Food 4 Thought: "G.I. Joe" and Action-Adventure Heroes

- Posted by Rusty


Hello Fellow Lunchers!

Introducing -- A new Lunch Table exclusive!!

So we've decided to implement a new regular blogpost that'll be highlighted on a weekly basis. It's a new way for us to speak our minds outside of just movie reviews or random blurbs. So in essence, you all get to read about what goes on in the inner workings of our respective minds, whether you like it or not (Sorry). But don't be fooled... these new posts are more than just random rantings. Our goal is to provide thought-provoking editorials and commentaries about the film industry, cinema, or whatever else our collective hearts' desire. So make sure to check back in every Friday to get your weekends started off right. And now, without further adieu, we'd like to present Food 4 Thought Fridays.

- "The Lunch Table" team

"G.I. Joe" and Action-Adventure Heroes

Okay, that's a somewhat tough intro to follow. I think I'm capable of deep, throught-provoking ideas about cinema, but, if you guys will bear with me, my more "intelligent stuff" will come in the next round of this column. This is actually a fun idea that I've been thinking over for a while (blame years of action and adventure movies...and many months of making fun of Channing Tatum), so I figured I gotta get it out now...before it sneaks into one of my reviews, and makes it even more unbearably long. So, with that, let's ponder some "G.I. Joe" ridiculousness...

I’m going to guess a good chunk of you saw “G.I. Joe” last weekend. I'm with you completely-I couldn’t resist seeing Cobra rise either, particularly with the actually-pretty-cool work of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander and all the nifty gadgets, fights, and world locations. If I was 10 years old, this would’ve been hands-down my favorite movie...probably ever! But that’s getting off track. If you haven’t, check out Ace’s solid review of the flick here—for the most part, I agree with him, but I was actually a bit more forgiving. And, if it’s any consolation, of the two movies this summer based on Hasbro toys, I thought “G.I. Joe” was the much more enjoyable and coherent one.

But I’m here with a bit of other food for thought. For those who saw it, remember that quick, minute-long cameo by Brendan Fraser as Unnamed G.I. Joe Trainer? I’m a big fan of Fraser in general (particularly his more serious work, like "Gods and Monsters"), and, likely as a favor for his “Mummy” director, Stephen Sommers, this was a cute, simple cameo—a kind of passing of the torch from one goofy franchise to another. But it also got me thinking. Fraser had a few lines at best, all capped off by the G.I. Joe-lore standard line of “Yo, Joe.” Yet he said it with that perfect tone—that mix between selling it honestly, but with a slight, amused detachment. Fraser’s a master of this—he’s believable in ridiculous situations, but, without really breaking character, manages to convey that he’s actually having fun with the role. Same with “The Mummy”. I might be in the minority on this, but I think a major reason why that movie works is due to Fraser. He understands that the material needs to be played not so much with a wink to the audience, but a sly understanding that this isn’t exactly high art. He lets the audience know that he’s in on the joke, essentially telling us it’s okay to have a little fun with the story.

And he’s not alone. Imagine “Star Wars” (ahem, as Han Solo himself put it in a tribute to George Lucas, “the earlier, funnier ones”) or “Indiana Jones” without Harrison Ford. Not too many actors could’ve traveled at hyper speed, worn that fedora, or bickered with Chewbacca and Sean Connery with half as much charisma. A lot of people railed against “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull,” but I really enjoyed it. Sure, it wasn’t as good as my favorite of the trilogy, “Last Crusade,” but in watching it, I remembered why Harrison Ford is a star—because he engages with the material in a way lesser actors can’t. He gets the rhythms and humor of the character, the outlandish situations, the big, giddy fun of the action sequences, and sells it perfectly to the audience. He is Han Solo, that loveable space scoundrel, and Indiana Jones, the most ass-kicking archaeologist in history, but he never forgets that these characters can’t work if you take them too seriously.


