Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Generic crap.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Generic crap. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Generic crap. - 10/8/2009 9:26:30 AM   
Beno


Posts: 8127
Joined: 15/2/2007
From: Sheffield
Saw this yesterday and of course no surprises . Anyone who has seen the trailer knows what they are getting ..... so why the negativity ? It was'nt as cheesy as a Power Rangers movie but not as good an actioner as Tranformers . But i'll say this .... i enjoyed it more than the dross that was Wolverine .
The Paris chase is well staged and the Women look great ... but ... what the hell was that 30 second Brendan Fraser cameo all about ? It was as though he just turned up on set one day and barged in front of the camera !

_____________________________

"The one about the space hairdresser and the cowboy. He's got a tinfoil pal and a pedalbin. His Father's a robot and he's fucking fucked his Sister. Lego ... They're all made of fucking Lego!!"

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 31
RE: Generic crap. - 10/8/2009 10:17:42 AM   
captainrentboy

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 16/3/2008
From: South Wales

quote:

ORIGINAL: nc_jj

This stupid bullshit of a movie is, along with Transformers 2, a strong contender for the worst film of the year. It's very true what Empire says, this is Team America without laughs. It's not brilliant, and it doesn't deserve, even, one star. This is one of the worst films of this, or any other, TIME! Please, do not waste time, nor money.


Sooo you watched the trailer a couple of times, which shows exactly what the tone of the film is like, you also must've known that it was directed by Sommers. Saw that the flick had dropped to 40% odd on Rotten Tomatoes, and then still thought ''Yes, this is the film for me, here's my £7 Mr Cinema man''.
But then you came out dissapointed and furious that it was the exact same film that has been marketed everywhere Seriously, what the hell were you expecting from it?
Post #: 32
RE: Brilliant Fun - 10/8/2009 2:04:19 PM   
Death_Row_Marv

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 19/10/2005
I went to see it so I can have an opinion on it.  I’m not a person to bad mouth something without seeing it.  Hell I will watch pretty much every film that comes out at the cinema.

My point is that if you give a film like this 3 or 4 stars when it clear does not deserve it is wrong.  What do u give raiders of lost ark then??? Same sort of popcorn entertainment film yet one is a classic and deserves 5 stars the other is a 2 hour noise fest devoid of a good script, good acting(well acting of any kind really) and crap CGI.

Hell even the first Mummy films looks like a classic when put up against this. And it is a sad state when all we have to look forward in the summer is films based on toys or comics. 

I don’t remember the last summer blockbuster that was not based on something.  Are there no original I.P's anymore??

_____________________________

Rule one. I am always right.
Rule two. If it looks like I am wrong refer to rule one.
Check out http://marksfilmview.wordpress.com/

(in reply to kenada_woo)
Post #: 33
RE: Brilliant Fun - 10/8/2009 4:20:14 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Row_Marv

I went to see it so I can have an opinion on it.  I'm not a person to bad mouth something without seeing it.  Hell I will watch pretty much every film that comes out at the cinema.

My point is that if you give a film like this 3 or 4 stars when it clear does not deserve it is wrong.  What do u give raiders of lost ark then??? Same sort of popcorn entertainment film yet one is a classic and deserves 5 stars the other is a 2 hour noise fest devoid of a good script, good acting(well acting of any kind really) and crap CGI.

Hell even the first Mummy films looks like a classic when put up against this. And it is a sad state when all we have to look forward in the summer is films based on toys or comics. 

I don't remember the last summer blockbuster that was not based on something.  Are there no original I.P's anymore??


Yes Riaders is a classic, GI Joe is throwaway, shamelessly commercial fun. Not really fair to compare the two. GI Joe isn't attempting to break any new boundries or win any oscars. What were you expecting???? No sane person is going to stump up thr kind of money needed to make a summer blockbuster without some kind of build in market. And it's commercial movies like this that allow studios to fund more orignal, riskier stuff.

_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to Death_Row_Marv)
Post #: 34
RE: Brilliant Fun - 10/8/2009 11:50:41 PM   
Death_Row_Marv

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 19/10/2005
It is easy to compare lost ark to GI joe. Both are heavy on stunts/effects, both have/will spawn sequals, neither went out to get oscars.

