Why You Shouldn't See the G.I.Joe Movie
5. Why is Sienna Miller famous? Can anyone explain that to me? She's pretty, yeah, but in a very generic kind of way. She's not a great actress. Her claim to fame seems to be more about who she's fucking and stealing away from their wife at the moment.
6. Remember that great theme song "A Real American Hero"? Well, forget that, because for some reason G.I. Joe is now an international squad. In fact, even though they've stolen the name from the comic and animated series, this movie seems to bear little resemblance to the original works.
7. Duke used to be an awesome second-in-command. For some reason Duke is no longer a seasoned First Sergeant, but a punk ass young guy played by Channing Tatum (a.k.a. the douche from Step Up and Step Up 2: The Streets). Yes, because what Duke needed was a more "hip" edge. Barf.
8. If reports are true that The Baroness is no longer Eastern European but now Canadian, then... WTF? What is she the Baroness of, exactly? Was the change made because Sienna Miller couldn't do the accent the right way?
9. Accelerator suits? Why?!
10. I have to believe that, on some level, even Hasbro knows this isn't the right way to tell a G.I. Joe story. I mean, yeah, they're going to take the money from toy sales, etc. But... there's a reason they went out and hired Warren Ellis to write an animated G.I. Joe movie. Because it was fucking awesome and it was everything that a G.I. Joe story should be - exciting, fast-paced, respectful to the original comic/series while still making a story that would resonate with contemporary audiences. And there was no reason that the story Ellis wrote couldn't have been made into a live action film if they really wanted.
In any case, like I said, if the movie releases and the critics rave over it, I'll gladly go see it. I'll be the first to say "my bad" if it turns out to be awesome, and then I'll post a full and glowing review. But the smart bet this weekend is to skip this (sample dialogue from this movie clip: “Emotions are not based in science, and if you can’t quantify or prove something exists…well, in my mind it doesn’t.”).
Here's a quick list of things you can do instead:
Don't be this guy. This guy is someone who, in the future, went and saw the G.I. Joe movie on opening weekend. He obviously regrets his decision. You've probably been this guy before, contributing to the opening weekend box office receipts of terrible films like Transformers 2 and X-men Origins: Wolverine.
I had a good friend email me and say, "Admit it. You're just a little excited to see the new G.I. Joe movie, aren't you?" The answer is, "No. No I am not. In fact, the only excitement I feel can best be categorized as 'frothing-at-the-mouth rage'."
Before I launch into my tirade, let me get this out up front:
I have not seen the G.I. Joe movie, and therefore it's possible I'll be wrong and the movie will be great.
Let me tell you why that doesn't matter:
If I'm wrong, you lose nothing but the chance to see it opening weekend. It will still be in theaters next week. If I'm right, however, you'll save some hard earned cash and the two hours you would have wasted on what I suspect will be awful.
Anyway, I've been dreading this release for some time now. Let the record show I warned you people over a year ago about my concerns. But, now that more details have come out, I've been able to refine my argument a bit. Here you go:
Reasons why this movie is going to suck:
1. It has a Wayans brother in it. Now, in hands of a capable director such as Darren Aronofsky, Marlon Wayans is capable of turning in a nuanced and lovely performance like he did in Requiem for a Dream. In the hands of a bad director, Marlon Wayans is capable of turning in such stunning work as White Chicks, Little Man, and my personal favorite Dungeons and Dragons. It takes a lot of skill to be the worst actor in a movie like D&D, but Mr. Wayans pulled it off.
2. Speaking of directors, the guy who helmed this also directed Van Helsing and the first two entries in The Mummy series. All three of those movies were some level of terrible, and all three suffered from really awful special effects. Since "awesome special effects" and "popcorn movie" keep getting thrown around when talking about this movie, you should be very worried about Stephen Sommers's track record.
3. Don't be fooled by the 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Those numbers are skewed, as almost none of the top critics will get a chance to weigh in before the film opens. When a studio refuses to screen a movie in advance, that is a VERY BAD SIGN. Film.com has a good article on the types of films traditionally not screened for critics.
4. Another bad sign: the movie is being released in August. Traditionally, releasing an big action film in August is a sign that the studio doesn't have faith that the movie is very good. Everything I read from the studio execs smacks of bull.
Before I launch into my tirade, let me get this out up front:
I have not seen the G.I. Joe movie, and therefore it's possible I'll be wrong and the movie will be great.
