![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gi Joe: Retaliation [Review]
Apr. 9th, 2013 12:58 pmA few years ago, I made the schoolboy error of going to see GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra in the cinema. I actually spent my own money to watch it, and was duly scathing in my review.
Anyway, in order to demonstrate that I'm a sucker for punishment I took myself off to see the sequel, GI Joe: Retaliation, the other day, and I'm pleased to be able to report that it's more of the same.
I think the thing which takes me aback about both GI Joe films is the remarkable disregard for human life. Faceless goons are dispatched by the score in a cavalier and cheery manner which even I find mildly disconcerting, whilst the actual effects of violence aren't shown at all. Someone stabbed clean through the heart doesn't even bleed, never mind flailing around screaming whilst gushing gouts of blood. Whereas in the first film people who were hit with a sword or knife might display a welt of the sort you might get if you were hit with a red permanent marker, in Gi Joe: retaliation you don't even get that. People suffer quite stunning injuries and fall to their doom in a cheerful, disposable people sort of way. And that's even before we get onto the merry japes during the use of an apocalyptically powerful WMD on a major world city.
In fact, there appear to be no consequences to anything in this film. People are dispatched, explosions are exploded, cities are razed from the face of the earth, and then the goodies win so everyone goes home and has a good laugh. If there's a political statement, it's that you can solve any problem if you shoot people hard enough, and if that doesn't work then blowing them up is an acceptable alternative.
In the meantime, the villains are largely the sort of faceless goons who can be done away with without any consequences. From an early scene in a Pakistani nuclear facility populated by the sort of extras for whom shouting "Dirka dirka Allah Jihad" counts as character development to the hordes of red-clad ninja who tumble to their deaths in a comedy "ninjas tumbling to their horrific deaths" scene it's all rather disturbing if you stop and think about it, and so you shouldn't do so.
In fact, if you're the sort of person who asks difficult questions during films like "Why did that happen?", "Where did those ninjas come from?", "What's going on?" and "Why the hell am I watching this?" then this is not the film for you. Far from it.
However, in the face of all this worthy moralising about the tone of the film, there's one important feature I haven't mentioned yet. It's really, really enjoyable.
I'd like you to perform a thought experiment for a moment. It's 1986, Christmas day. You're eight years old. You're stuffed with sweets and you've just watched You Only live twice before going to recreate it with the impressively muscled and armed action figures you've been given. GI Joe: Retaliation is the story you create. The action leaps about all over the place; any slow bits are livened up with the arrival of some ninjas, explosions perform roughly the same function as exposition in lesser films, and there's none of that slow, boring "character" stuff with girls which was in the Bond film you just watched. Instead, girls are just ambulatory boobs right up until the moment when they WHIP OUT TWO TOMMY GUNS AND MOW DOWN MORE NINJAS.
Not only it is it the cinematic equivalent of a sugar-rushing 8-year-olds Bond-and-Survivalist fantasy, it's got some of the best production values I've seen in a while. Many of the less fatal stunts appear to be mostly real rather than CGI, the fight choreography is first-rate, the casting is charismatic and even smart (one throwaway character is a 1970s Hong Kong action star, seemingly cast solely for being an old person who can fight). There's some excellent visual jokes (Bruce Willis' house) and overall everyone involved just seems to be having a great time. Jonathan Pryce doesn't bother acting and just parades round as an enormous slice of ham, Ray Stevenson might as well be holding a sign reading "I'M JUST TAKING THE MICKEY", and the Rock has been injecting himself with synothol for months to get the required physique.
I really, really shouldn't have enjoyed this as much as I did. I could write screeds of cinematic criticism, but if films you can critique are your bag you aren't going to be going to see this anyway. Indeed, if films which require the slightest thought or make sense are your thing you're probably in the wrong place. If, on the other hand, you want to pretend to be a sugar-overloaded prepubescent, this is as good a film as I've seen since Arnold Schwarzenegger stopped shooting things and turned to jokes in about 1991.
Anyway, in order to demonstrate that I'm a sucker for punishment I took myself off to see the sequel, GI Joe: Retaliation, the other day, and I'm pleased to be able to report that it's more of the same.
I think the thing which takes me aback about both GI Joe films is the remarkable disregard for human life. Faceless goons are dispatched by the score in a cavalier and cheery manner which even I find mildly disconcerting, whilst the actual effects of violence aren't shown at all. Someone stabbed clean through the heart doesn't even bleed, never mind flailing around screaming whilst gushing gouts of blood. Whereas in the first film people who were hit with a sword or knife might display a welt of the sort you might get if you were hit with a red permanent marker, in Gi Joe: retaliation you don't even get that. People suffer quite stunning injuries and fall to their doom in a cheerful, disposable people sort of way. And that's even before we get onto the merry japes during the use of an apocalyptically powerful WMD on a major world city.
In fact, there appear to be no consequences to anything in this film. People are dispatched, explosions are exploded, cities are razed from the face of the earth, and then the goodies win so everyone goes home and has a good laugh. If there's a political statement, it's that you can solve any problem if you shoot people hard enough, and if that doesn't work then blowing them up is an acceptable alternative.
In the meantime, the villains are largely the sort of faceless goons who can be done away with without any consequences. From an early scene in a Pakistani nuclear facility populated by the sort of extras for whom shouting "Dirka dirka Allah Jihad" counts as character development to the hordes of red-clad ninja who tumble to their deaths in a comedy "ninjas tumbling to their horrific deaths" scene it's all rather disturbing if you stop and think about it, and so you shouldn't do so.
In fact, if you're the sort of person who asks difficult questions during films like "Why did that happen?", "Where did those ninjas come from?", "What's going on?" and "Why the hell am I watching this?" then this is not the film for you. Far from it.
However, in the face of all this worthy moralising about the tone of the film, there's one important feature I haven't mentioned yet. It's really, really enjoyable.
I'd like you to perform a thought experiment for a moment. It's 1986, Christmas day. You're eight years old. You're stuffed with sweets and you've just watched You Only live twice before going to recreate it with the impressively muscled and armed action figures you've been given. GI Joe: Retaliation is the story you create. The action leaps about all over the place; any slow bits are livened up with the arrival of some ninjas, explosions perform roughly the same function as exposition in lesser films, and there's none of that slow, boring "character" stuff with girls which was in the Bond film you just watched. Instead, girls are just ambulatory boobs right up until the moment when they WHIP OUT TWO TOMMY GUNS AND MOW DOWN MORE NINJAS.
Not only it is it the cinematic equivalent of a sugar-rushing 8-year-olds Bond-and-Survivalist fantasy, it's got some of the best production values I've seen in a while. Many of the less fatal stunts appear to be mostly real rather than CGI, the fight choreography is first-rate, the casting is charismatic and even smart (one throwaway character is a 1970s Hong Kong action star, seemingly cast solely for being an old person who can fight). There's some excellent visual jokes (Bruce Willis' house) and overall everyone involved just seems to be having a great time. Jonathan Pryce doesn't bother acting and just parades round as an enormous slice of ham, Ray Stevenson might as well be holding a sign reading "I'M JUST TAKING THE MICKEY", and the Rock has been injecting himself with synothol for months to get the required physique.
I really, really shouldn't have enjoyed this as much as I did. I could write screeds of cinematic criticism, but if films you can critique are your bag you aren't going to be going to see this anyway. Indeed, if films which require the slightest thought or make sense are your thing you're probably in the wrong place. If, on the other hand, you want to pretend to be a sugar-overloaded prepubescent, this is as good a film as I've seen since Arnold Schwarzenegger stopped shooting things and turned to jokes in about 1991.
