In the sequel to Romancing the Stone, we start off on a ship. No attempt at realism here. Definitely on a Sound Stage. Jack (Michael Douglas) and Joan (Kathleen Turner) are fighting off pirates that for some reason look straight out of Mad Max. Then cut to "reality." Joan and Jack are actually living it up on a yacht. In the last movie, they had planned a romantic year of sailing around the world. And here they are, off the coast of the French Riveria, six months into the trip. She's typing her latest novel, but this time, instead of thinking her "pure cheese" writing is good, she recognizes just how horrible it is, and throws her typewriter overboard. It seems like an ill omen for the sequel, as what was lauded and applauded in the first movie might now be seen with sober clarity in the sequel. The stuff she writes is shite, and maybe it's also the movie admitting its store is shite. The sequel was rushed into production after the original film did bette...
This is the first in a trio of films with Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, and Danny DeVito -- the other two being The Jewel of the Nile (1985) and The War of the Roses (1989). The movie opens in the American West, and the story is pure cheese. Cut to Joan Wilder (Turner) sitting at her typewriter. She's a romance novelist, and she's just finished her latest novel. She's pleased with the way it came together at the end. Based on the opening sequence, are we then supposed to excuse the movie itself for being pure cheese? My thought being: This is a framing device, and starting off with one of Joan Wilder's romance novels makes little sense, unless we're being prepared for the movie itself as being another one of her romance novels. Maybe one that "really happened" to her, but one that she will then fictionalize and write as a romance novel. As I watched it, I thought: The quality of the script and the filming is on par with the 1980s TV show The A-Team... ...