The same could be said for Shia LaBoeuf in “Transformers,” Johnny Depp in “Pirates” (in all his chameleon-like genius), Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man” and many, many more of our favorite stars. That nimble approach to playing such larger-than-life characters is an interesting (and very necessary) skill, and it often distinguishes the smart actors from the far less experienced ones.

That’s not to say that this particular style will work for all films. Imagine Daniel Craig’s James Bond in a Sean Connery Bond film, say “Goldfinger”—ridiculous, right? You’d keep wondering why this bastard is so freaking serious and intense amidst all the fun villains and gadgets. Daniel Craig will probably kill someone before he’s forced to banter or make some sort of cheeky pun. And it works both ways: the loose and jokey James Bond of the past would be awful in the newer, more complicated films—tonally, it wouldn’t match at all. Each type of film really demands a certain style of acting, and fun, over-the-top action films are no exception.

Which brings me back to “G.I. Joe.” I give Channing Tatum, “G.I. Joe’s” leading man, a lot of crap, and maybe he doesn’t deserve it. I heard he was terrific opposite Shia LaBoeuf (Indiana Jones Jr. himself) in “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints,” and, who knows, maybe he has good work ahead of him. But, to me, he doesn’t seem to have much range yet, and, as I sort of expected, he just wasn’t that good in “G.I. Joe.” Unlike Fraser and Harrison Ford, Tatum just didn’t have a handle on the character—he wasn’t a strong enough lead for a movie that needed a solid center, especially one with a good sense of humor about himself. I get that Duke, the perfect military man, isn’t exactly the deepest character, but Tatum played him straight—honorable, strong, super-determined…and very, very boring—and I think that brought the movie down.


Fraser’s cameo in the movie made me think we needed someone like that in the lead. He might not exactly be right to play a hard-core military dude, but someone that talented would’ve done the movie a world of good. Someone who could be believable as a badass fighter, but still charming enough to guide us through the lunacy that is this entire movie. Someone who could have some fun with the material—who could look at all the accelerator suits and Celtic-language planes and underwater fortresses, and just crack a smile…or at least a very subtle one—G.I. Joe’s are soldiers—they shouldn’t be smiling too much anyway, right?

I read somewhere that Sam Worthington (the best part of “Terminator Salvation” and the star of James Cameron’s uber-epic this December, “Avatar”) was up for the part as well, but things didn’t fall through. That’s too bad—no offense to Tatum, but Worthington would’ve brought the movie (and the character) up another level. Judging by his work on “Terminator,” he would’ve nailed Duke’s action side during the big set pieces, while also sneaking in that necessary, sly bit of humor for the lighter moments in between (a vibe he gives off in all his interviews and his recent Comic-Con appearance).

I could be very wrong here, but this is my long train of thought from watching “G.I. Joe.” Shia LaBoeuf made “Transformers 2” better for me than it had a right to be, and that‘s just another indicator that actual talent is far more important than who looks right for the part. I would love for Channing Tatum to surprise me—to see him rise to the challenge, and lead the team in the inevitable sequel with a newfound gusto, instead of more bland machismo. By all means, I’d love to see him tackle some serious acting challenges as well—prove to us that he’s not a musclely, dancing once-trick pony; Ford, Fraser, Downey, Shia, Depp—all the actors I listed before proved that they have actual chops to back up their more popular roles. We’ll just have to see. The “G.I. Joe” series (as it most definitely will be soon) has definite potential, and could reach that level of just being an amusing, clever ride like the old Bond films or director Sommers’ own “The Mummy”…but it will need (besides a much better script) a leading man that clicks with its lively, somewhat-campy tone.

Either way, it got me thinking. Many people look down on respected actors for taking roles in giant blockbusters. But I like to believe that there’s that earnest 10-year-old in many of my favorite stars—at the end of the day, you know it’s pretty sweet to bring down the Cobra organization or defeat an evil, cursed Egyptian priest, or “choose wisely” and find the Holy Grail. It’s how you embrace it that’s the challenge. Fraser and Ford found that balance between giddy fun and commitment to character. Maybe someday Channing Tatum will too.

