MovieChat Forums > The Jewel of the Nile (1985) Discussion > One of The Worst Sequels of The 80's

One of The Worst Sequels of The 80's

posted 18 years ago by vector-99
20 replies | jump to latest

After watching the first "Stone" movie the other day I tried watching this. I had not seen it for about 20 years and could not remember most of it. I quickly understood why. The plot was week, production obviously rushed and the acting was not so great either. The first problem that I had was with Jack Colton agreeing to team up with Ralph who in the previous movie was involved in the kidnapping of Joan Wilder's sister. No valid reason is ever given as to why Jack agrees to this but nonetheless in the next scene we see Jack and his new buddy Ralph getting off a plane in Africa. I then waited for the scene where Joan first realizes that Jack is hanging out with Ralph hoping that Jack would provide her with some reasonable explanation. The writers were able to get out of that one by having Jack fall off a balcony and become dazed and confused right after Joan points to Ralph and asks "What the hell is he doing here?" I can think of some much more clever ways that Ralph could have been written in to this story without it seeming so over the top and I'm not even a screenwriter.

We're ready to rock and roll here ~ Invasion U.S.A.(1985)

[–] Pirate_Patch 18 years ago

Also, the film pretended to be set in Egypt, yet they did nothing to hide the fact that it was filmed in Morocco using Moroccan extras. The native actors spoke in Moroccan Arabic and not Egyptian Arabic. The architectural styles seen were Moroccan also.

Imagine watching a foreign-made movie where the story is set in America, but you soon realise that everything looks British and the American characters are all speaking in an English accent!!

Typical Hollywood ignorance of foreign cultures.

Reminds me of an episode of "Seven Days" where it's set in a fictitious North African country, yet everyone was dressed in Indian clothing!!

[–] don_juan 18 years ago

can't argue with the "ignorance of hollywood" regarding foreign cultures..... but for the average person sitting on a couch...it's a pretty enjoyable/adventure movie.

[–] sluido 16 years ago

Actually this movie wasn't so bad, I think most people just prefer the first one. The production wasn't "rushed", this must have cost a lot. There was plenty of charm, fun and action for a great movie to sit through. I was never board once. Sure the movie treats other cultures with disrespect, but then you may not watch ANY movie or TV show and spend your entire life despressed.

[–] AssetsonFire 16 years ago

That's ridiculous. Who cares if the accents were Moroccan?

How do you like them apples?

[–] anthony1081 16 years ago

Um....Moroccans perhaps? Or Egyptians? Im british and I care.

[–] AssetsonFire 16 years ago

Well that's your choice, but why you'd be offended by an innocent imperfection is beyond me, especially when there were other aspects of the film that actually were, in my opinion, offensive.

How do you like them apples?

[–] filmbuff1974 15 years ago

"Also, the film pretended to be set in Egypt, yet they did nothing to hide the fact that it was filmed in Morocco using Moroccan extras. The native actors spoke in Moroccan Arabic and not Egyptian Arabic. The architectural styles seen were Moroccan also. Imagine watching a foreign-made movie where the story is set in America, but you soon realise that everything looks British and the American characters are all speaking in an English accent!! Typical Hollywood ignorance of foreign cultures. Reminds me of an episode of "Seven Days" where it's set in a fictitious North African country, yet everyone was dressed in Indian clothing!! "-- PiratePatch

That was a loaded pistol of a post. You are of course absolutely correct. This kind of stunt was done especially in the decade of the eighties. But it's a long, long Hollywood tradition going back to the silent era. Fortunately, today's films are pretty much free of glaring insensitivities such as you described. The post need to be made. Thanks!

Live Long and Prosper!

[–] michaelkendall2 15 years ago

Agreed; a shockingly disappointing sequel to a true classic.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] photog-12 13 years ago

Ditto. Watching it right now.

[–] leonine-4 13 years ago

Actually, I don't think the movie ever actually mentioned being set in Egypt. The Nile is a pretty long river that runs through numerous countries albeit not Morraco. I believe it was purely a fictious country that never actually gets a name in the movie. Plus, Hollywood plays off other countries as America all the time too because it is generally cheaper to film outside the US. TV Shows like "Smallville" and "Supernatural" get filmed in Canada. I always think it is funny to see "Smallville" which is supposed to be in Kansas to have huge forests and waterfalls. :)

[–] filmbuff1974 13 years ago

" Plus, Hollywood plays off other countries as America all the time too because it is generally cheaper to film outside the US. TV Shows like "Smallville" and "Supernatural" get filmed in Canada. I always think it is funny to see "Smallville" which is supposed to be in Kansas to have huge forests and waterfalls. :)"--leonine-4

Wow, I caught a few episodes of "Smallville" and had forgotten that it was supposed to be a mid-western city. Yeah, Hollywood sure takes liberties with locations and cultures. It is just the nature of the beast.

Good call!

If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!

[–] glacier1982 13 years ago

There is a forty minute span where Jack and Joan are either fighting or fleeing, all in a very loud manner. Watching these two bitch at each other while stuff blows up around them gets old very fast. Not to mention the Nubian tribe scene, where there are drums and people shouting continuously for 15 minutes. It's during these scenes where Jack and Joan fight, make up, and then fight some more and nothing engaging is happening. The story is unfolding before us and we are bored as $hit.

[–] laeyisoracle 12 years ago

The thing about Canada is, some of Canada can pass off as looking like the US. With a few particular lingo mannerisms aside, a lot of Canadian English is not unlike American English. Hell, a lot of northern US is almost like south Canada(Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Maine in particular).

Of course, not many gripe about how, whenever they shoot movies set in ancient Greece or Rome, most of the actors are either British and they speak in Brit accents(English, Scottish), or if the actors aren't British(say, they are American), they "adopt" a poor "faux" British accent for the role. Brad Pitt in Troy and Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator ring to mind. Ancient Mediterranean people didn't speak with British accents. LOL!

[–] WehoSteve 14 years ago

I always thought this movie was set in Morocco and the Jewel character was simply from Egypt.

[–] blackstone454 14 years ago

I didn't enjoy this movie as much as the first one...But that's like saying I don't like vanilla ice cream as much as chocolate. I enjoyed it still.

Movie makers taking short cuts with ethnic/cultural backgrounds? I'm a Canadian born of Haitien descent. Hollywood has yet to represent either of my cultures accurately beyond stereotypes. It matters in historical movies. In big adventure movies, I can look past that. There was chemistry between the leads, action, humor, romance...I enjoyed the hell out of it anyway. I would take 30 of these over NATIONAL TREASURE or INDIANA JONES 4 or TRANSFORMERS or GIJOE or...

--
Personal insults have no place in smart discussions.

[–] xellos49698 11 years ago

I was surprised this was so low. Yeah, the first one was better, but this was still a very entertaining movie.

[–] panteleon2 10 years ago

I watched recently and i read it was a Michael Douglas production. Seem this movie was a way for Michael to make easy money in the 80's

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]