HuffPost Review: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

"Are you soulless right now?" Emily Watson asks Paul Giamatti in horror at one point in the marvelous Cold Souls.

Were the question directed at G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra, the answer would be a deafening yes. This is the movie as pure product without soul or inspiration. It was blueprinted rather than created, assembled by drones to be shown to drones, who will walk out of it and, when asked to describe it, drone on.

This product comes from the dreaded Stephen Sommers, who has made a career of despoiling classic texts of all kinds. From Huckleberry Finn to The Jungle Book to The Mummy, Sommers specializes in taking much-loved works, stripping them of nuance and giving them the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull -- an injection of artificial energy that leads to an inevitable crash once the sugar/caffeine rush wears off.

His jazz-it-up approach has nothing to do with exploring the substance of the work; Sommers is more interested in adding a superficial gloss of hyperkinetic style to keep attention-challenged viewers from actually having to think about what they're watching. In his dreams, Stephen Sommers is Michael Bay.

Not that there's much text to delve into here: This is, after all, a movie based on a toy and the cartoon series it inspired. It's the circle of merchandising, turned into a slimy Moebius strip.

This whole movie consists of action beats, separated by filler that serves as connective tissue. It is one long set of explosions, especially fiery explosions underwater -- lots of them, in defiance of that outdated conventional wisdom about the antipathy between flames and moisture. The explosions are interrupted by shooting, chasing and, occasionally, hand-to-hand combat -- how old-school is that?

Besides fire so insistent that it erupts under ocean, the alternate reality of SommersWorld also includes ice that sinks. Yes, that's right - at a climactic moment, when an explosion loosens a polar ice covering, the ice itself plummets to the bottom of the ocean, unlike that ordinary ice you find in your drinks, which floats at the top.

There is no single character named G.I. Joe, despite the fact that this was the name of boys' answer to Barbie back in the day. Rather, the G.I. Joes are an elite squad of specialized fighters, each with his own superpower, er, special talent. The squad is run by Dennis Quaid, in a stern "This one's for the paycheck" mode.

The group recruits a tough-guy soldier named Duke (the stiffly beefy Channing Tatum) and his wisecracking pal Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) for its latest mission: guarding a secret nanotechnology weapon. When it's stolen by the equally becostumed team of bad guys, the Joes' mission turns to saving the world from that secret weapon.

It barely qualifies as a plot. Characters? Not really -- just costumes. Excitement? Well, no - lots of action but no real excitement. As the saying goes, lots of light but not much heat. Lots of sizzle; not much steak. You get the idea.

Paramount decided not to screen this film for critics, fearing the kind of vituperative response that Transformers 2 received -- and who can blame them? Wouldn't you want to make a killing at the box office for at least a day before the media start blaring the news that your product stinks like week-old fish?

Not that bad reviews kept the sheep away from Transformers 2. So it will be with G.I. Joe: Reviews won't hurt it because the people this film is meant to entertain are subliterate. Just like the movie.

For more of my reviews, interviews and commentary, visit my website: www.hollywoodandfine.com.

Follow Marshall Fine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hollywoodnfine

Comments

[Holypat777]

I'd rather see a full length film of G.I. Joe but made by the Robot Chicken crew. They did a few skits (some were a bit dull) But that would be cool!

Just sayin' . . .

[BlackJAC]

It's mind-boggling how much deconstructive overanalysis people are performing on a movie based on a children's toy line. It's not meant to be anything other than escapist fun for bored suburbanites looking for a distraction from the depression caused by current events. It's aimed at eight-year-old boys who need constant stimulation especially during summer vacation, and their fathers who were eight years old when the original source material came out and is seeking both nostalgia and someting to share with his son. Trying to ascribe anything else to it reeks of pseudointellectual snobbery born out of jealous resentment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL0SILzGs4g&feature=player_embedded

[Grulg]

NEEDS GIANT ROBOTS. YOU'D LOVE IT EVEN MORE THEN.

[Sara F]

I agree with mr. Christofferson here.

G.I. joe was not ment to be all artsy and have a deep plot. This movie wasn't even made for your age group, really. I absolutely loved this movie, great action. I also loved Transformers, and you know what.... I'm 18!! These kind of movies are geared towards my age group who just absolutly love the action and fighting scenes. Just because you don't like the movie, doesnt mean NO ONE should watch it. I'd go see it again. Don't hate others because they arn't looking for a crazy plot or something like that.