Star Trek this year was the same a FX heavy pop corn filck but at least that was exciting and didnt have to reduce it's self to blowing everything up.

Your right that stuidos will not stump up the money for origanal IP. Look at the matrix tho. The 1st one came from no where and was amazing.

_____________________________

Rule one. I am always right.
Rule two. If it looks like I am wrong refer to rule one.
Check out http://marksfilmview.wordpress.com/

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 35
RE: respect the ninjas - 10/8/2009 11:52:46 PM   
darth silas


Posts: 4949
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: My living room
Just got back from seeing this and thought it was bloody good fun! Non stop action all the way plus Rachel Nichols and Sienna Miller looking hot.For once it was good to see a fun action film based on an 80's franchise that didnt suck and star that annoying twat Shia le Beauf.

It wont change your life and you will probably have forgotten about it after an hour or so,but you will have a good time.I give it a high 3 stars.

_____________________________

Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6.Taken together they are one giant movie and it is the greatest movie EVER.
Post #: 36
RE: Seeing it later - 11/8/2009 8:49:42 AM   
Ethanial


Posts: 2923
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Perpendicular Universe London
You expect, you haven't witnessed it for yourself.

I love shamelessly silly OTT films, but this tried too hard to make it plot based and became so tedious there was no point I gave a crap for the characters.

_____________________________

Fresh update 2010
Original update 2005.
Post #: 37
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 11:15:01 AM   
Kazuya


Posts: 7978
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai
I haven't seen this yet, but I definitely will. When I first started posting on this forum I had a Snake-Eyes av and frequently posted stuff about just how good it would be to actually get a G.I. Joe film. I even did a thread with my cast selection presented, long before anything was planned or announced, none of which have made it into the film, except Gordon-Levitt, who I wanted to play Zartan. But hey, Cobra Commander is fine as well. Nodody really noticed my admiration for the franchise since most of the people on here don't know shit about it. And what the fuck is this Action Man?
Anyway, I'm thrilled that it's finally in theatres, I don't really care about the shitty reviews, when it comes to this one, I just wanna be entertained, and from what I hear from a couple of friends of mine back home, I will be exactly that. I'll post a review of the film after I've actually seen it.


_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 38
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 11:30:59 AM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
It's interesting in last month's Total Film Sommers gave off about "internet movie haters" but with nearly every paper and magazine slating this film, it's the people on the internet who are actually racing to its defence, I've seen it twice and it remains a poor film especially in terms of how it's directed, the Snake Eyes Storm Shadow battle at end is completely underwhelming and badly edited.
The action sequences are a mess mostly, with Sommers throwing everything at the screen, so much so that you become densensitised to events. The accelerator suit section in Paris is absolutely awful, it looks like I put the cgi together on my mobile. In fact there is far too much use of dodgy cgi, the cartoon desert and planes are particularly bad, the sequence in East Africa where Duke loses his best friend in the bunker is one of the few scenes that actually feel that the characters are in jeopardy and is all the more impressive because it is played for real.
Having said that I did get a kick out of seeing a franchise that didn't completely change the appearance of the characters, cough, cough Transformers.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Kazuya)
Post #: 39
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 11:40:54 AM   
Kazuya


Posts: 7978
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai
quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

It's interesting in last month's Total Film Sommers gave off about "internet movie haters" but with nearly every paper and magazine slating this film, it's the people on the internet who are actually racing to its defence, I've seen it twice and it remains a poor film especially in terms of how it's directed, the Snake Eyes Storm Shadow battle at end is completely underwhelming and badly edited.
The action sequences are a mess mostly, with Sommers throwing everything at the screen, so much so that you become densensitised to events. The accelerator suit section in Paris is absolutely awful, it looks like I put the cgi together on my mobile. In fact there is far too much use of dodgy cgi, the cartoon desert and planes are particularly bad, the sequence in East Africa where Duke loses his best friend in the bunker is one of the few scenes that actually feel that the characters are in jeopardy and is all the more impressive because it is played for real.
Having said that I did get a kick out of seeing a franchise that didn't completely change the appearance of the characters, cough, cough Transformers.


