Jack Colton (Michael Douglas) and Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner) crouch amid wreckage in the jungle
Film review

Romancing the Stone

1984 · Directed by Robert Zemeckis · 1h 46m

In a sentenceWe would happily postpone the treasure hunt for another argument between Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas

Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner), a woman from the big city, finds herself sharing a dangerous adventure with Jack T. Colton (Michael Douglas), a reckless soldier of fortune. Treasure is at stake, and the prospect of romance comes with the problem of staying alive. Ralph (Danny DeVito) is among the other people involved. Joan faces unfamiliar dangers beside a man accustomed to taking risks. Their different expectations complicate a partnership that demands they deal with each other as well as their surroundings. The prospect of treasure gives them something else to contend with.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas make this cheerful treasure adventure worth the detours. The plotting is familiar and the swagger occasionally tiresome, but the romance has enough wit to keep us interested.

Romancing the Stone is an enjoyable romantic adventure with enough chemistry between its leads to carry a fairly familiar plot. Robert Zemeckis keeps the danger lively, but the prospect of another argument between Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas is what makes us want the next scene. The treasure gives them something to pursue while they work each other out. The film understands how much entertainment there is in watching two attractive people take their time about admitting the obvious.

Kathleen Turner gives Joan Wilder the mixture of uncertainty and determination that this sort of adventure needs. The role depends on our wanting her to become more resourceful, and the performance makes that wish easy to share without treating her initial inexperience as stupidity. We found ourselves rooting for her more than we expected. Watching her hold her own in the verbal sparring makes her confidence matter to us, even when the surrounding complications are predictable.

Michael Douglas makes Jack T. Colton’s self-assurance attractive enough to explain the romance, though the film indulges him a little too readily. He is funniest when his confidence meets resistance, and Diane Thomas gives the couple enough disagreement to prevent their attraction from becoming merely decorative. Danny DeVito, as Ralph, supplies a welcome additional source of comic energy. His contribution is especially useful when the leading man’s swagger threatens to become the whole joke.

Dean Cundey’s cinematography keeps the action readable and leaves the performers room to compete with the commotion. That matters here: losing sight of how the couple respond to danger would remove much of the pleasure from it. Lawrence G. Paull’s production design gives the adventure sufficient substance, although the surroundings are more persuasive as places to pursue treasure than places where anyone might ordinarily live. The emphasis stays firmly on the visitors and their troubles.

Editors Frank Morriss and Donn Cambern maintain the forward movement without cutting away all the pauses that allow the comedy to register. The rhythm is particularly effective when an exchange between the leads briefly becomes more interesting than whatever they are supposed to be doing. Alan Silvestri’s score supplies urgency, though its encouragement can feel unnecessary when the action is already busy enough. At 106 minutes, the film has a sensible length for this mixture, even if some complications feel like delays rather than discoveries.

The limitations become harder to overlook whenever the romance steps aside. The film is too ready to treat people outside the central pairing as obstacles, assistance or comic interruptions, and its enthusiasm for its leading man sometimes makes the heroine’s independence seem conditional. These are familiar weaknesses in adventure escapism, but familiarity does not make them less noticeable. Diane Thomas’s writing is considerably more engaging when the couple are testing each other than when the plot is arranging their next difficulty.

The right mood for this is a desire for romance without an evening spent sitting still. Anyone seeking a tightly surprising adventure may be less forgiving of the expected complications and the occasional smugness. Choose it for Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas, and be prepared to care rather less about the treasure.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

69
Positive
7
Mixed
2
Negative
0

Most critics find Romancing the Stone a lively, likeable adventure, with praise centred on its old-fashioned escapism, comic energy and romantic leads. Kathleen Turner’s performance draws particular approval, as does her chemistry with Michael Douglas: their verbal sparring gives the action a welcome lightness. The favourable reviews also enjoy the treasure-hunt ingredients and the heroine’s growing resourcefulness, generally accepting the familiar storytelling as part of the pleasure.

The reservations concern originality and the assumptions behind the romance, though their severity varies considerably. Some otherwise appreciative reviews acknowledge dryness or familiar plotting. Variety is cooler about the heroine’s transformation, treating it as a predictable screen formula. Slant Magazine offers the sharpest dissent, arguing that the film’s xenophobia and male self-importance make its adventure a defence of white male protection. The spread is therefore wider than the broadly favourable consensus might suggest: the objections extend beyond how efficiently the entertainment works.

The Hollywood Reporter
26 March 1984 · Arthur Knight
85*

Knight considers it a superior, highly entertaining adventure that knows exactly what it is. He particularly praises Kathleen Turner’s transformation into a daring, resourceful heroine.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

The critic praises the film as a lively, old-fashioned adventure with clever humor and top-notch action. Kathleen Turner’s exhilarating performance and chemistry with Michael Douglas stand out.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
75*

The review finds the film lively, entertaining adventure fare. It praises Douglas and Turner’s chemistry, the exuberant direction, and DeVito’s performance.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
30 March 1984 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

Ebert regards the film as an enjoyable adventure. He praises its lively old-fashioned escapism.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 March 1984 · Janet Maslin
70*

Maslin’s review is broadly positive about the film as an entertaining action comedy. It singles out the comic energy of the adventure.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· JP
70*

The review presents the film as engaging wish-fulfilment. It singles out the lively combination of treasure maps, crocodiles and romantic adventure.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Romancing the Stone worth watching?
Romancing the Stone is worth watching for its witty romance and lively adventure, and we score it 77 out of 100. Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas make the couple’s arguments more engaging than the treasure hunt. We recommend it for their chemistry, with a caveat for predictable complications and the leading man’s occasionally tiresome swagger.
How long is Romancing the Stone, and what is it rated?
Romancing the Stone runs 1h 46m. It is a romance and comedy film.
Where can I watch Romancing the Stone in Argentina?
Romancing the Stone is not on any streaming or rental service in Argentina at the moment. It is available in 36 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is Romancing the Stone, and is it suitable for children?
Romancing the Stone has a UK 12 certificate, making it a better fit for viewers aged 12 and over than younger children. The adventure puts its central couple in danger, though our review offers no detail about gore or the intensity of individual scenes. We would not treat its cheerful romantic comedy as sufficient reassurance for a sensitive child.
How does Romancing the Stone compare to The African Queen?
Romancing the Stone offers cheerful treasure-hunting romance, while The African Queen is our recommendation for the warmth of a bickering pair’s river adventure. Both ask us to forgive unlikely plotting because the leads are worth watching. We favour Romancing the Stone for lively action and flirtatious sparring, and The African Queen for Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn’s reluctant affection.
What should I watch after Romancing the Stone?
After Romancing the Stone, try The African Queen (1951, Fi1m 84): Another mismatched pair discovers that danger does wonders for reluctant affection. Then Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000, Fi1m 90): For romance and adventure taken more seriously, with longing behind the action.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1985

Nominated
Best Film Editing

If you liked this, try…

  1. The African Queen (1951, Fi1m 84)Another mismatched pair discovers that danger does wonders for reluctant affection.

  2. That Man from Rio (1964) · not reviewed yetA brisk French adventure giving romance and physical comedy equal room.

  3. Charade (1963) · not reviewed yetRomance, danger and suspicious motives, with unusually pleasurable company throughout.

  4. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000, Fi1m 90)For romance and adventure taken more seriously, with longing behind the action.

  5. The Lost City (2022) · not reviewed yetA broader romantic treasure hunt, carried by another enjoyably mismatched central pair.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever