CHEERLEADER GONE WILD IN ‘JENNIFER’S BODY’
By Gary McPherson
Diablo Cody won a screenwriting Oscar for ‘Juno’, the story of a high school girl whose life gets turned upside down due to an unexpected pregnancy.
Diablo Cody will not win a screenwriting Oscar for ‘Jennifer’s Body’, the story of a high school girl who becomes possessed by a demon and begins eating her classmates.
And though that might be an ever so brief synopsis of the movie, ‘Jennifer’s Body’ is more than it seems and makes for a fun night out, even for those who are not subscribers to ‘Fangoria’.
Cody’s trademark, quirky dialogue is on display, though not as effervescent as in ‘Juno’. There, the dialogue carried the movie and turned it into the little movie that could.
In ‘Jennifer’s Body’, there is more action, more meat. All the better for the title character to munch on.
Jennifer is played by Megan Fox, who while still not Kate Hepburn (or even Kate Capshaw), shows some more acting chops than she has in any of her previous work. Even she admits that she was awful in ‘Transformers’.
When Jennifer has a little too much to drink, she leaves a bar with the house band, who turn out to be devil worshipers. The lead singer believes Jennifer when she tells him that she is a virgin and we all know nothing is more appealing to Satanists than a virgin.
They plan to use Jennifer as a human sacrifice, but since she lied about her purity, Jennifer becomes possessed, as opposed to just dead.
Girl power reigns supreme as Jennifer goes on a rampage, devouring dudes from her school. And when I say devouring, I literally mean eating them. Pretty gross.
Jennifer’s gal pal Anita starts to realize something is amiss with her BFF, especially after Jennifer keeps showing up places covered in blood. Note to self: if my best friend Bryan repeatedly shows up at my house covered in someone else’s blood, it’s time to reassess our friendship.
Jennifer and Anita have a heart to heart, where Jen explains what happened with the band and her new penchant for flesh. Anita, unwisely, takes it upon herself to stop the carnage, mainly in an attempt to save the life of her boyfriend. Gore ensues, thanks to, among other things, a pool skimmer.
In a genre that has become chockfull of retreads (‘Halloween’) and Japanese remakes (‘The Ring’, ‘Shutter’), it’s nice to see an original horror movie for a change. Especially one that contains a script that doesn’t sound like it was penned by a 13 year old.
Grade: B
Friday, January 29, 2010
DICKENS CLASSIC MORE VIBRANT THAN EVER
By Gary McPherson
In the 166 years since Charles Dickens masterpiece A Christmas Carol hit bookshelves, there have been countless adaptations. It is a testament to the author that after all this time, the story still holds up.
While some versions (The Jetsons, Rich Little) might have drawn the ire of Dickens, I’m sure the latest incarnation would have received his blessing.
“Disney’s A Christmas Carol”, directed by Robert Zemeckis, stays true to the novels roots, at least in regards to dialogue and theme.
The CGI film could have gone the cheap route and tried to modernize the tale, as many have done before. Instead, we are treated to the story as it was meant to be told.
I also must adamantly suggest you spend the extra two or three dollars to watch the film on an IMAX screen. The movie is visually staggering and it is getting to the point where it will be hard to even tell if it is a real actor on screen or a CGI creation.
There are some negatives. Since Zemeckis chose to stay true to much of Dickens original dialect, some of the scenes may be hard for young children to understand. You might find yourself spending half the film explaining to your son or daughter what just happened.
Secondly, for a PG rated film, this one has its share of scary moments. I could count at least five times where I looked over at my five year old and said to myself this was going to give him nightmares. Luckily I was wrong and he just ended up throwing up from all the popcorn and licorice that he ate.
I also have to say I have a problem with Disney insisting on putting their moniker in the title. Really, after 160 years it is now “Disney’s A Christmas Carol”?
The motion capture technology used is pretty amazing. Jim Carrey plays Scrooge and unlike other animated ventures, it’s not just his voice that pops out at you.
Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins and Cary Elwes also play supporting roles, but it is Carrey who gives you your money’s worth. The funnyman also lends his talents as the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.
Probably a little too intense for the kiddies, “Disney’s A Christmas Carol” should is a fine way to kick off your holiday season. Even if Thanksgiving is still three weeks away.