If it's poor why did you see it twice? Just out of curiosity.


_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 40
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 11:59:19 AM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kazuya

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

It's interesting in last month's Total Film Sommers gave off about "internet movie haters" but with nearly every paper and magazine slating this film, it's the people on the internet who are actually racing to its defence, I've seen it twice and it remains a poor film especially in terms of how it's directed, the Snake Eyes Storm Shadow battle at end is completely underwhelming and badly edited.
The action sequences are a mess mostly, with Sommers throwing everything at the screen, so much so that you become densensitised to events. The accelerator suit section in Paris is absolutely awful, it looks like I put the cgi together on my mobile. In fact there is far too much use of dodgy cgi, the cartoon desert and planes are particularly bad, the sequence in East Africa where Duke loses his best friend in the bunker is one of the few scenes that actually feel that the characters are in jeopardy and is all the more impressive because it is played for real.
Having said that I did get a kick out of seeing a franchise that didn't completely change the appearance of the characters, cough, cough Transformers.


If it's poor why did you see it twice? Just out of curiosity.



The usually situation is a friend really wanted to see it, or I got a free ticket

(in reply to Kazuya)
Post #: 41
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 12:03:08 PM   
Kazuya


Posts: 7978
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kazuya

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

It's interesting in last month's Total Film Sommers gave off about "internet movie haters" but with nearly every paper and magazine slating this film, it's the people on the internet who are actually racing to its defence, I've seen it twice and it remains a poor film especially in terms of how it's directed, the Snake Eyes Storm Shadow battle at end is completely underwhelming and badly edited.
The action sequences are a mess mostly, with Sommers throwing everything at the screen, so much so that you become densensitised to events. The accelerator suit section in Paris is absolutely awful, it looks like I put the cgi together on my mobile. In fact there is far too much use of dodgy cgi, the cartoon desert and planes are particularly bad, the sequence in East Africa where Duke loses his best friend in the bunker is one of the few scenes that actually feel that the characters are in jeopardy and is all the more impressive because it is played for real.
Having said that I did get a kick out of seeing a franchise that didn't completely change the appearance of the characters, cough, cough Transformers.


If it's poor why did you see it twice? Just out of curiosity.



The usually situation is a friend really wanted to see it, or I got a free ticket


Yeah, that's the usual. I ended up seeing T3 twice that way.


_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 42
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 12:13:48 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
A press screening and went with my brother who is a huge GI Joe / Action Force fan.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Kazuya)
Post #: 43
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 12:17:06 PM   
Kazuya


Posts: 7978
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai
Okay. Did your brother like the flick?

_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 44
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 1:10:12 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
He thought it was worse than I did, pointing out they should have took a story from one of the numerous brilliant comics. He did make a point, which I kind of agree with, that there was quite a lot of good ideas that were lost in Sommers' determination to keep it moving at 200mph.
He also said Ripcord's depiction was a joke compared to the original character.
He will also be reading this because he's also a member of the forum.
Then again, I get the feeling if I caught this at the age of 16 rather than in my early 30s I would have a distinctly different view of it. After all if you watched Highlander, Big Trouble in Little China, Flash Gordon and Tron for the first time now as an adult you would probably pick them apart.
How much you love a film depends on what sort of frame of mind you are in and the time in your life when you catch it too.
GI Joe is utter crap, but as far as utter crap goes it at least tries to have fun.

< Message edited by The Hooded Man -- 11/8/2009 1:14:55 PM >


_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Kazuya)
Post #: 45
RE: G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra - 11/8/2009 1:32:03 PM   
Kazuya


Posts: 7978
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai
Yeah, I'll probably end up asking a lot of questions as well, but I'll try and see if I can't lock the inner fanboy away for a bit and just have fun with it. I know the Hama stories by heart so I'll notice instantly though, it's gonna be a little difficult, I think, but I'll make an effort.
As for your comments on the right age to thoroughly enjoy fluff like that, I think you're right, I'm a kid of the 80s and I agree that most of the flicks I enjoyed back then would be heavily panned by kids today. But hey, what do they know?