Mr. Christofferson, I appriciate everything you've said above.

[BlackJAC]

I'm in my 30s and I enjoyed both GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS.

[liberalgirl31]

I liked Mr. Fine's review. This movie looked like a dumb piece of garbage. Like Transformers, it's all flash and explosions and no substance. It's completely soulless Hollywood junk, and as long as people flock to it, Hollywood will churn more gunk out. Meanwhile, character-driven indies like Cold Souls play in limited release. I had to wait forever to see Away We Go, The Hurt Locker, and 500 Days of Summer, while the Hollywood junk plays everywhere at the big multiplexes.

[BlackJAC]

Then write a better one and show them all how it's supposed to be done.

[Shotgun Mary]

I have no plans on seeing this movie. Every time you buy a ticket to a Dennis Quaid movie, you only encourage him to make another. Stop the cycle. Save the planet.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

He was actually far less hammy here than he was in The Alamo. And GI Joe is far superior to the arbitrary and unpleasant Horsemen.

[Grulg]

He's great in the Rookie.

[rjmiller]

I'd agree with you, but he made Enemy Mine.

[MikeDu]

At another G.I. Joe review article the reviewer was criticized for 'hating America and wanting the troops to fail', or something similarly ridiculous. The poster's criticism basically boiled down to "You're not STUPID enough to appreiate this movie like a REAL American would." To *not* enjoy mindless jingoistic violence, badly done, is to put your love of country in doubt.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Unfortunately, it's responses like that (theirs, not yours) which make it so hard to defend a movie like this. I liked the picture, far more than I expected to. But when those on the opposite side of the political spectrum use this film as a political weapon, well, that's just not fair to me, you, or the people behind this severely apolitical film. Heck, the main villain is a billionaire free-enter­prise-lovi­ng arms merchant for goodness sake. Liking GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra doesn't make you a bad liberal, nor does hating it make you a bad conservative. It is what it is. Hate it because you don't like it, not because your political opposites happen to enjoy it.

[Casey Christofferson]

I found your review as banal as you found the film. I always love critics who rush to quote an "excellent" Paul Giamatti movie. I'm sure you gushed with pride at his performance in "Shoot em Up" and "Lady in the Water". Mr.Giamatti isn't above "doing one for the cash" but to hear critics talk of his sallow flop joweled, pot bellied greatness you would think they are seeing the messiah in every one of his film excursions. Maybe they are seeing a reflection of their own painfully lonely existence as critics.

Was the GI. Joe film high art? Nope. Do people who enjoyed the film for its pure popcorn fun and "Flash Gordonesque" campiness deserve to be referred to as subliterate? Evidently they are by your high minded definition.

GI Joe is a show for kids and DADS who were fans of the old comics, toys, cartoons. Many DADS with children who are of the same age that they were when those said toy selling vehicles came out 20 years ago. The cartoons were fluff to sell the toys, given. The comics were actually far edgier and more interesting than a lot of other comics for their time. But comics aren't high art like Giamatti's Sideways... I especially like the high art part of sidways when Thomas Hayden Church had to rush out of the waitress's place because her husband walked in on him doing what? That was high art too, for letters to Penthouse that is.

C

[MikeDu]

You're praising G.I. Joe for being a mighty pretty sow's ear.

[Casey Christofferson]

No MikeDu, I'm insulted by the critic's stance that people who enjoyed a popcorn movie with their kids and re-living some childhood fun are somehow subliterate. Coupling this stance by evoking some great film or another of Paul Giamatti didn't sell the critic's argument for me.

So I question Mr. Fine's stance in the first place? Arrogant? Superior to the proles who enjoy a bit of their pop culture with their hot buttered pop corn? As a creator of pop culture fun I would argue that there is no specific personal accomplishment of this film critic that is any more important, literate, or culturally fulfilling than anything that I have accomplished personally in my own published works.

If you hate a film, a book, or genre, then by all means hate it with all your heart. But if you hate the AUDIENCE due to your own prejudices about their taste then be prepared to get called to the carpet by that audience from time to time.

[BlackJAC]

You forgot Giamatti's critically­-acclaimed role as a movie producer in BIG FAT LIAR.