Grade: B+
By Gary McPherson
In the 166 years since Charles Dickens masterpiece A Christmas Carol hit bookshelves, there have been countless adaptations. It is a testament to the author that after all this time, the story still holds up.
While some versions (The Jetsons, Rich Little) might have drawn the ire of Dickens, I’m sure the latest incarnation would have received his blessing.
“Disney’s A Christmas Carol”, directed by Robert Zemeckis, stays true to the novels roots, at least in regards to dialogue and theme.
The CGI film could have gone the cheap route and tried to modernize the tale, as many have done before. Instead, we are treated to the story as it was meant to be told.
I also must adamantly suggest you spend the extra two or three dollars to watch the film on an IMAX screen. The movie is visually staggering and it is getting to the point where it will be hard to even tell if it is a real actor on screen or a CGI creation.
There are some negatives. Since Zemeckis chose to stay true to much of Dickens original dialect, some of the scenes may be hard for young children to understand. You might find yourself spending half the film explaining to your son or daughter what just happened.
Secondly, for a PG rated film, this one has its share of scary moments. I could count at least five times where I looked over at my five year old and said to myself this was going to give him nightmares. Luckily I was wrong and he just ended up throwing up from all the popcorn and licorice that he ate.
I also have to say I have a problem with Disney insisting on putting their moniker in the title. Really, after 160 years it is now “Disney’s A Christmas Carol”?
The motion capture technology used is pretty amazing. Jim Carrey plays Scrooge and unlike other animated ventures, it’s not just his voice that pops out at you.
Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins and Cary Elwes also play supporting roles, but it is Carrey who gives you your money’s worth. The funnyman also lends his talents as the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.
Probably a little too intense for the kiddies, “Disney’s A Christmas Carol” should is a fine way to kick off your holiday season. Even if Thanksgiving is still three weeks away.
Grade: B+
‘OLD DOGS’ NEED TO BE PUT DOWN
By Gary McPherson
I’ve seen my share of bad movies in my lifetime. And there are even some movies that are so bad that they are good. Well, maybe not good, but entertaining.
“Old Dogs” is one of the worst films I’ve seen in a long, long time.
Take every cliché and sight gag that has already been beaten to death with a stick and throw it in a big pile, then burn it, then bury it underground. That is “Old Dogs”.
Director Walt Becker has two major films to his credit prior to this film: “Van Wilder” and “Wild Hogs”. If you ask me, it should be three strikes and you’re out. Of Hollywood.
“Old Dogs” is a story about two bachelors, Dan (Robin Williams) and Charlie (John Travolta). Dan opines about Vicki (Kelly Preston), the one who got away seven years ago. But lo and behold, who should pop up but Vicki, with her two kids, twins Zach and Emily.
Turns out Dan is their father and when Vicki ends up having to go to jail for a couple weeks, it’s time for daddy to step up to the plate.
Becker throws in three crotch shots, a hand model getting her hand smashed in a car trunk, a spray on tan mishap, a soccer ball to the face of a small child and various misadventures with animals at the zoo. Basically, a bunch of gags you can see each week on America’s Stupidest Videos.
I’m also getting tired of John Travolta. Here is a guy who’s career was down the tubes, a complete has been. (“Look Who’s Talking”…all I’ve got to say).
Then, along comes Quentin Tarantino, who resuscitates the actor with “Pulp Fiction”. That role gets him “Primary Colors” and “Get Shorty”, two more great roles.
But Travolta can’t help but make god awful script choices, as evident by this piece of tripe, as well as “The Taking of the Pelham 1 2 3”, “Swordfish”, “The Punisher”, “Battlefield Earth” and “Wild Hogs”.
“Old Dogs” is 88 minutes of embarrassment, for all those involved. With all the wonderful films currently in theaters (“The Fantastic Mr. Fox”, ”A Christmas Carol”, even “New Moon”) , this mutt should be neutered.
Grade: F
By Gary McPherson
I’ve seen my share of bad movies in my lifetime. And there are even some movies that are so bad that they are good. Well, maybe not good, but entertaining.
“Old Dogs” is one of the worst films I’ve seen in a long, long time.
Take every cliché and sight gag that has already been beaten to death with a stick and throw it in a big pile, then burn it, then bury it underground. That is “Old Dogs”.
Director Walt Becker has two major films to his credit prior to this film: “Van Wilder” and “Wild Hogs”. If you ask me, it should be three strikes and you’re out. Of Hollywood.
