G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Aragorn
- Start date
On a side note, Channing Tatum is multi-racial (he's not 100% pureblood Caucasian like the original Duke character). I guess that's negligible, considering they cast a black actor to play Ripcord.
Why doesn't Destro in the film have a silver head of metal? Did they think he would stick out in a public place or something?
I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote the Ripcord character as Stalker (who was big in the comics and was often featured with Duke), but had to change the name because of the modern connotations of the word "stalker." So they picked a fairly generic Joe nobody would miss (apologies to all six Ripcord fans.)
That would be win.
I haven't never seen lower expectations for a film since Southland Tales, so it has nowhere to go but up!
80's nostalgia + Doctor #9 + Baroness lust = adds up to me paying to see this on a big screen nicely toasted.
80's nostalgia + Doctor #9 + Baroness lust = adds up to me paying to see this on a big screen nicely toasted.
Erm, GIJoe fans will know that Cobra Commander also wore an awesome silver shield/helmet thing over his face. The KKK doesn't use those.
I just think Hollywood has an avertion to completely masked cinema characters. With Darth Vader an exception, I find these days masked characters spend little screen time with their face covered. Just look at Spider Man. He can't keep his friggin' mask on for more than a few minutes.
That's true. I don't know why that wasn't used in this movie.
Me too
Some reports I've seen online suggest that he will have a metal mask as some point in the movie.
That may have something to do with either the stars or the studio wanting face time. Stars want to be seen and the studios want them to be seen. Concern that the audience won't relate to a character who's nothing more than a "mask" might also be a factor depending on the situation.
here's a clip
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1086652953/
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1086652953/
Yeah, I love those two. But there is no way in Hell is this a good movie. It's Stephen Sommers. It's impossible for him to direct a good movie. Impossible I say. All these good reviews are just critics thinking it would be funny to fuck with people.
That's not a good sign. Once in a while it just means the studio is completely clueless as to what kind of movie they have (Tombstone), but almost always we're talking about Snakes on a Plane, Disaster Movie, Saw XVIII, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li and BloodRayne. Even a bad review lets people know about the movie.
Oh come on. Snakes on Plane was great. Well...sort of. Kind of. Not really, ok sure. But it was great.
^^^^^
Well, at least it delivers what it promises.
True. Bad reviews certainly didn't hurt Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but that film had the advantage of being a sequel to a movie that was (apparently) enjoyed by a large number of people. G.I. Joe doesn't have that going for it, and perhaps the studio feels it's not as "critic-proof" as other films might be, hence this decision, which may speak volumes about their faith in the final product. Perhaps they got a little worried after observing the largely negative reactions to the trailers (which, personally, didn't impress me at all).
It should be noted, though, that advance screenings for G.I. Joe are still occurring -- the press just hasn't been invited to them. It seems the studios are hoping that the word-of-mouth generated by fanboys/amateur critics will be kinder than the reviews from professional critics and help give the film a boost. So far, it seems that approach may actually be working, as a number of the early, online reviews have suggested that the film is not a disaster but rather a fairly solid and fun action flick. I somehow doubt most of the major critics will agree, but I guess we'll find out eventually.
Whatever happens, I'll be very interested to see how this movie fares at the box office.
Well, at least it delivers what it promises.
True. Bad reviews certainly didn't hurt Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but that film had the advantage of being a sequel to a movie that was (apparently) enjoyed by a large number of people. G.I. Joe doesn't have that going for it, and perhaps the studio feels it's not as "critic-proof" as other films might be, hence this decision, which may speak volumes about their faith in the final product. Perhaps they got a little worried after observing the largely negative reactions to the trailers (which, personally, didn't impress me at all).
It should be noted, though, that advance screenings for G.I. Joe are still occurring -- the press just hasn't been invited to them. It seems the studios are hoping that the word-of-mouth generated by fanboys/amateur critics will be kinder than the reviews from professional critics and help give the film a boost. So far, it seems that approach may actually be working, as a number of the early, online reviews have suggested that the film is not a disaster but rather a fairly solid and fun action flick. I somehow doubt most of the major critics will agree, but I guess we'll find out eventually.
Whatever happens, I'll be very interested to see how this movie fares at the box office.