_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 46
RE: Seeing it later - 11/8/2009 3:13:48 PM   
Death_Row_Marv

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 19/10/2005
So if you give this 3 stars then what do u give classics then?????????????

This is my pont.  Hollywood as dumbed us all down so much shit like this is getting peole to give it 3 or more stars when it does not deserve it.

It will be a sad dark day when the green light the sequal. And it will happen. 

On the plus if they do a sequal it cant be any worse than the origanal.  Just look at transformers.......Oh wait um guess it could be worse.

_____________________________

Rule one. I am always right.
Rule two. If it looks like I am wrong refer to rule one.
Check out http://marksfilmview.wordpress.com/
Post #: 47
RE: Seeing it later - 11/8/2009 5:23:06 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
Hollywood hasn't dumbed down at all, It's producing the same quantities of average shite as it ever was. And of all the average popcorn fodder out there GI Joe is one of the better ones. Not every movie can be a masterpiece, and tobe honest , wouldn't want it to be. After a hard week at work sometimes it's nice just to sit back and watch shit happen without troubling my brain too much.
But I think I get your point, one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much is because of the poor showing (Star Trek execpted) of all the other event movies this year.

_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to Death_Row_Marv)
Post #: 48
RE: Seeing it later - 12/8/2009 12:11:35 AM   
Cheeze

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 23/5/2006
quote:

So if you give this 3 stars then what do u give classics then?????????????


Erm, 5 stars maybe???

The way I usually interperate star ratings is, 1 star - Crap, 2 stars - just about bearable, 3 stars - distinctly average, 4 stars - good solid movie, 5 stars - excellent

Why are a lot of people on here reacting as if a 3 star rating is a huge score? I gave this a 3, because for me it was pretty poor on many levels but entertaining nontheless. I won't defend it too much, the acting was terrible, the effects were ropey at best, the plot was nonsense but it was strangely entertaining. Maybe it was the fact that me and my 2 mates had a good laugh at it and don't regret going to see it. I think too many people are getting caught up by rating films on technical merit etc when really what it should really come down to is simply... did you enjoy it? Especially in a film of this type, if I sat there picking at the plot holes and the implausability of the whole thing then I would of scored it 1 star, but as I said in my previous post it's just one of those films that you should just switch off your brain, relax and let it be what it is. The trailer made it very clear that this was going to be pretty shoddy so anyone who parted with their money after seeing the trailer and is still disapointed, well more fool you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no kid, I'm 33 years old and a huge movie fan. This wasn't the usual type of film for me but once in a while it's nice to just chill out and watch something harmless that requires no intellegence at all. I won't be watching it again but I won't sit here and trash a film that had me coming out of the cinema smiling and having had a good night out. If I was still 12 years old this would of probably of been one of the best films ever and in reality, that's the target audience in my opinion.

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 49
RE: - 12/8/2009 7:08:22 AM   
presterjohn

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 8/1/2006
I went to see this yesterday expecting the worst after hearing all the bad reviews for the film. I am drawn like a moth to a flame to the summer bockbusters and so far I have only felt burned once (Transformers 2). This film is what it is. The ultimate 12 year olds wet dream. I am not twelve anymore of course but I can still access that part of me when needed. The two bits that took the edge of the film for me though were the casting of Duke. That guy was so wooden and the exploding ice that sunk when it should have just floated (like ice actually does).
Post #: 50
RE: RE: - 12/8/2009 11:18:19 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
This is quite amusing

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/076041c13b/the-ballad-of-g-i-joe

Julieanne Moore as Scarlett
Vinne Jones as Destro
Henry Rollins as Duke

and so on and so forth....

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to presterjohn)
Post #: 51
RE: RE: - 13/8/2009 2:32:29 AM   
kingoftheducks


Posts: 643
Joined: 30/9/2005
Obviously there seems to be a big 'well what did you expect?' argument being bandied about, and obviously this is Stephen Sommers directing a movie based on a line of toys.  For Sommers though this should really be the perfect marriage, his previous films are either cheesy and enjoyable (Deep Rising, The Mummy) or just plain awful (The Mummy Returns, Van Helsing).  Come the finale of G.I. Joe you begin to suspect that when you look at a small child playing with its toys, waving them erratically in front of its sugar-high eyes, this is probably what they're envisioning in their hyperactive mind; except I'm sure the imaginary CG is more realistic than the rather shoddy efforts of Joe's finale.