“Old Dogs” is a story about two bachelors, Dan (Robin Williams) and Charlie (John Travolta). Dan opines about Vicki (Kelly Preston), the one who got away seven years ago. But lo and behold, who should pop up but Vicki, with her two kids, twins Zach and Emily.
Turns out Dan is their father and when Vicki ends up having to go to jail for a couple weeks, it’s time for daddy to step up to the plate.
Becker throws in three crotch shots, a hand model getting her hand smashed in a car trunk, a spray on tan mishap, a soccer ball to the face of a small child and various misadventures with animals at the zoo. Basically, a bunch of gags you can see each week on America’s Stupidest Videos.
I’m also getting tired of John Travolta. Here is a guy who’s career was down the tubes, a complete has been. (“Look Who’s Talking”…all I’ve got to say).
Then, along comes Quentin Tarantino, who resuscitates the actor with “Pulp Fiction”. That role gets him “Primary Colors” and “Get Shorty”, two more great roles.
But Travolta can’t help but make god awful script choices, as evident by this piece of tripe, as well as “The Taking of the Pelham 1 2 3”, “Swordfish”, “The Punisher”, “Battlefield Earth” and “Wild Hogs”.
“Old Dogs” is 88 minutes of embarrassment, for all those involved. With all the wonderful films currently in theaters (“The Fantastic Mr. Fox”, ”A Christmas Carol”, even “New Moon”) , this mutt should be neutered.
Grade: F
DISNEY GOES OLD SCHOOL WITH ‘PRINCESS AND THE FROG’
By Gary McPherson
Since Pixar hit it big with Toy Story in 1995, computer generated animation has taken off. While studios such as Dreamworks and Nickolodeon still produced traditional animated films, Disney seemed content to focus all its intentions on the Pixar way.
And that always made me cringe a little, for two reasons.
First, Disney was on a major roll in the ‘90’s with great animated features such as ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Mulan’. Why just abandon what was really working?
Second, it seemed like there was a conscious effort to put all the good writers on computer generated films. You have to admit that ‘Wall-E’ and ‘Cars’ are some of the most well written cartoons ever made.
It’s like they assigned Ernest Hemingway to write the computer generated movies and then hired Carrot Top to pen the likes of ‘Treasure Planet’ or ‘Bolt’.
But I have to say my faith in Disney animation has been fully restored with ‘The Princess and the Frog’, a terrific film with a clever story, entertaining songs and a touchy, feely ending.
The movie takes place in New Orleans and the city is as much a star as any of the characters.
Mardi Gras, the French Quarter, voodoo and the blues all play prominent roles in telling the tale of Tiana, a waitress working two jobs, trying to save up to purchase her own restaurant.
It’s been nearly a decade since Disney released an animated film this good and it shouldn’t surprise that it was written and directed by Ron Clements, the man responsible for gems such as ‘Aladdin’ and ‘The Little Mermaid’.
Clements takes the traditional tale of the frog prince and turns it on its head. When Prince Naveen gets turned into a hopper, he mistakes Tiana for a princess and asks for a kiss. But since she really isn’t royalty, the voodoo curse turns them both into a couple of croakers.
As they struggle to avoid being eaten by crocodiles and some ‘Deliverance’-esque bayou folk, the duo find what truly matters in life. The Prince learns that there is more to life than being a lounge about playboy and Tiana comes to realize that while a restaurant would be nice, a life would be even nicer.
With memorable characters such as Ray the hillbilly lightning bug and Mama Odie, the voodoo priestess of the bayou, ‘The Princess and the Frog’ delivers and reminds me of possibly my favorite animated movie of all time, ‘Beauty and the Beast.’
While my wife would probably cause me bodily harm if I said ‘Frog’ was better than ‘Beauty’, let’s just say it’s one notch below. Which still makes it an excellent movie for everyone.
Grade: A
By Gary McPherson
Since Pixar hit it big with Toy Story in 1995, computer generated animation has taken off. While studios such as Dreamworks and Nickolodeon still produced traditional animated films, Disney seemed content to focus all its intentions on the Pixar way.
And that always made me cringe a little, for two reasons.
First, Disney was on a major roll in the ‘90’s with great animated features such as ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Mulan’. Why just abandon what was really working?
