Some films require a specific demographic for full enjoyment, and in the action genre, it seems there are a lot aimed at teen boys. A prime example: Gone in Sixty Seconds. It's not that it's a horrible movie, it's just that the storyline is incoherent, the characters are all one-dimensional, the ending is obvious from sixty seconds past the opening titles and the performances are all uninteresting. And the male/female relationships? It couldn't be more cliche.
And yet, there's a certain sophomoric fascination in a film about cool guys stealing gorgeous cars and trying to score with the sexy gals. Really, it's a perfect film for a teen boy, even if his date's going to be distracted, wondering whether this means she can now convince him to see the latest Rom-Com with her next weekend.
G.I. Joe: Retaliation is in the same category, and if I could just shut down the mature, adult part of my brain, the boy inside would totally dig the tough guys, monosyllabic dialog, shiny toys, loud guns and non-stop action, while ignoring the completely muddled and confusing plot, terrible story arc, random scenes added based on exit surveys of screening audiences, and misunderstanding of world politics. But hey, it's the Joe's and they represent all that's great about America, right? Booyah!
The film opens with the G.I. Joe team -- led by Duke (Channing Tatum) -- sneaking through the DMZ fence separating North and South Korea to extract a prisoner from the North Koreans. All of whom apparently really need new glasses because even when the GI's are directly under a spotlight, the Koreans can't see them crouched on the edge of the fence. And the prisoner? Why he's there, who he is, what happens to him afterwards, that's all on the cutting room floor apparently, because the scene had no relevance to the film at all. And that sets the tone for the entire movie.
As has been widely publicized, actor Channing Tatum's popularity took the production team by surprise so they delayed release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation to add more footage with Duke. Unfortunately, it's all obviously a last-second addition that adds nothing to the film at all, even for the most die-hard of Tatum fans. Soon enough it's Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson likable as always) who is in charge of the Joe's and the squad's on the run, wanted for crimes against the United States, while bad guys have taken over the country and, soon, the world.
After such amazing films as Ben Hur and Gladiator, I'm a definite fan of what the industry refers to as "swords and sandals" epics, films that take place during the first century or two of the common era. The Eagle takes place during this same era, 140AD, and is a tale of a Roman commander who seeks to restore his family's honor by recovering a lost golden eagle from the far northern hinterlands of Britain.
Let me end the suspense right up front: I liked G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. I didn't expect it to be a deep, thoughtful war film, nor did I expect it to be a profound visual essay on the challenges of morality in a wartime setting: see Flags of our Fathers and The Hurt Locker (
Biopics are an unusual challenge for a filmmaker because the storyline is already set, whether it makes sense and whether we can understand the motivations of the characters or not. As I watched the lush, but violent Public Enemies, I kept thinking that the reason there was no story, no backstory on the characters, and no depth to the film was just this reason: we were being presented with the sequence of events as they happened, rather than a fictionalized retelling that would have dug into character motivations and explained what was going on.