Home > thoughts > G.I. Joe: Can explosions and gadgets carry a movie?

G.I. Joe: Can explosions and gadgets carry a movie?

Previously on WhatWouldWesleyDo: Are we too technologically dependent? & Vanessa Hudgens FTL (for the loss)

I saw G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra this weekend on my last few dollars before school starts and I’m kind of torn between whether or not it was worth the money or not. If you haven’t seen it I definitely recommend you seeing it and finding out for yourself, and if you’ve already seen it, let me know what you think. The special effects were of course marvelous, but they seemed to CGI at times. The characters were cool, but some of the acting was hokey. Essentially, everything that was good had an equally bad drawback in the same lane. Here’s a trailer just to give you a small example:

And then there’s the plot, which all in all wasn’t very good. G.I. Joe suffers from the same problems that 92.6% movies that fall into the “brought back from the early 90’s or before and made into a movie in the new millennium” end up (the exceptions are Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and the Batman series with Christian Bale as the main star). I guess the idea is to modernize the story lines while making them more palatable to the non-nerd viewing audience… but the problem is only four movies by my judgment have been able to do that.

Transformers, X-Men, Superman and all of the other great geek franchises all have great premises to build a movie empire from, but instead of using the quality product as a building block these “genius” directors add explosions, kill off integral characters, insert foul language, and introduce illegitimate children for entertainments sake. If you have the time, do me a favor and watch this:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Not the most mature/developed story, but why not try that instead of making up some convoluted international terrorism story that not even the worst terrorists would attempt or even think about…

That said, I liked G.I. Joe.

Maybe it’s because I went in with very low expectations and as I did with transformers, was satisfied enough with the audio/visual extravaganza that took place on the screen. I do know that it wasn’t because think it was because the movie was all that great. It was flippin’ great to see Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow in action. Ruining their backstory and taking their struggle where they did after one movie, not necessarily the best idea but still great to see.

Marlon Wayans definitely saved the movie from Channing Tatum and Sienna Miller’s terrible chemistry and acting (the movie would have been soooo much better with Mark Wahlberg as Duke and without that retarding Baroness love storyline. Not only did Wayans deliver solid acting mixed with the timely funny, but he tried to follow the post-racial American dream of the interracial relationship in a way that even a mother could love.

I’m kind of amped to see the sequel, but I think it needs work. If I were a real critic and my opinion actually mattered, I’d give this a 6.5 out of 10. The movie was carried by supporting characters, nostalgia and technology. If I had to suffer through one more terrible flashback or pointless plot twist I would have died.

Yo Joe!

Yo Joe!

Oh yeah, Dennis Quaid the kid from Angels in the Outfield/3rd Rock from the Sun and Brendan Fraser (also not pictured) were in there too.

Salute

Advertisements
  1. 11/24/2010 at 12:04 pm

    i like chaning tatum because he has a great body, just look at those chest muscles ,’:

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: