystal goblets for that experiment, not tempered glass window panes.  Althought they were able to achieve success with that experiment, that still lends no creedence to that stupid scene.  To shatter a glass pane on a wodden door would require achieving volume and resonance that the human voice is incapable of producing.  And because that glass pane is secured in a wooden frame, shattering it with sound alone would be near-impossible because the wood frame would prevent any vibrations.

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thrown up torn apart, I was just stating what the
> actual power of such a small explosive is.  

Well, there's a BIG difference between being thrown up and being torn apart.  And the fact that you don't seem to recognize the difference means you probably should refrain from "stating what the actual power of such a small explosive is."

I don't mean to flame, but my real point is that you come on here from time to time throwing out these points about why a certain movie is 'not believable' when (a) YOUR facts are wrong and/or (b) a movie can be enjoyable without being 100% factual on every single point and/or (c) you don't take into account the intentional 'suspension of disbelief' that is required for just about every movie except perhaps documentaries.

You are, of course, completely entitled to your opinion.  Just please state it as such.  In your opening paragraph, you clearly state that LAH is making fun of action movies, which, in MY opinion, nullifies all your arguements about factual errors in it.  They are there on purpose, which to some, is entertainment in and of itself.  This is similar to the Airplane/Loaded Weapon/Hot Shots of actioners.

I would tend to agree with ulthar. The scenes mentioned are from the "movie" segments of the film, not the "real" segments (with the exception of the villain shooting the guy to see how long the police take to arrive) and, as such, are meant to exaggerate action movie stereotypes.

I always kind of liked this movie, though it did seem to mark the end of Arnold's streak of "good" action movies for me (Commando, Predator, Running Man, Total Recall).

The good thing that came about from 'The Last Action Hero' was the awesome soundtrack.

Oh yeah BIG difference between being thrown up and being torn apart.  The end result is different, but the cause isn't.  The difference between being thrown up and torn apart is the dispersal of the pressure wave from the explosion as well as the origin point.  When you take an explosive, put it under a car and set it off, what happens?  When you take the same explosive put it inside the car and set it off, what happens?  When you take the same explosive, put it on top of the car and set it off, what happens?  Yes, the results are different each time.  In the first instance, the car would be flipped.  In the second instance, the car would be gutted.  In the third, the car would have its roof torn off.  So you see?  The difference between being thrown up or torn apart is simply the dispersal of the pressure wave and the origin point.

WyreWizard needs the p***y Patrol from HBO's "Entourage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entourage_%28TV_series%29) to come un-geekify his ass.

Dude, are you always this high strung?

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh yeah BIG difference between being thrown up and
> being torn apart.  The end result is different,
> but the cause isn't.  The difference between being
> thrown up and torn apart is the dispersal of the
> pressure wave from the explosion as well as the
> origin point.  When you take an explosive, put it
> under a car and set it off, what happens?  When
> you take the same explosive put it inside the car
> and set it off, what happens?  When you take the
> same explosive, put it on top of the car and set
> it off, what happens?  Yes, the results are
> different each time.  In the first instance, the
> car would be flipped.  In the second instance, the
> car would be gutted.  In the third, the car would
> have its roof torn off.  So you see?  The
> difference between being thrown up or torn apart
> is simply the dispersal of the pressure wave and
> the origin point.

Not quite.  If you put HiEx under a car or over a car or in a car does not matter.  The shock moving at 6000-8000 m/s does not care.  The car is ripped apart.  There is no flipping, unless you are using a low brisance heaving charge.  High brisance detonations shatter, period.  That's part of the reason for AGL explosions from artillery, missile and A-bomb targeting - so that shattering effect covers a larger area.

I do computational engineering of explosion and explosion effects for a living.  Well, that's part of my living.  I've also done, in the past, investigation of explosion crime scenes and research involving explosion crime scenes.

I'll not argue about this anymore.  I've said my peace.

ulthar..
It really suprised me that you would argue with someone none of us here know, about a movie that isn't even supposed to be real and also happens to be a fabrication of some shmoes in Hollywood back in the early 90's.

uhhh...right.

My image of you is totally blown...

ASHTHECAT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ulthar..
> It really suprised me that you would argue with
> someone none of us here know, about a movie that
> isn't even supposed to be real and also happens to
> be a fabrication of some shmoes in Hollywood back
> in the early 90's.


Cuz it's fun...to a point.  He's done this sort of thing before; with MARS ATTACKS, if memory serves.  I think it's funny for someone to say this and that is wrong because...then the stated reason is just as much fiction.

>
> My image of you is totally blown...

I could ask what image you had of me, but I'm not sure I really want to know.  ;)

Lotsa times,I log on to this site just to laugh my ass off.You guys kill me.

Last Action Hero- on of the few films I snuck into when it was playing in theaters & then snuck out of before it was half-way over. *raises hand* I swear I will not watch any more Arnold films ever again.

ASHTHECAT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WyreWizard needs the p***y Patrol from HBO's
> "Entourage" to come un-geekify his ass.
>
> Dude, are you always this high strung?


Man, I'd hate to live in your world.

I think I'd hate to live in your world, WyreWizard.  Just like Mudville, there is no joy in your world.  Movies like The Last Action Hero are not meant to be realistic.  In fact, when you get right down to it, no movie is realistic.

Vampires do not exist.

Interstellar travel does not exist.

Aliens do not exist.

Bruce Willis/Brad Pitt/The Rock are not bulletproof.

Realism comes from life and movies are designed to allow you to escape life for a few hours.

Shadowphile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Vampires do not exist.
Oh no?  Try telling that to the people that live in Louisiana who call themselves vampires and drink blood.

 
> Interstellar travel does not exist.
What do you call what light from a distant star ot a distant galaxy does?

> Aliens do not exist.
You cannot prove that.