What bothers me about G.I. Joe is a slight tonal inconsistency.  Sure, I'm all for crappy stupid summer blockbuster fare, but it doesn't seem that everyone working on Joe knew that that was what they were making.  In fact, despite some camp here and there, the only person who - in my view - remains with their dignity in tact is Joseph Gordon Levitt who seems to have a wonderfully pantomine glint in his eye when playing the evil Doctor, who is a pretty great villain for such a shonky movie and it's entirely down to Levitt's scenery-chewing performance.  It's just a shame really that he's far more interesting than any of the heroes out to stop him.

Sommers manages to cobble together a couple of decent set-pieces, especially the Parisian chase which actually made me think 'I want an accelerator suit'.  But he totally fudges the film's finale, trying to embue his conflicts with far too much shoe-horned backstory and ultimately nothing ends with a bang - despite everything exploding on screen.   In fact the finale is very similar to the ending of The Mummy Returns in that multiple battles occur all at once and none really conclude, here there also seems to be a careful ammount of character retention in order to bring people back for sequels.  Saying that, there was also a surprising ammount of blood-letting to Joe that I must say pleased me!  Huzzah for a little bit of 'edge'.

On the other hand the whole film felt like a remake of Team America sans the humour, a lot of the comedy in the film was either out of place or thrown-away, and thus at times Joe seemed to be a more serious film than it should have been.  Which is why, for me, Levitt's performance stuck out, as he gobbled up the opportunity to be eeeeeeeeeeevil and minced away, clearly having a blast.

As is evidenced by the reviews above some people will have fun with this movie, but I think it depends a lot on what you bring to the cinema.  Joe isn't a film that does anything to make you like it, it's unashamed, which is a shame because there's almost a good movie in here somewhere.


_____________________________

Read my Cinema Diary here:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/opinion/blogs/brighton_film_blogs/profile/34700/

Watch films I've made here:
http://www.youtube.com/kingoftheducks

Buy My Novel PSYWORM at www.firsttimepublishers.com PLEASE!

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 52
RE: RE: - 13/8/2009 8:37:07 AM   
Frank Castle


Posts: 2686
Joined: 14/10/2005
From: Parts Unknown
Wow just wow!! one of the most ott movies i think ive ever seen and for some strange reason i quite enjoyed it. basically its rubbish the plots all over the place, theres tons of dodgy cgi moments which i detest, the usa president is english??the fecking supersuits!! theres plenty of wrong in this movie but.....i just cant put my finger on it why i quite liked it and would watch a 2nd?? S suppose i was a fan of the old cartoon/comic action force (much better name then gijoe imo) its nice seeing all the old nods to these. the whole cast know there in a rubbish movie but it doesn stop them enjoying themselves which comes across on screen. the 2 women look damn hot and im not really a big fan of maneater sienna miller. rachel nichols...just wow!! Snake eyes is basically god!! he's so cool and the best thing in it. they could just make a film with him walking around kicking ass and id enjoy it. just damn fun that critics will hate.

_____________________________

" guys its ok, he just wanted his machette back"!!

(in reply to kingoftheducks)
Post #: 53
RE: Empire needs to chill - 16/8/2009 12:12:03 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18137
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Stupid fun! A good looking cast mixed with a silly plot and lashings of action. Admittedly Dennis Quaid was pretty pointless with regards to his character but the film never outstayed it's welcome and kept me suitably amused. The CGI was a bit shoddy but not enough to distract me and there were some great sequences such as the chase through Paris.

A decent film.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.


Post #: 54
RE: G I know, the plot should be given 'zero.' - 19/8/2009 1:09:33 AM   
Groovy Mule

 

Posts: 1098
Joined: 26/11/2005
Here is my blog review of GI Joe:

If the year 2009 was a movie, it would probably have the tag line “The Rise of Hasbro”.  The toy and game manufacturer has launched its second movie franchise on an unsuspecting world after last month’s Transformers 2 and this is another film clearly set up for a future return visit to the world of GI Joe.