In the end, we could always use a great, charming, new adventure hero - after all, somebody has to eventually step in for Jack Sparrow, Indiana Jones, and Rick O'Connell when they retire their pirate hats and fedoras (not to mention compasses, whips, cutlasses, and dual hanguns). If you spent this whole post thinking: "Rusty, why the hell are you talking about "G.I. Joe"? Do you seriously have nothing better to think about?!" Very fair point. But, somewhat-crappy first movie aside, I honestly thought it had great potential. And while Duke might never be all that interesting, he could still, with a stronger script and performance, become a good long-term favorite for a whole new generation of 10-year-olds (and maybe the rest of us too).

Images courtesy of Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Hasbro.
Read more!

James Cameron’s Epic Creation - Avatar

Posted by Luke

Whether are you a massive fan or a jealous hater of James Cameron, it is quite clear that in each of his films Mr. Cameron expertly pushes to create a visual experience that will transport the audience to a strange alternate universe.

Mr. Cameron’s work includes such blockbuster films franchises as Terminator and Terminator 2 which caught the eye of fans around the world and enabled Mr. Cameron to cash in with huge-budget studio-backed films. Confidently, Mr. Cameron took on Ridley Scott’s Alien, creating a sequel called Aliens. He crafted a spectacular high-action thriller that fully lived up to the original masterpiece. Mr. Cameron’s last film, Titanic, the most profitable film ever, made him king of the world. Now, Mr. Cameron is back with his long-awaited IMAX 3D science fiction epic Avatar that will reach thousands of screens worldwide on December 18, 2009.

Avatar is based in the future on a distant planet called Pandora. Jack Sully, played by Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation and Clash of the Titans, set to release in March 26 in 2010), is a paraplegic war veteran brought to Pandora to embark on a new mission. The mission was assigned by Jake’s superior, Dr. Grace Augustine, portrayed by Sigourney Weaver (The Ice Storm and Infamous) who starred in Mr. Cameron’s Aliens. The world on Pandora is inhabited by the Na'vi, who are quite similar in appearance to humans, except that they are ten feet tall, and have blue skin and cat-like jade eyes.

James Cameron filming a scene with the male lead Sam Worthington who plays Jake Sully


Mr. Cameron shared Avatar clips with a packed audience at Comic-Con. In the almost twenty-five-minute-long clips, we learn that the human race wants to destroy the Na’vi to gain complete control of Pandora. The humans use avatars that look like the Na’vi; like The Matrix, in Avatar, a human lays down on a contraption (see picture below) that links the human’s brain to the avatar and lets the human control it. Using the avatars, the humans can live on Pandora, interact with the Na’vi and perhaps help the humans to obliterate their rivals.

During one of the first Avatar clips, Jake Sully connects to his own specially made Avatar. Learning to control an Avatar takes time, but Jake wants none of that. A quick battle ensues as the team scientists try to control Jake’s Avatar in a losing effort. Jake’s Avatar swiftly rushes out of the room, attempting to control his newly-adopted body and not get caught, and he succeeds. After this scene, the film takes the audience to the strange planet of Pandora to blow away anything fanboys have seen before.

James Cameron looking over the creation of an Avatar


There it was – Pandora. Quite frankly, the amazing 3D effects are simply breathtaking -- the brilliant array of colors showing the tropical trees, baby-blue water and huge mountains was dazzling. Although the brush of vast psychedelic colors was remarkable, the motion-capturing of the actors really was something to behold. Each actor playing a Na’vi had incredibly detailed facial expressions, spot-on eye movement and perfect movement of their long gangly blue bodies. Although many directors have attempted to use the motion-capture technology, most of the results lacked depth. Avatar succeeds where the others have failed. The clips featured a number of shots of Pandora including Jake’s interaction with a possible love interest, a Na’vi native named Naytiri, played by the beautiful and lovely Zoe Saldana (Star Trek and Vantage Point). Another spectacular scene is when Jake Sully’s avatar battles a dragon-like monster hand-to-hand; the results demonstrate elite control of the camera with CGI in full effect. Soon enough, the Comic-Con house lights went on and the clips were over. It was over. Done.

