Back in the mid-90s, video games progressed to the point where storylines could give players a cinematic experience. Turn it on, and become a buxom brunette treasure hunter alla Tomb Raider, or sneak around 1800s Japan offing badies as a ninja in Tenchu Stealth Assassins. My, how the world changed. Movies, which once hinged on making the unbelievable believable and the surreal real, now feel less real than the video games.
Which had more of a cultural impact? G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, a pretty successful blockbuster based off of a toy and cultural icon of several mediums, or the recently released Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which is expected to do half a billion in business this week? The answer is clear.
Maybe movies like G.I. Joe would stand a better chance if they, you know, felt real. That there was a sliver of reality in all that CGI goodness on screen. Or if it was half as invigorating as a first-person shooter prowling Russia searching for terrorists.
The shooter wins, and it always will. G.I. Joe is set up nice enough, the actors do a decent enough of a job. Channing Tatum is a servicable soldier, Marlon Wayans is decent as the comic relief, Ray Park always shines whenever he’s doing his thing. Rachel Nichols and Sienna Miller do their jobs filling out the spandex as adequately as possible. Drop in enough boilerplate computerized action and we have a movie, or what passes for a movie anymore.
G.I. Joe is fun enough as B-grade action for the most part (everything, and I mean everything, you’ve seen before), but it is to the point where you film in Paris without being in Paris. We have a motorcycle chase without any real motorcycles. Maybe Hollywood is hurting because video games were doing this thing 10 years ago, except with a controller you can actually take part in the experience. Now we hand over our 10 spot and sit back and watch someone else’s work with Steve Jobs’ creation.
G.I. Joe starts off with about as much as you expect of a plot. Christopher Eccelston (he of Doctor Who and my all-time favorite, Gone in 60 Seconds the remake) is an arms dealer, a particularly nasty and bad one. He’s played both sides of the field, now he’s looking for bigger fish to fry, so he sets up a heist. Standing in the way is an Army unit with our heroes Duke, played by Channing Tatum and Rip Cord, who has had a bit of a pigmentation change since he was a toy, and is played by Marlon Wayans.
The inevitable happened and the story is off. The main subplot – something not exactly from the cartoon or comic book – keeps you slightly interested until the climax if the explosions and computers can’t. Jonathan Pryce shows up as the President, of all things, and Arnold Vosloo, who director Stephen Sommers featured in his franchise The Mummy, is also here. Dennis Quaid, who was given feature treatment in the commercials, takes a back seat for most of the film as General Hawk.
The 1980s toy was an iconic smash, coming at just the right time after Iranian terrorists and in the midst of Reagan and the Cold War. Kids could live out their fantasies of being military specialists of almost any stripe. Most of the vehicles in the 80s version were based of actual military hardware, but that’s given short shrift here. Everything is ultra high-tech and futuristic and dreamed up on a storyboard. James Bond meets G.I. Star Trek, or something of the sort.
Some of the familiar subplots from 80s nostalgia are revisited, like Snake Eyes (played by Park) and his brother Storm Shadow. The two ninjas duel it out and are the most fun in the flick, as well as the most flesh and blood. Park became famous for playing Darth Maul in the first Star Wars prequel and nearly saved a horrible film with his martial arts greatness. G.I. Joe gave spurts of him here in hand-to-hand scenes.
It’s fun enough, but could be much more. It’s getting cheaper to render things on computer than actually film it, a blessing that will soon turn into a Hollywood curse. We’re not too far off from the first fully rendered computer actor or actress – free of charge. Wouldn’t the studios love that? Sure, much of these new worlds we visit at the theater wouldn’t be possible with out the computers, but Hollywood is becoming a pixalated mess.
G.I. Joe is good enough for a rent, but would be better if it felt realer than an action figure.
No real disagreements from me, though I think I liked it a bit better than you did. http://www.republibot.com/content/reviews-movie-reviews-%E2%80%9Cgi-joe-rise-cobra%E2%80%9D-2009 It’s worth noting that there were always two separage GI Joe continuities – the cartoon, which was frivolous and goofy, and the comics, which were fairly serious most of the time. The movie owed more to the cartoon than the comics, which is really interesting since the cartoon revival earlier this year was clearly visually based on the 80s cartoon, but owed vastly more to the comics. http://www.republibot.com/content/review-gi-joeresolute-2009 Everyone agrees “Resolute” was better than “The Rise of Cobra.”
On the subject of the “unreality” of CGI – saw the “Avatar” trailer. Looked like something Dreamworks Animation Studios would come up with. Not much looked real. Kind of the modern day, half-billion dollar equivalent of Mary Poppins’ penguin cafe.