GI Joe are an elite classified fighting force.  They appear to be an American institution although apart from head honcho, Dennis Quaid, none of American’s finest appear to actually be American until they are joined by Channing Tatum’s non-more American Duke and Marlon Wayans’ unsurprisingly irritating comic relief Rip Cord.  Their target – MARS run by Christopher Eccleston’s Scottish (and this is made important) weapons magnate who have captured weapons based on nanotechnology.

There are so many problems with this film, I don’t really know where to begin.  First of all, the narrative is laughable.  Any action film set in the near future which makes an effort to trace its dubious plot lines back to 17th century France and the reign of Louis XIII clearly suffers from a screenwriter (or 4) with too much time on his hands.  This makeshift history lesson adds nothing and making the lead villian Scottish is fine if you can get one of the many fine Scottish actors to play the part but it is just handicapping Christopher Eccleston by making him up to look like Robert Carlyle and then making him struggle through a Scottish accent, all of which is apparently for one unnecessary pay-off.  At Eccleston’s side with the bad guys is Sienna Miller and herein lies problem number 2.  She is not, by her own admission, comfortable with the physical side of the role and looks blank for large parts of the film.

Our heroes are lead by Dennis Quaid, a man who makes standing still look uncomfortable, apparently translating stiff upper lip into constipation with support from Marlon Wayans of all people.  Clearly Wayans thinks this is his break into the big time and plays it with the gusto of Will Smith in Independence Day but without any of Smith’s charm.  It is a role which appears designed purely to give underaged kids something to laugh at.  However, some people come out of this disaster relatively unscathed.  Channing Tatum is an actor I have a lot of time for (and not just because he looks good with his top off) and whilst this is not one of his better performances, he does what is necessary with sufficient blandness to get away with it.  The stand-out however is relative newcomer Rachel Nicholls.  She looks at home with the physicality required and appeared by far the most natural performer.
There will be those who think it is churlish of me to criticise the acting in what is essentially popcorn fodder but unfortunately the effects are not much better.  There is so much CGI in this film that there were times I wondered why they didn’t just animate the film.  Frankly some of Pixar’s recent output has looked more photorealistic than many of the effects on display.  Animals, for example, are notoriously difficult to do well so why create a sub-Golden Compass CGI polar bear when you don’t need to.  Even the car chase through Paris was mostly if not entirely CGI meaning that the cars bounce off each other with no thought or respect given to the laws of physics.  When so many good car chases have been done with stuntmen and real cars, you wonder why they bothered.  The stand-out effect is clearly the destruction of the Eiffel Tower which is visually impressive but even this is undermined by the fact that it is a set piece cribbed from Team America: World Police and therein lies this film’s biggest problem, Team America so effectively skewered the try-hard patriotism and jingoistic rhetoric that most of GI Joe falls completely flat by comparison.

Before I give my score, I will leave you with a few questions:
- Why is the President of the United States so obviously not American?

- Why is American special force GI Joe staffed mostly with foreigners including the most Cockney man on celluloid since Don Cheadle in Ocean’s Eleven?

- Since when did anyone speak Celtic?  If the planes were programmed in any language it would be Scots Gaelic.

- Why does a film aimed at kids contain a headbutt and fighting with nun-chuks, both of which had previously been cut from other 12A films?

- Sienna Miller – why?

In a word, atrocious.  2/10

_____________________________

Check out my movie blog - Box Office Challenge and reviews

http://londonmovieguy.wordpress.com/
Post #: 55
GI-Blow (see what I did there, how witty am I) - 19/8/2009 10:01:24 AM   
MOnkeyboy1138

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 16/1/2006
Ok, watched this film last night and it was the first film I have ever come out of that I was physically angry with. Almost everything in this film is wrong everything!!!