Avatar was filmed partly in New Zealand at Peter Jackson’s Weta Limited studio using state-of-the-art cameras specially built for the filming of this massive undertaking. Mr. Cameron is a master epic director, and he surrounds himself with the best in the business. Jon Landau, who produced Titanic, helps with the organizing and attempts to troubleshoot problems and run the huge operation as smoothly as possible. Of course, understanding Mr. Cameron’s vision is extremely important to Avatar and the director of photography, Mauro Fiore (The Kingdom and Training Day), did a masterful job shooting this ambitious creation. The hundreds of special effects wizards, artists and set designers working with the team of editors slowly began compiling each scene in post-production. After viewing 25 minutes of never-before-seen footage, the audience of 6,500 in Hall H at Comic-Con gave the Avatar creators a standing ovation.

Even though Mr. Cameron has a great record of producing profitable films, Fox Studio wanted to make sure it was investing in something worthwhile (the studio claims Avatar has a 240 million dollar budget, however, rumors are the bill will rise to about 300 million without even considering the huge marketing campaign). To satisfy the studio, Mr. Cameron and his team created a clip just under one minute long to show the studio big-shots what Avatar would look like. Although Mr. Cameron said the short clip did not nearly show how good the film will look, obviously the studio suits liked what they saw. It was green-lighted and set up for pre-production. Four years later, after great anticipation from sci-fi fanatics, thousands of Comic-Con viewers and some lucky Amsterdam folks have seen what will make the general audience feel as amazed and tripped out as those old Woodstock stoners.

It is clear and simple: this epic film needs to be seen -- on a big screen with 3D if possible. If you are like me, you’ll be there on Friday, December 18 at 12:01 a.m. I hope you are right next to me to witness the evolution of cinema together.

Poster of Avatar screening at 2009 Comic-Con

Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "District 9"

So in light of this weekend, figure I'd post a trailer for District 9. I don't know if I'm going to watch it this weekend (but I know my cohorts plan on doing so). And I have to be honest, the first trailer really didn't pique my interest. But this trailer looks much more intriguing. Something you may want to check out this weekend!



DESCRIPTION: An extraterrestrial race forced to live in slum-like conditions on Earth suddenly find a kindred spirit in a government agent who is exposed to their biotechnology.

Peace, Love, and Chicken Grease
- Ace Read more!

Late Lunches: Crazy Russian Learns "The Ugly Truth"

Hey, everyone, Rusty here. This is a new recurring column—basically, here we’ll cover movies that we caught later in their runs, but, despite our awful lateness, we still want to pass our thoughts to you. They will be longer than our Daily Munchies, but shorter than the Weekend Bites (especially mine). So, with that, let’s jump in for the first in this column…

Review: “The Ugly Truth”

My rating: 2 bites [out of 5]

Pretty much exactly what you’d expect. If you’ve seen the commercials, the trailers, or, even the poster, you know exactly how this ends. Chances are, you’ll probably know every step along the way, too.

I promised Luke and Ace that I could do a review that didn’t go on for 4 pages, so here we go—the “in a nutshell” version: Katherine Heigl’s Abby Richter is a single, neurotic morning news producer in Sacramento (do well-adjusted, rational working women even exist in Hollywood romantic comedies?). Desperate for ratings, her station hires Gerard Butler’s Mike, the host of a raunchy public access show about relationships, to bring his segment, “The Ugly Truth” to their news program.

And what do you know? Abby and Mike clash, especially on the topic of relationships. She’s repulsed by his lewd, womanizing ways, while he thinks she’s completely naïve about men’s intentions. They bicker, they fight—they just can’t seem to get along for the first third of the movie…until a contrived bet gets them working together to help Abby woo a bland, good-looking doctor. Gee, what do you think might happen?