Let me tell you why that doesn't matter:
If I'm wrong, you lose nothing but the chance to see it opening weekend. It will still be in theaters next week. If I'm right, however, you'll save some hard earned cash and the two hours you would have wasted on what I suspect will be awful.
Anyway, I've been dreading this release for some time now. Let the record show I warned you people over a year ago about my concerns. But, now that more details have come out, I've been able to refine my argument a bit. Here you go:
Reasons why this movie is going to suck:
1. It has a Wayans brother in it. Now, in hands of a capable director such as Darren Aronofsky, Marlon Wayans is capable of turning in a nuanced and lovely performance like he did in Requiem for a Dream. In the hands of a bad director, Marlon Wayans is capable of turning in such stunning work as White Chicks, Little Man, and my personal favorite Dungeons and Dragons. It takes a lot of skill to be the worst actor in a movie like D&D, but Mr. Wayans pulled it off.
2. Speaking of directors, the guy who helmed this also directed Van Helsing and the first two entries in The Mummy series. All three of those movies were some level of terrible, and all three suffered from really awful special effects. Since "awesome special effects" and "popcorn movie" keep getting thrown around when talking about this movie, you should be very worried about Stephen Sommers's track record.
3. Don't be fooled by the 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Those numbers are skewed, as almost none of the top critics will get a chance to weigh in before the film opens. When a studio refuses to screen a movie in advance, that is a VERY BAD SIGN. Film.com has a good article on the types of films traditionally not screened for critics.
4. Another bad sign: the movie is being released in August. Traditionally, releasing an big action film in August is a sign that the studio doesn't have faith that the movie is very good. Everything I read from the studio execs smacks of bull.
"`G.I. Joe' is a big, fun, summer event movie — one that we've seen audiences enjoy everywhere from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Phoenix, Ariz.," said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures.Yeah. That quote (from this article) = "So screw you, East and West Coast. The heartland loves this crap."
5. Why is Sienna Miller famous? Can anyone explain that to me? She's pretty, yeah, but in a very generic kind of way. She's not a great actress. Her claim to fame seems to be more about who she's fucking and stealing away from their wife at the moment.
6. Remember that great theme song "A Real American Hero"? Well, forget that, because for some reason G.I. Joe is now an international squad. In fact, even though they've stolen the name from the comic and animated series, this movie seems to bear little resemblance to the original works.
7. Duke used to be an awesome second-in-command. For some reason Duke is no longer a seasoned First Sergeant, but a punk ass young guy played by Channing Tatum (a.k.a. the douche from Step Up and Step Up 2: The Streets). Yes, because what Duke needed was a more "hip" edge. Barf.
8. If reports are true that The Baroness is no longer Eastern European but now Canadian, then... WTF? What is she the Baroness of, exactly? Was the change made because Sienna Miller couldn't do the accent the right way?
9. Accelerator suits? Why?!
10. I have to believe that, on some level, even Hasbro knows this isn't the right way to tell a G.I. Joe story. I mean, yeah, they're going to take the money from toy sales, etc. But... there's a reason they went out and hired Warren Ellis to write an animated G.I. Joe movie. Because it was fucking awesome and it was everything that a G.I. Joe story should be - exciting, fast-paced, respectful to the original comic/series while still making a story that would resonate with contemporary audiences. And there was no reason that the story Ellis wrote couldn't have been made into a live action film if they really wanted.
In any case, like I said, if the movie releases and the critics rave over it, I'll gladly go see it. I'll be the first to say "my bad" if it turns out to be awesome, and then I'll post a full and glowing review. But the smart bet this weekend is to skip this (sample dialogue from this movie clip: “Emotions are not based in science, and if you can’t quantify or prove something exists…well, in my mind it doesn’t.”).
Here's a quick list of things you can do instead:
- If you want to see a movie involving the military, see the amazing Hurt Locker instead.
- If you want a fun popcorn movie, go see Star Trek again, catch Drag Me To Hell, or go rent Taken at the video store.
- If you only have money for one movie this month, save your cash and see what I suspect will be the true action sleeper of the summer, District 9.
- If you want a movie your kid will enjoy, rent Coraline or The Incredible Hulk instead.