Second, it seemed like there was a conscious effort to put all the good writers on computer generated films. You have to admit that ‘Wall-E’ and ‘Cars’ are some of the most well written cartoons ever made.
It’s like they assigned Ernest Hemingway to write the computer generated movies and then hired Carrot Top to pen the likes of ‘Treasure Planet’ or ‘Bolt’.
But I have to say my faith in Disney animation has been fully restored with ‘The Princess and the Frog’, a terrific film with a clever story, entertaining songs and a touchy, feely ending.
The movie takes place in New Orleans and the city is as much a star as any of the characters.
Mardi Gras, the French Quarter, voodoo and the blues all play prominent roles in telling the tale of Tiana, a waitress working two jobs, trying to save up to purchase her own restaurant.
It’s been nearly a decade since Disney released an animated film this good and it shouldn’t surprise that it was written and directed by Ron Clements, the man responsible for gems such as ‘Aladdin’ and ‘The Little Mermaid’.
Clements takes the traditional tale of the frog prince and turns it on its head. When Prince Naveen gets turned into a hopper, he mistakes Tiana for a princess and asks for a kiss. But since she really isn’t royalty, the voodoo curse turns them both into a couple of croakers.
As they struggle to avoid being eaten by crocodiles and some ‘Deliverance’-esque bayou folk, the duo find what truly matters in life. The Prince learns that there is more to life than being a lounge about playboy and Tiana comes to realize that while a restaurant would be nice, a life would be even nicer.
With memorable characters such as Ray the hillbilly lightning bug and Mama Odie, the voodoo priestess of the bayou, ‘The Princess and the Frog’ delivers and reminds me of possibly my favorite animated movie of all time, ‘Beauty and the Beast.’
While my wife would probably cause me bodily harm if I said ‘Frog’ was better than ‘Beauty’, let’s just say it’s one notch below. Which still makes it an excellent movie for everyone.
Grade: A
“HALF BLOOD-PRINCE” A SLIGHT LETDOWN
By Gary McPherson
When the Harry Potter phenomenon began to gather steam nearly a decade ago, I admit I was nowhere to be seen. Only after my wife read the books and raved about them did I get on board. And I am so thankful that I did, because J.K. Rowlings’ work is some of the most enthralling that I have ever had the pleasure to read.
So like so many other people, I wait with baited breath for each of the books to reach the silver screen and until now, I’ve felt like Hollywood has done each tale justice.
But “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is a different animal. At over 700 pages, it is by far the deepest of the stories. It’s also in “Prince” that we realize this really is not a children’s saga, as it is filled with many more adult themes.
“Prince” is a dark and gloomy novel, and it left more than a few people with tears in their eyes as they finished the final page.
Director David Yates was faced with a tough task of staying true to the book, while at the same time creating a blockbuster. Reports are that the studio rejected numerous early drafts of the film because they were too dour. Hollywood strikes again!
The film follows Harry through his sixth year at the wizarding school of Hogwarts, as he and Professor Dumbledore inch closer to discovering how to stop the evil Lord Voldemort.
A good deal of the film also focuses on relationships among the students. Ron goes out with Lavender, but really likes Hermione, who has been going out with Cormac to spite Ron, while Harry likes Ginny, who has been snogging Dean, forcing Harry to find another girl to take to the gala.
While these interactions provide some levity and comic relief to the movie, the result is a ton of pertinent scenes hitting the cutting room floor.
For one, Voldemort is not in a single scene. Zero. Harry and Dumbledore explore various flashbacks combing over Voldemort’s early days, but so much is left out.
Hagrid, the giant groundskeeper, is non-existent, appearing on screen a total of maybe five minutes. Numerous other characters like Mad Eye Moody, Kreacher and the Minister of Magic don’t appear even once.
There is also a bizarre scene where the Weasly’s home, known as the ‘burrow’, gets destroyed by death eaters. Consider that this entire 15 minute segment is nowhere to be found in any of the books and it makes you wonder why it was even put in the film.
All that being said, the movie is entertaining and well done. If there were no book to compare it to, it would be difficult to find many faults. As I said before, the awkward moments among the lovestruck students are fun to watch. The Lavender Brown character provides some high comedy and Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is brilliant, as always.
And the addition of Jim Broadbent to the cast was a wonderful choice. Broadbent plays Professor Horace Slughorn and every moment he is on screen is a joy.