I’m being a bit mean here, especially since I normally love these types of movies. But “The Ugly Truth” just doesn’t have enough wit, cleverness, or, really, romance to justify seeing it in theaters. There’s something very true about people growing closer when they start being honest and open with one another (as opposed to superficial dating behavior), but this movie doesn’t even attempt to dig into that more (“He’s Just Not that Into You,” another mediocre rom-com, flirted with this too, to slightly better results). Abby and Mike do bond by being themselves, but they mostly seem to be going through the motions, as opposed to genuinely falling in love…and that’s a shame, since Butler and Heigl show some nice chemistry in their sequences together.

I’ve been a fan of Gerard Butler (“300,” “Phantom of the Opera,” “Rock ‘n’ Rolla”) for a while, and to his credit, he actually comes off charming here. His character is even relatively interesting, and most of the laughs in the movie (and there are quite a few, to the movie’s credit) are courtesy of him.

Heigl, on the other hand, is certainly talented—she held her own opposite the funny boys of “Knocked Up” and my friends love her on “Grey’s Anatomy,” but, here, you could tell she’s trying hard to make Abby funny. It doesn’t help that Abby’s not so much a real woman, but a bundle of neurotic and awkward tics (and this is a film written by three women. Really? This is the best you could come up with?). At times, she almost feels like a ridiculous-neuroses or bad-female-stereotype checklist: She does background checks on blind dates? Check! She loves her cat too much, meaning that she’s single? Check! She seems desperate to find a man to, you know, finally be happy and complete? Double check! To be fair, her performance relaxes and becomes a lot more natural in the second half, when she’s free to have some fun and tackle some believable emotions, which all goes to show that she’s made for better material. She’s got the talent—now she just needs to choose better projects. “27 Dresses” and “The Ugly Truth” aren’t exactly constructing a legacy.

The movie was directed by Robert Luketic, who also made the clever, very rewatchable “Legally Blonde” (also by the “Ugly Truth” screenwriters) and the underseen charmer, “Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!” He’s capable of much better too when he clicks with the material.

There’s really not much more to say: this review might sound harsh, but, by all means, the film isn’t terrible and it goes down pretty easily. Catch it on TNT on a lazy Saturday, and it’ll do the job perfectly.

You honestly could do worse—there are some funny moments sprinkled throughout, and the stars have enough charisma to carry the movie through the end. But if you really like any of the people involved, watch their superior projects instead. Rent “Knocked Up” or the moving and quite romantic “Dear Frankie” (easily Butler’s best performance). Maybe dust off your DVD of “Legally Blonde” or just buy “Tad Hamilton” from the bargain bin (trust me, it’ll be like half the price of one ticket to see this movie).

Or, best yet, just skip this one altogether and go see “(500) Days of Summer”—“The Ugly Truth” will probably be sold out anyway…and you really won’t be sorry you traded up.

-Rusty

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Trailer Time

Rusty here. This is something I’ve wanted to squeeze in for a while—here’s a sampling of the best recent trailers to premiere online. I don’t know about you guys, but I love that batch of trailers before every new movie (anyone else miss VHS, where you had to either watch or fast-forward through an even longer smattering of trailers?)—sometimes I even look forward to seeing some new trailer more than the actual movie (I was actually pumped to see “The Day the Earth Stood Still” because it was our first look at “Wolverine”). Trailers are one of my favorite parts of going to the movies—that cool peek at a huge new movie, a chance to watch the audience react to the return of favorite characters, or just seeing a brand-new idea click with the public and enter the pop-culture bubble—hopefully, this column can recreate that experience in a small way. So, before I get to my usual time-wasting, here’s the best of what just premiered…