Remember kids, knowing is half the battle.
edited because I had a brain fart and wrote that Duke was a LTC, when he's actually a First Sergeant. My bad. I will say 20 PSAs before I go to bed tonight.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MikeWatts
Don'tBlameGrima
GalaxyMan
Nick Leshi
Steve Klingaman
six foot skinny
Salon.com
Comments
In other news, someone buy this for me, please: http://www.gijoecollectorsset.com/
Other thoughts:
o) Can't agree about Coraline. Much as I love Neil Gaiman, both the story and the movie creep me out, and The Kids, too.
o) With white slavery, drugs, violence, and the parental fright factor, I wouldn't slot "Taken" into the popcorn-movie category. I liked it, but as a Dad of a 14 year-old daughter, it scared the crap out of me.
o) I'm with you on Sienna Miller. But then, I have a bias against skinny, generically-pretty Hollywood blondes.
I'm just pissed my daughter got to see Drag Me to Hell and I missed it!
I loved Wolverine though. Loved. It. Awesome movie for comic book geeks like me.
And I know I'll be buying GI Joe stuff for my nephews (read here: my brothers because they're much bigger than my 5 & 3 y.o. nephews and will probably take them) for Christmas.
Sienna Miller is just one of those weird phenomenons I file under "Shit I just don't get"
I did love Star Trek. I was happily surprised. Coraline is beautiful and creepy. The Hulk (the recent one last summer) was a lot of fun.
Love your reviews!
Maybe I'm just a sick person, but the fact that it was 89 minutes of over-the-top violent mindfucking is why I loved it. Plus, I *heart* Liam Neeson in pretty much everything.
Perhaps "The International" would be a better choice? No endangered children in that one. Plus, Clive Owen! (Yeah, it has another generically-pretty Hollywood blonde in Naomi Watts, but lots of people insist that she's a good actress. *I* don't much like her, but I can understand their point of view.)
But it's not. They chose the name G.I. Joe because they want to prey on my good will and feelings towards the original series. So if they're going to do that, they'd better damn well capture 90% of the essence of the original.
As far as GI Joe is concerned, they lost me at 'Accelerator Suits'. I'm not really expecting much from this film at this point. However, one of my main beefs with GI Joe is the very overt American propoganda running throughout the cartoon. Like you have to be a 'Real American' to be a 'Hero'. So in that respect, I'm gald they changed it to an international organization (of course, then they had to make up a stupid acronym for GI JOE because only American servicepeople are called G.I.s).
At least they allowed COBRA to remain a terrorist organization. Early rumors were that calling them terrorists was going to be a no-no.
I will probably wait for DVD.
Oh, and Star Trek is long out of theaters around here...
The more important point made here and by Nick Leshi, is that this does not look anything, remotely, like GIJOE. I was in elementary school when GIJOE was running and all us kids would roleplay as the characters in the the playground. This sort of reminds me of Leshi's article about Superman and his cape (and costume). There seems to be a trend nowadays of making everything Matrix-like: dark/black/faux-noir, at the expense of the characters and how their construction was meant to fit in their world.
Even when you take out the look and feel argument, as a stand alone movie, GIJOE does look god awful.... and for all the points you brought up as well.
http://tinyurl.com/lat395
Quick link that you can type into Twitter. Also, keep an eye on the reviews after this week. It's possible it won't suck, and then you can enjoy it with your kid :)
To appeal to the rabid fans of Robert Heinlein who were really, really, really looking forward to seeing powered armor in Starship Troopers? :-)
And my secret geek identity is revealed when I confess that I've just gone to Netflix and put this movie on my queue.
11. No helpful advice to children, like don't swim in thunderstorms, or my favorite, don't race trains on your bicycle(!).
12. No facial-haired, hairy chested tattooed gay cipher by the name of "Shipwreck". (#2 on the cartoon crush list behind Race Bannon.)
I just looked up Sienna's IMDB profile and I haven't seen any of her movies except for the 2004 hunk of shit remake of Alfie. I don't even remember her being in it. Then again, I don't remember much of that movie but I do know I would rather chase rat poison with a bottle of pee-flavored Boones Farm than watch it again.
Michael Caine has more charm and charisma in his left buttcheek than that wad Jude Law has in his whole slutty body.
Now will you go read my movie review of "Funny People"?
See? Someone really needs to buy me that collector's set, because clearly my brain is fuzzy after all these years.
Deborah - will happily check out your review :)
Meanwhile, enjoy all the pop culture you can, because it aint gonna last forever.
And Maryland is an East Coast state, and hardly has "heartland" mentality. The Baltimore Washington corridor and their suburbs are very different than Peoria or Dubuque, my friend.
Although screening something at Andrews? Aroo?
Yeah.
The A-Team.
Unbelievable.
1. Channing Tatum
2. Seeing the Eiffel Tower get blown up
An A-Team remake doesn't bother me, because it's not like the source material is difficult to capture. I think a remake a la the first Charlie's Angels movie would be fun.