One thing I will say is that even after sitting in a theater for two and a half hours, I was left depressed. Not at what I had just witnessed on the screen, but knowing that I’m going to have to wait at least a few more years for the final Potter book to hit theaters. (“The Deathly Hallows” is currently in production and will be split into two movies, with one to come out in 2010, the other in 2011).
It’s a true testament to Rowlings’ skills as a writer that “Prince” could include only about 2/3 of what is in the novel and still be an entertaining motion picture.
Grade: B+
By Gary McPherson
When the Harry Potter phenomenon began to gather steam nearly a decade ago, I admit I was nowhere to be seen. Only after my wife read the books and raved about them did I get on board. And I am so thankful that I did, because J.K. Rowlings’ work is some of the most enthralling that I have ever had the pleasure to read.
So like so many other people, I wait with baited breath for each of the books to reach the silver screen and until now, I’ve felt like Hollywood has done each tale justice.
But “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is a different animal. At over 700 pages, it is by far the deepest of the stories. It’s also in “Prince” that we realize this really is not a children’s saga, as it is filled with many more adult themes.
“Prince” is a dark and gloomy novel, and it left more than a few people with tears in their eyes as they finished the final page.
Director David Yates was faced with a tough task of staying true to the book, while at the same time creating a blockbuster. Reports are that the studio rejected numerous early drafts of the film because they were too dour. Hollywood strikes again!
The film follows Harry through his sixth year at the wizarding school of Hogwarts, as he and Professor Dumbledore inch closer to discovering how to stop the evil Lord Voldemort.
A good deal of the film also focuses on relationships among the students. Ron goes out with Lavender, but really likes Hermione, who has been going out with Cormac to spite Ron, while Harry likes Ginny, who has been snogging Dean, forcing Harry to find another girl to take to the gala.
While these interactions provide some levity and comic relief to the movie, the result is a ton of pertinent scenes hitting the cutting room floor.
For one, Voldemort is not in a single scene. Zero. Harry and Dumbledore explore various flashbacks combing over Voldemort’s early days, but so much is left out.
Hagrid, the giant groundskeeper, is non-existent, appearing on screen a total of maybe five minutes. Numerous other characters like Mad Eye Moody, Kreacher and the Minister of Magic don’t appear even once.
There is also a bizarre scene where the Weasly’s home, known as the ‘burrow’, gets destroyed by death eaters. Consider that this entire 15 minute segment is nowhere to be found in any of the books and it makes you wonder why it was even put in the film.
All that being said, the movie is entertaining and well done. If there were no book to compare it to, it would be difficult to find many faults. As I said before, the awkward moments among the lovestruck students are fun to watch. The Lavender Brown character provides some high comedy and Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is brilliant, as always.
And the addition of Jim Broadbent to the cast was a wonderful choice. Broadbent plays Professor Horace Slughorn and every moment he is on screen is a joy.
One thing I will say is that even after sitting in a theater for two and a half hours, I was left depressed. Not at what I had just witnessed on the screen, but knowing that I’m going to have to wait at least a few more years for the final Potter book to hit theaters. (“The Deathly Hallows” is currently in production and will be split into two movies, with one to come out in 2010, the other in 2011).
It’s a true testament to Rowlings’ skills as a writer that “Prince” could include only about 2/3 of what is in the novel and still be an entertaining motion picture.
Grade: B+
TARANTINO RETURNS WITH A VENGEANCE
By Gary McPherson
It’s hard to believe that it has been 15 years since “Pulp Fiction” burst onto movie screens and made Quentin Tarantino a household name.
It’s even harder to believe that “Inglourious Basterds” is just the 5th full length feature Tarantino has put his name to in that time.
Tarantino spins a tale around a group of Jewish American soldiers who wreak havoc throughout German occupied France during World War II, leaving a trail of scalped Nazis in their path. You can’t help but smile when you see the leaders of the Third Reich shaking in their boots, as the lore of the ‘Basterds’ grows, like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.
The film is a work of pure fiction, so if you plan on getting a history lesson, you’re in the wrong place. But you will find scene after scene filled with tension, humor and the classic Tarantino dialogue that is his trademark.
Brad Pitt plays Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the ‘Basterds’ and trying not to sound like a broken record, but Pitt is terrific.
Pitt catches a lot of flak for his good looks and his uber-public lifestyle, but the fact of the matter is he is a damn good actor. I think what I like about him most is that every time I see him, he’s a different character.