“Alice in Wonderland” (see it below)—This is a couple of weeks old now, but is no less fantastic—this is my favorite trailer of the bunch. This might also be the easiest sell for me: Tim Burton. Johnny Depp. One of the most bizarre and imaginative children’s stories brought to life by the guy who was born to make it. Easiest recommendation ever. I especially like that the trailer captures Lewis Carrol’s ridiculous, but still charming sense of whimsy. Love the visuals, love Johnny Depp’s accent and off-the-wall look, and I love the fact that Tim Burton’s trying to give us the first real narrative for this world (the movie will work almost like a sequel, with Alice jumping back into the rabbit hole, and helping the Wonderland citizens end the Red Queen’s reign of terror)—most versions of this story just have Alice going from place to place, essentially saying “Oooh, this is weird too.” Keep your eyes out for a longer trailer, which should be coming in the next few months or so. March 9, 2010…can’t wait!



“The Lovely Bones” (see it below)—Luke’s crazy about the book (which is taunting me on my bookshelf, because I still haven’t finished the book I was supposed to read before it), and we’re all crazy about Peter Jackson, here toning down that great, epic visual imagination of his for a more intimate story. Or is it? Tracing the tale of a murdered girl watching her family from heaven, the afterlife visuals look lush and wonderful, and the family drama moments in the trailer hit home perfectly. The cast looks excellent (led by the amazing young Saoirse Ronan, coming off her Oscar nomination for “Atonement”), and I have complete faith that Jackson will deliver another powerful, emotional experience. Look for this to make a big splash come Oscar time (but which point I’ll finish the book—I know it!).



“New York, I Love You” (see it below)—This one surprised me. I love the idea behind the previous anthology in this series, “Paris, Je t’aime,” but I just couldn’t get into it—it just felt too loose and unconnected for me to really get involved (then again, films like that really depend on being in the “right mood”— maybe I’ll try again before this one hits theaters in October). Here, though, the cast is amazing (ranging from living legends like Julie Christie and Eli Wallach to talented up-and-comers like Anton Yelchin and Shia LaBoeuf), and New York (much like Paris, really) lends itself to some great love stories. Even the trailer has a warm, gorgeous feel to it—I don’t know about you guys, but I want to see much more. 10 directors contributed short films—a cool mix of the respected (Shekhar Kapur, Mira Nair, Allen Hughes) and the totally new (Natalie Portman’s behind-the-camera debut)—at the very least, it should be interesting. We’ll see if this holds up come October 16th, but I’m definitely intrigued.



Read more!

New Things

Made some changes folks. Please make sure to read our mission statement in the right side bar. We're still in the middle of figuring this whole thing out, so please be patient with us. Any kind of feedback is always welcome.

Also... trying something new... take our poll at the bottom.

Thanks. Read more!

Weekend Bites: "G.I.JOE" No Joe!

I’ve got good news and bad news when it comes to G.I.JOE.

The good news is I saved a bundle on my car insurance by switching to GEICO.

The bad news… well there’s a lot, so let me break it down.


Overall rating: 2 1/2 bites (out of 5)

I tried to give G.I.JOE an honest shot, I really did. I tried to stay as objective as possible, and hoped that the nostalgia of my childhood would play a more significant role during the entire JOE movie experience. But in all honesty, the movie failed to meet my expectations in a lot of ways, and it’s not like I had high expectations for this movie. Truth be told, I had really low expectations.

Going into the movie, after reading some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I thought JOE would at least be entertaining, keeping me on the edge of my seat for the entire 2 hour experience. Maybe it was the gratuitous use of CGI throughout the entire movie, or maybe it was the fact that I watched the movie at 11:00pm, ORRRR maybe it was because I watched it after the UFC bouts on Saturday, but I found myself being really bored amidst all the action sequences; they just didn’t seem to amount to anything mind-blowing.