Now I know it's a summer movie, it ain't supposed to be deep. But it certainly ain't fun, every attempt at humour was greeted with groans of disapproval from the entire screen. I want to also add this straight off of the bat I liked Van Helsing, the Mummy, the Mummy returns and Deep Rising. I do enjoy a good mindless summer movie, and came out of Transformers 2 with a wry smile on my face from the fact it was stupid, racist and soooo overly long but still oddly enjoyable.

These are the things that annoyed me about GI Joe-

You build these nano bots that eat everything unless you press a button on a remote control device to stop them and there is only one remote control device for each warhead of these things. Would it not be a good idea to NOT carry the remote control in a brief case with the warheads just for safety sake, you know just in case one cracks or something? The remotes would be the first thing destroyed then there is nothing in the world to stop them!!!

These tiny robot warheads need to be put in a bizarrely over the top machine/building/lab thing to 'weaponise' them. They are tiny robots, just switch them on.

These Cobra soldiers feel no pain, and yet they all sound at least mildly in pain every time they are shot/stabbed/blown up/etc.

Surely if Duke knew the Baroness previosuly and had a romantical past that would compromise him in a mission and therefore any sensible millitary organisation would not involve him and would suspect that he is possibly working with or liable to turncoat because of this past?

Why does every British character in an American film have to say 'bloody' at some point, I was expecting at some point the good old tea drinking (with little finger raised), overly posh Brit, really dodgy fake cock-any rhyming slang, use of the words 'bollocks', 'arse' or 'shag',

Actors slumming it, Christopher Eccleston, Jonathan Pryce and even Dennis Quaid you are all better than this and you know it. It's not like you even need this trash to raise your profile and bring in a bit of money, you all have reasonably good careers. Brazil anyone?

Joseph Gordon Levitt - Now I think this dude is an awesome actor he picks good movies and is always one of the best things in it. He is the only guy I think could ever come close to replacing Heath Ledger as the Joker (check out the Cinemash he did with Zooey Deschannel if you have any doubts, he looks and acts oddly like Heath in that despite the blonde girly wig), but to me he really needed to not be in this, bad career move. yes you get exposure and yes he is probably one of the only 2 almost 3 dimensional characters, but he is really hamming it up far too much what with the 'doctor' voice and over the top body movements to hide the fact you can't see much of his face throughout most of the film. This sort of acting rather than giving good exposure and showing good 'versatility' really just pigeon holes you. He could have added a little pathos some flashes of something but no he went full on side of ham with cranberry sauce and roast potatoes. Had to watch Brick again afterwards.

Any of the Wayans - I just don't find them funny and I think they are just a little racist.

Snake Eyes mask - seriously a molded mouth on the front just looks a little gay.

Ok, so what did I like about this -

Sienna Miller did a surprisingly good almost proper acting performance (and I know she can act), being by far the best thing in it, though the arse that was the predominant thing used to market this film didn't have many shots of (shame, she has a very very nice arse). Still we get lots of nice cleavage shots and body hugging costuming (just remember that good girls have blonde hair and evilness make girls hair turn brunette - of course it does, schmucks).

Kevin J O'Connor, dude just can't fault him. Made me laugh as Little Buddy Benny in the Mummy and he was a good Igor in Van Helsing, and of course classic in There Will Be Blood.

Joseph Gordon Levitt, I know I was btiching about him earlier, but the early stuff when he was just Joseph Gordon Levitt with no crazy make up he was actually very good. And to be honest in terms of character his was probably the only other close to being well rounded and had the best character arc.

Well enough of my ranting, you probably stopped reading after the 'weaponise' bit so I have written this more to get this piece of crap movie off of my chest. Please feel free to tell me my opinions are wrong and that I am an idiot (or worse), I am not going to criticse the opinion of anyone else as we are all entitled to our own opinions and if you found something to like in this movie then good for (and I mean it sincerely) and if you hated it as much as me or more then I'm sorry you had to sit through this turgid mess.