That sounds funny, but how many times do we see an actor play the same persona over and over and over, regardless of the movie?
Ben Stiller has played the goofy, awkward, clumsy, romantically challenged role at least a dozen times. How about an accent or a mustache or something?
Jennifer Aniston played Rachel on “Friends” for a decade and continues to play Rachel in every single movie she makes. If she wasn’t attractive (and her dad wasn’t Victor Kiriakis…where are my ‘Days’ fans?), she’d be appearing at Charlie’s Murder Mystery Theater and Spaghetti House, just outside the airport in Passaic.
But the star of the show is not Pitt, but Austrian actor Christopher Waltz Col. Hans Landa, the SS officer who is equally terrifying and in the end pathetic. Don’t be surprised if Waltz is in the running for a supporting actor Oscar next year.
I do have to say that choosing Eli Roth to play Sgt. Donny Donowitz, aka the Bear Jew, was Tarantino’s lone mistake. Roth is a much better director than actor and it shows here. It might not be evident in movies like “Cabin Fever” or “2001 Maniacs”, but when surrounded by ‘talented’ actors, Roth sticks out like a sore thumb.
Despite the lone miscast, Tarantino breathes life into what could have been just another war movie and brings the originality that only he can.
Grade: B+
By Gary McPherson
It’s hard to believe that it has been 15 years since “Pulp Fiction” burst onto movie screens and made Quentin Tarantino a household name.
It’s even harder to believe that “Inglourious Basterds” is just the 5th full length feature Tarantino has put his name to in that time.
Tarantino spins a tale around a group of Jewish American soldiers who wreak havoc throughout German occupied France during World War II, leaving a trail of scalped Nazis in their path. You can’t help but smile when you see the leaders of the Third Reich shaking in their boots, as the lore of the ‘Basterds’ grows, like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.
The film is a work of pure fiction, so if you plan on getting a history lesson, you’re in the wrong place. But you will find scene after scene filled with tension, humor and the classic Tarantino dialogue that is his trademark.
Brad Pitt plays Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the ‘Basterds’ and trying not to sound like a broken record, but Pitt is terrific.
Pitt catches a lot of flak for his good looks and his uber-public lifestyle, but the fact of the matter is he is a damn good actor. I think what I like about him most is that every time I see him, he’s a different character.
That sounds funny, but how many times do we see an actor play the same persona over and over and over, regardless of the movie?
Ben Stiller has played the goofy, awkward, clumsy, romantically challenged role at least a dozen times. How about an accent or a mustache or something?
Jennifer Aniston played Rachel on “Friends” for a decade and continues to play Rachel in every single movie she makes. If she wasn’t attractive (and her dad wasn’t Victor Kiriakis…where are my ‘Days’ fans?), she’d be appearing at Charlie’s Murder Mystery Theater and Spaghetti House, just outside the airport in Passaic.
But the star of the show is not Pitt, but Austrian actor Christopher Waltz Col. Hans Landa, the SS officer who is equally terrifying and in the end pathetic. Don’t be surprised if Waltz is in the running for a supporting actor Oscar next year.
I do have to say that choosing Eli Roth to play Sgt. Donny Donowitz, aka the Bear Jew, was Tarantino’s lone mistake. Roth is a much better director than actor and it shows here. It might not be evident in movies like “Cabin Fever” or “2001 Maniacs”, but when surrounded by ‘talented’ actors, Roth sticks out like a sore thumb.
Despite the lone miscast, Tarantino breathes life into what could have been just another war movie and brings the originality that only he can.
Grade: B+
G.I. JOE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO BOOTCAMP
By Gary McPherson
When word broke months ago that Hollywood was making a live action G.I. Joe movie, I stood up and said that I couldn’t wait to see it, while my friends scoffed at the idea.
When trailers started hitting theaters earlier this year, I thought they looked really promising and action packed, while others still were skeptical.
When the studio decided not to screen the film for critics prior to its release, most took that as an omen that they didn’t want it being ripped before it hit theaters. Still, I stood by and said it was all part of an elaborate marketing plan and this would be a great film.
And after everything I had done to stand behind this movie and defend it to the end, this is what I get. Possibly the worst movie of the year. How could you do this to me?
“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is a mess of a movie. The acting is abhorrent. The script is nonsensical. And even the action scenes are below par.