> Bruce Willis/Brad Pitt/The Rock are not
> bulletproof.
Don't forget Arnold and Sylvester
 
> Realism comes from life and movies are designed to
> allow you to escape life for a few hours.
The trouble with that is some people stay in that fantasy even when the movie ends.  It also bothers me when the movies show a future that will never be possible, giving people false hope.  A movie can tell a good story without going into unrealistic flights of fancy.

Are you serious? I mean...come on now...

Boy, I love it when somebody new shows up griping about how unrealistic some movie is,

Dude, haven't you ever read any of the reviews or discussion here? We revel in the unrealistic, the crappy, the stupid, the trashy, and sometimes the quite undescribably bad.

I love just about all of Arnold's movies except the comedies. Last Action Hero was made as a farce and as far as explosions in movies, all of them are fake as hell.  They use a lot of gasoline in film explosions because the big fireball is so "dramatic". Guess what when you blow something up with dynamite or C4, guess what? It blows up slinging debris everywhere (including body parts).

You should lay off the caffeine kid.

trek_geezer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boy, I love it when somebody new shows up griping
> about how unrealistic some movie is,
>
> Dude, haven't you ever read any of the reviews or
> discussion here? We revel in the unrealistic, the
> crappy, the stupid, the trashy, and sometimes the
> quite undescribably bad.
>
> I love just about all of Arnold's movies except
> the comedies. Last Action Hero was made as a farce
> and as far as explosions in movies, all of them
> are fake as hell.  They use a lot of gasoline in
> film explosions because the big fireball is so
> "dramatic". Guess what when you blow something up
> with dynamite or C4, guess what? It blows up
> slinging debris everywhere (including body
> parts).
>
> You should lay off the caffeine kid.


And how many explosions have you seen actually have fireballs?  One of the worst explosions I ever saw happened in Nevada.  That one didn't even have a fireball.  Its most dramatic feature was a shockwave that traveled along the ground and was visible.  It was the explosion of a storage facility for rocket fuel.  It would be nice to see movies have such a devastating explosion.  The miracle of that one explosion was it didn't happen in a city block.  Because of the volatile nature of the chemicals it stored, it was built in the middle of the desert.  It seemed its architects were really thinking ahead.

A little OT-(actually,alot) Does anybody remember the name of the movie with Arnold as a goodguy cowboy and Kirk Douglas as a villian? It was almost like a Road Runner cartoon come to life.This is starting to bug me now!

Me, I actually enjoyed the first half of the movie, but once they got into "reality" the movie kind loses it's momentum.  

As for the nitpicks, well, the first two you could argue occur because they take place in the "movie" side of the world, where the strict laws of reality don't apply.  As for the third, well, it IS New York, people might be used to other people shooting others with guns... ;)

Arnold's name was Handsome Stranger and his job was to escort Ann Margaret to collect an inheritance. Kirk's name was Cactus Jack and he was hired to stop them.

THE VILLIAN!!!!I ILike that movie! Regardless of the crititics or  anybody else-I laffed my ass off!

WyreWizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trek_geezer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Boy, I love it when somebody new shows up
> griping
> > about how unrealistic some movie is,
> >
> > Dude, haven't you ever read any of the reviews
> or
> > discussion here? We revel in the unrealistic,
> the
> > crappy, the stupid, the trashy, and sometimes
> the
> > quite undescribably bad.
> >
> > I love just about all of Arnold's movies except
> > the comedies. Last Action Hero was made as a
> farce
> > and as far as explosions in movies, all of them
> > are fake as hell.  They use a lot of gasoline
> in
> > film explosions because the big fireball is so
> > "dramatic". Guess what when you blow something
> up
> > with dynamite or C4, guess what? It blows up
> > slinging debris everywhere (including body
> > parts).
> >
> > You should lay off the caffeine kid.
>
>
> And how many explosions have you seen actually
> have fireballs?  One of the worst explosions I
> ever saw happened in Nevada.  That one didn't even
> have a fireball.  Its most dramatic feature was a
> shockwave that traveled along the ground and was
> visible.  It was the explosion of a storage
> facility for rocket fuel.  It would be nice to see
> movies have such a devastating explosion.  The
> miracle of that one explosion was it didn't happen
> in a city block.  Because of the volatile nature
> of the chemicals it stored, it was built in the
> middle of the desert.  It seemed its architects
> were really thinking ahead.

Dude, really, you are still missing the point.

Last Action Hero = fiction + bad movie.

Explosion of a storage facility for rocket fuel in Nevada = (allegedly) fact + reality.

Now, if this forum were on www.reality.com, or www.facts.com.au, or even www.therealways**tblowsup.com, then maybe you might get someone to agree with you.  But this is www.badmovies.org, and we really don't care how things work in reality.  You aren't going to win in here.

Maybe someone needs to make a movie about these people on an internet forum who flame this guy mercilessly for being silly, and he blows up from all the flaming.  Care to explain why that could not happen in real life?  Just be glad.

"The Villain." I saw that one when it was first released to theaters. Arnold was particularly painful in it, but I think I saw it more for the supporting cast, which included Paul Lynde, Foster Brooks, Ruth Buzzi, Jack Elam, Strother Martin, Robert Tessier, and Mel Tillis.

Hey WyreWizard - What about stuff like 'The Day After'? It's the middle of 2006 and we still haven't had a nuclear holocaust. By all accounts of movies of that type, we should have had one over 20 years ago. What do you think about that?

LH-C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey WyreWizard - What about stuff like 'The Day
> After'? It's the middle of 2006 and we still
> haven't had a nuclear holocaust. By all accounts
> of movies of that type, we should have had one
> over 20 years ago. What do you think about that?


I haven't had the chance the dissect that film yet.  I'll let you know