I really do think sometimes the Dark Knight ruined me for all other Summer movies :(

_____________________________

You know the thing about Chaos? It's fair

I'm just a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it

(in reply to Groovy Mule)
Post #: 56
RE: superheroes are /sooo/ passe. - 19/8/2009 10:03:53 AM   
MOnkeyboy1138

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 16/1/2006
Dude, they are making a Lego movie (and I'm not yanking your chain or anything else for that matter)

_____________________________

You know the thing about Chaos? It's fair

I'm just a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it
Post #: 57
RE: simple fun - 20/8/2009 12:07:21 PM   
max314


Posts: 2741
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: London
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (Sommers, 2009):

Effective ensemble pieces about a team or group of people with a common dramatic purpose are generally quite difficult to get right. Recent success stories include the likes of Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven (2001) while classics like The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa, 1954) continue to be held up as prime examples of the genre. And so it should come as little surprise that G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, brought to you from the director of The Mummy (1999), The Mummy Returns (2001), and Van Helsing (2004), is no Seven Samurai. But then again, it's not Van Helsing either. And that is never a bad thing.

The film centers around two groups, one being a super-secret, super-elite, super-duper task force known as G.I. Joe (referred to colloquially as "The Joes"), and the other being their evil counterparts who will eventually come to be known as Cobra. Through the fiery flames of constant explosive activity lies a feint visage of military moralising - the idea that the soldier is and will forever be the backbone of the military, which is represented by the G.I. Joe unit placing an emphasis on empowering its soldiers, and cannot be mere mindless, moralless killing machines as represented by the brainwashed beta version of the Cobra team. The two teams are constantly set up as being mirror images of each other with equivalent character-types on both sides and even a defection or two taking place as the film progresses. Heck, you only have to look at the layout of the film's promotional poster to see the page split in two, depicting the two sides in connected opposition to one another.

But that's about as deep as it goes. The rest of the film is spent blowing the shit out of anything that seems even remotely combustible in the wake of several rocket-propelled grenades going off inside and around it. And, for the most part, these explosive scenes are suitably entertaining. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the male lead, Duke, played by an almost completely charmless Channing Tatum. His inability to emote leaves underwritten scenes all the more distant from hitting their mark, and it's clear that his wooden presence takes its toll on fellow cast members who engage in an uphill battle to elicit some sense of life and vitality from an actor who is barely deserving of the title. Luckily, Sienna Miller's performance as a conflicted seductress goes some way to remedying her male counterpart's insurmountable flaws, and a host of supporting actors including Dennis Quaid, Arnold Vosloo and Jonathan Pryce enable the material to float a notch or two above its pay grade. Even Marlon Wayans as Funny Black Guy...uh, I mean Ripcord...provides a welcome source of character-based entertainment in a film that is otherwise almost completely overwhelmed by its scale.

Ultimately, Stephen Sommers is a director who generally understands the balance between story and spectacle. While there are moments in G.I. Joe in which he struggles to hold onto the reigns of his story and the characters who populate it, he never lets it slip his grip entirely. There is an undeniable boyish charm to the film. It is not the best of its breed, but it is not entirely valueless as a piece of energetic entertainment. Certainly, if I have to choose between seeing an average but actionless thriller like The Taking of Pelham 123 and an average but action packed blockbuster like G.I. Joe, I'd roll with the Joes any day of the week.

*****

quote:

edit: Or, you could post your review here, and not spam your own website outside of your signature? - Neth


Hm, well maybe if you could find a way to support images in your reviews forum (a luxury enjoyed by even the shittiest forums on the internet) I wouldn't have the need to link off-site in order to display it.

Also, I am a long-established member with no history of spamming content, and so find the idea that a site official making such an accusation to be shockingly shameful behaviour on the part of Empire's forum staff.

I suggest you re-evaluate the respect with which you treat your members.


< Message edited by max314 -- 21/8/2009 7:01:15 PM >


_____________________________

MAX

Laying the 314 on your candy ass.
Post #: 58
RE: simple fun - 21/8/2009 9:41:39 AM   
dutchSith

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/8/2008
Ehhhr? I WROTE a review.....what's all this about spamming my website? I have no Idea what you're talking about.

(in reply to max314)
Post #: 59
RE: simple fun - 21/8/2009 2:39:33 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18137
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
dutchSith I don't think the comment was directed at you but rather Neth (whom is a moderator) making a comment with regars to max314's comment.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to dutchSith)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Generic crap. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141