2) Why do you need a critic to tell you whether or not you should see a movie? You can't make that decision for yourself? And if the reviews are so important to you, why are you dismissing the one Devin Faraci of CHUD.com offered? That's the same Faraci who trashed Michael Bay's latest scrap heap.
3) Speaking of Bay, did it ever occur to you that perhaps Paramount is releasing G.I. JOE: The Rise Of Cobra in August so as not to compete with themselves? No, it probably didn't.
4) You're saying that because the producers dared to include non-Americans on the team, the new movie bears, "little resemblance to the original works"? Really?
5) As much as I like Warren Ellis, and that's a hell of a lot, his Resolute story was rubbish. Once you started fangirl-drooling over that poorly written pile of garbage, everyone who'd ever even considered seeing this film in a theater should have headed straight for that Fandango bookmark to buy tickets.
6) When you say the producers should, "capture 90% of the essence of the original," WHICH original is that? The 12" dolls with fuzzy beards? Honestly, I don't believe you have more than a passing familiarity with the property, at best. When you mention your, "feelings towards the original series," you seem to actually be suggesting Paramount should have invested $175 million in a direct adaptation of that stupid cartoon. The thing is, though, I don't think you'd know the difference if you hadn't read a bunch of negative comments on the internet, complaints you're now regurgitating here.
So which 10% is okay to change? The fact that Duke, Snake-Eyes, and Storm Shadow all served in The Vietnam War? Or maybe that the story takes place against the backdrop of the Cold War?
And which "original" should be the source material? The 12" dolls? The goofy cartoon? Yeah, there's a great movie to be made based on THAT source materal. The filecard information included with the figures? The Larry Hama comics? Because Paramount contracted Mr. Hama as a consultant on the film, and he gave Stephem Sommers some tips on things they absolutely could not do with the characters. Mr. Hama has also seen the movie several times, and he liked it. Here's what he had to say:
"It’s always “cooler” to be negative, if you are a socially retarded, anal-retentive, developmentally arrested proto-adolescent with hostility issues. No, the movie does not adhere to the comic book canon. So what? It was a lot of fun to watch, I liked the characters, and it made sense. To me that’s much better than a sharp stick in the eye or two and half hours of “art”."
Does that description sound like anyone we know? In case you're not aware, Mr. Hama wrote 149 of the 155 issues in the Marvel G.I. JOE title, over two dozen issues of G.I. JOE: Special Missions, and most of the 1980s filecards from Hasbro's line of action figures. If you ask me, that's a better endorsement of a G.I. JOE movie than any positive review from a professional film critic could ever be. But hey, you keep waiting for Gene Shalit to tell you whether or not you should see the flick.
Oh, and Mr. Vanderhoff, Duke absolutely was not "the original leader" of the G.I. JOE team. That would be Hawk, who was introduced in 1982 and answered to General Flagg. The Duke figure was released in 1983, and his first appearance in the comic series was issue #22 in 1984. The first animated miniseries debuted in September of 1983, well after Hawk was established as the team commander.
Heh. Feel free to see the movie opening weekend. if you feel so strongly about it. I'm willing to wait a week to see what happens when all of America gets to see the film and weigh in (including snobby critics).
If, you know, you had any.
1) Actually, I've been leary of this film for about a year now.
2) I just distrust the idea of a studio cherry-picking the people they want to review their film in advance. I don't need a critic to tell me if a movie is good or not, but I look at an aggregation of critics, especially those who I have a good record of agreeing with or not, and use that as just one factor in my litmus test of "will this be good or not?". Other factors include 1) is the trailer good? (answer: no, very bland), 2) do I trust the people involved with the film? (answer: no, see above for more), 3) is this something I need to see on the big screen? (answer: yes, if it's good, I would want to see it on the big screen)
3) sure, but there are many weeks available in the summer schedule where this film could have opened. Angels & Demons, for example, wasn't exactly going to pull the same audience as this film
4) The international composition of the team was one of several things that makes me think "Generic action film" versus "G.I. Joe franchise"
5) We'll agree to disagree. I really liked the Warren Ellis movie. But you're definite being angry/rude here.
6) Actually, one of the first things I thought was, "well, obviously you can't have them running around as Vietnam Vets", but really... that's a small factor to change.
6) I'm glad Larry Hama enjoyed the movie. Again, there's just something very suspicious about the decision not to screen for critics. It feels like they have little faith in this film, and are attempting to artificially inflate the opening weekend box office.