Let’s start with the acting. Channing Tatum plays Duke, head good guy. Following in the long line of blond guys with flat tops and big muscles (Dolph Lundgren, Brian Bosworth, John Cena), Tatum is a waste of space. Really, truly awful.
Dennis Quaid mails in his performance as General Hawk, looking constipated in scene after scene.
Joseph Gordon Levitt (the little kid from ‘Third Rock From the Sun’) plays Cobra Commander, though you wouldn’t know it. And when I say you wouldn’t know it, I mean two things. First, you wouldn’t know it was Gordon Levitt. Second, you wouldn’t know it was Cobra Commander, because he looks nothing like the serpentine sissy that fans of the TV show know and love.
The storyline is typical Joe versus Cobra, but then the writers had to throw in a background love story about Duke and the Baroness and Cobra being her brother, who she thought was dead, but is really alive and plotting his revenge on Duke, though Duke at the beginning of the movie isn’t even part of G.I. Joe, plus Destro also loves the Baroness and don’t even get me started on Zartan. Plus, no Major Bludd?
Even the action is blasé and kind of hokey. You’d think with all the money they saved on a script that they could have gotten the action sequences down cold. Not so.
I’ve also got to say that the movie was a lot more violent than I expected, considering the producers are trying to target a young audience with their reinstated toy lines. At least five bad guys get stabbed directly in the eyes, which isn’t fun for anyone.
Upon returning from the theater, I felt the need to cleanse myself of what I had just seen, so I broke out my ‘80’s cartoon G.I. Joe DVD and watched a ‘real’ American hero. So what if nobody ever got injured despite a thousand laser blasts and countless blown up helicopters, jets and Cobra H.I.S.S. The fact is, the acting in the cartoon was superior to the acting on the screen. And nobody is more disappointed than myself.
Grade: D-
By Gary McPherson
When word broke months ago that Hollywood was making a live action G.I. Joe movie, I stood up and said that I couldn’t wait to see it, while my friends scoffed at the idea.
When trailers started hitting theaters earlier this year, I thought they looked really promising and action packed, while others still were skeptical.
When the studio decided not to screen the film for critics prior to its release, most took that as an omen that they didn’t want it being ripped before it hit theaters. Still, I stood by and said it was all part of an elaborate marketing plan and this would be a great film.
And after everything I had done to stand behind this movie and defend it to the end, this is what I get. Possibly the worst movie of the year. How could you do this to me?
“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is a mess of a movie. The acting is abhorrent. The script is nonsensical. And even the action scenes are below par.
Let’s start with the acting. Channing Tatum plays Duke, head good guy. Following in the long line of blond guys with flat tops and big muscles (Dolph Lundgren, Brian Bosworth, John Cena), Tatum is a waste of space. Really, truly awful.
Dennis Quaid mails in his performance as General Hawk, looking constipated in scene after scene.
Joseph Gordon Levitt (the little kid from ‘Third Rock From the Sun’) plays Cobra Commander, though you wouldn’t know it. And when I say you wouldn’t know it, I mean two things. First, you wouldn’t know it was Gordon Levitt. Second, you wouldn’t know it was Cobra Commander, because he looks nothing like the serpentine sissy that fans of the TV show know and love.
The storyline is typical Joe versus Cobra, but then the writers had to throw in a background love story about Duke and the Baroness and Cobra being her brother, who she thought was dead, but is really alive and plotting his revenge on Duke, though Duke at the beginning of the movie isn’t even part of G.I. Joe, plus Destro also loves the Baroness and don’t even get me started on Zartan. Plus, no Major Bludd?
Even the action is blasé and kind of hokey. You’d think with all the money they saved on a script that they could have gotten the action sequences down cold. Not so.
I’ve also got to say that the movie was a lot more violent than I expected, considering the producers are trying to target a young audience with their reinstated toy lines. At least five bad guys get stabbed directly in the eyes, which isn’t fun for anyone.
Upon returning from the theater, I felt the need to cleanse myself of what I had just seen, so I broke out my ‘80’s cartoon G.I. Joe DVD and watched a ‘real’ American hero. So what if nobody ever got injured despite a thousand laser blasts and countless blown up helicopters, jets and Cobra H.I.S.S. The fact is, the acting in the cartoon was superior to the acting on the screen. And nobody is more disappointed than myself.
Grade: D-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)