But before I go into more detail about all the parts that missed the mark, let me highlight some of the… uh… highlights:

1. Sienna Miller looked hot. She may have been the only bright star among a cast of lackluster, gaseous balls.

2. Sienna Miller looked hot.

3. Snake-Eyes and Storm Shadow were badass. Their fight sequences were pretty phenomenal. They were everything you wanted to see as a kid, but put into live-action and on the big screen. Plus, I have to give a shout out to my boy Byung-hun Lee. Representin’ the motherland with style.



And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

Let me just make this clear – I didn’t hate G.I.JOE. I didn’t love it either. And it's not a terrible film, but it's not great either. And it does have some entertainment value. It just did absolutely nothing for me. I spent all weekend trying to figure out why it did nothing for me and I think one of my cohorts said it best: the movie really had nothing at stake. There was no epic battle between good and evil, and nothing genuinely mind-blowing. It was rather predictable and the end felt rushed in order to fit in the “big secret.” But there are a lot of things to nitpick about, so I’ll just run through the easiest to the hardest.

First and foremost, when did they change the law to allow British people to become President of the United States?? It was kind of disappointing to see Jonathan Price give such a mediocre performance, when I know that he’s a very talented actor. He didn’t hide his accent at all; I guess I can’t really say that -- He didn’t hide his accent well. I really couldn’t buy into the fact that he was the President. It literally was a British man in the Oval office. Bad form.

Secondly, there was also a lot of campiness in the movie. As the movie progressed, the camp also seemed to progress. It was the same 80’s camp put into a big budget film, set in the modern day. And I don’t know if I really had a problem with that because I get what the filmmakers may have been trying to do. They wanted to capture the same fun and enjoyment of the 80’s ‘toon and bring that to the big screen. I get that. But it would have been nice to see something a little grittier, a little rawer. After all, the kids who watched G.I.JOE in the 80’s and 90’s are all grown up now. I’m sure we can handle a little more badass-ery.

One of my biggest qualms with this movie may be the gratuitous usage of CGI. Frankly, there was waaaay too much CGI. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against CGI as long as it’s done well and implemented correctly, but that’s where JOE dropped the ball. The action sequences were so chalk full of CGI that I left the theater feeling unimpressed, possibly because it was almost like watching a full-length computer-animated feature film. No, I take that back… it was like watching a full-length computer-animated feature film, and all the actors were just doing voiceover work. In that respect, I guess G.I.JOE never left its animated roots. But consequently, I found myself being genuinely distracted by how much animation, rather than real-life acting was put into this movie (more on the acting later). One scene that was particularly distracting was the scene that took place in the Arctic Circle. My initial critique was that that set was just poorly designed, but I guess that’s what happens when you invest more money into the CGI department than into set design. But I digress. The reason I found it so distracting, aside from the fact that Duke is so badass that he doesn’t need a parka or even a coat to survive in that climate, was the computer generated breath. As if that’s going to mask the poorly designed set, and make the “Arctic Circle” much more believable. The only thing running through my mind was how ridiculous CGI breathing looked. Then again, I guess you can consider that mind-blowing. Outsourcing computer graphics to breathing is pretty earth-shattering.

Lastly, the acting – I guess you really can’t expect Oscar-caliber performances for a movie like G.I.JOE, but at least get a better DUKE! When I first heard that Channing Tatum was going to play Duke, my initial response was – Why?! And now, after seeing his performance, I stand by my initial assessment. From a purist fanboy point-of-view, Duke is supposed to be a total badass, and Channing Tatum really does not evoke that kind of persona. But, I have to be honest, I was a little excited to see if Channing could pull it off, if he had what it takes to be one bad mother-*shut yo’ mouth*! But he didn’t step up (no pun intended) to the challenge. He demonstrated the acting chops of a cave wall, lacking both the charisma and emotional capacity that the script, character, and film required of him. Now if we can only get Channing Tatum, Malin Akerman, and Jessica Alba to make one EPIC film adaptation of another cartoon from the 80’s to effectively ruin my childhood that would be awesome. I hear Thundercats is in the works… hmm…

-Ace
Read more!