Look, see it opening weekend or don't. Like I said above, if I start hearing rave reviews from people, I'll check it out myself and happily post a nice review of the film. The point here is: there's enough red flags, that the smart thing to do is be wary and perhaps wait a week or so until real, unbiased, non-cherry picked feedback can be collected.
You can't do any vet movie and put Vietnam in there unless you want to do something like Gran Torino with Clint Eastwood.
She's the Baroness of Bargain Basement now.
The suits are pure "We hired EFX guys so cheap that they can't do people, but roboty things will give us more leeway in our crap effects."
They really are using every crap PR tactic in the book to hide this stinker in the sandbox before the kids come over to play with the Joes... oohhh poop and action figure humor!
I want a BJ and the Bear movie!
-T
(P.S. I want traaaaash baaaags!)
2) So you don't need a critic to tell you if you should see a movie; you need several. Gotcha. I don't "trust" Stephen Sommers, either, but Jon Favreau didn't exactly have an impressive directorial résumé when he signed on to helm Iron Man. I don't know how anyone could describe the trailers or TV spots for this movie as "bland", either.
3) So you're suggesting Paramount should have opened this film on May 15, one week after debuting Star Trek? Take a look at Trek's second week numbers, if you would, and explain to me how that would be have made any sense at all. Again, it's not in a studio's best interests to compete against itself, and they have to actually put some thought into these decisions. The Bourne Ultimatum opened in August after its predecessors opened in June ('02) and July ('04), and it took in nearly $70 million its first weekend. There's nothing that says August is a bad time to release action flicks, especially when one studio has three huge franchise movies to release in one summer.
4) G.I. JOE has been reinvented numerous times over the years. It's already happened a few times between ARAH and this movie. The brand is constantly evolving. "Let's recruit the best in the world," instead of, "We're America, and we'll rescue every other country from a global terrorist organization," doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Besides, Big Ben, Snow Storm, Backstop, Red Dog, and Taurus were all from other countries, so international team members is hardly without precedent for the property.
But why bother? I'm sure you knew that already. ;-)
5) If you interpret that as "anger", perhaps deciphering emotion through text isn't among your presumably many talents. That I was unkind to the work in no way suggests any "anger" over the subject.
6) That... doesn't even come close to answering my question.
7) If you're indifferent to the property and accustomed to letting the local newspaper critic to tell you what movie to catch this weekend, I can see how it might leave you feeling wary. If you're a fan whose idea of G.I. JOE is the '80s cartoon, ANYTHING would be better than what you knew as a kid. If you grew up reading the Marvel title, like I did, it seems like Mr. Hama's approval would mean a lot more than anything Richard Roeper could say. Besides, the most recent Harry Potter flick is currently rated at 83% on RT, and it was easily the most boring film I've seen all year.
My idea of "cherry-picked" reviewers wouldn't include several guys who spent several paragraphs each shitting all over the Michael Baybots sequel a few weeks ago. If anything, I would expect those guys to be more difficult to please with this title. And the, "smart thing to do," is realize that the "unbiased" movie review does not exist.
Jon Favreau and Stephen Sommers are apples vs. oranges. Favreau directed Elf, which I enjoyed, and I knew his work as a writer as well. More importantly, he was obviously a total comic book fan who was enthusiastic about engaging with the fans, respecting the source material and so forth. I actively loathe the work Sommers has done (though the first Mummy film was okay - derivative, but not the worst). Van Helsing was particularly bad. Since it was a big budget summer action film that failed to impress, one can make a comparison to his current film.
Like I said, go see the film the first weekend. Write a review and let us know what you think. I'm sure we'd all love to hear your opinion, since you seem to be a Joe fanboy yourself.
In my 20s I probably saw a movie every weekend in the theaters - now, probably one every 2 months - and this sure as heck ain't gonna be the one!
There's no excuse. None. It was bad, just bad.
That and the blackface characterization of Mr. Wayan's character made me wonder whether I was watching something made in 2009, or race comedy from the 1920's. The fact that they then combined that with a bi-racial relationship that had absolutely no build up or rationale, (hi, you're the cute smart girl that pushes every guy away, but let me get on a treadmill next to you for 20 seconds and win your cold and bitter heart...um....wtf?) made me realize that the writers (I use the term loosely) were taking every ridiculous stereotype they'd ever seen about African American culture and letting them play out through Ripcord.
This movie wasn't just bad, it was offensively bad.