G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - Stephen Sommers

As much as I might tend to complain about 'mindless Hollywood movies' I actually quite enjoy the occasional large budget action flick. There was one summer as a 13 year old boy where I spent every week trying to sneak into 'Con Air'. This isn't to say I enjoy every action movie but that I do understand their appeal having once been the target demographic.

If you spend any time reading film reviews it should be pretty apparent that most critics hate Michael Bay. And I don't just mean that they hate them in some sort of casual 'god I have to watch another Michael Bay movie' kind of way. They HATE HATE HATE him. Michael Bay is treated as the anti-Christ, to many he is the downfall of both American cinema and our country as a whole. Now I don't really think he's THAT bad (The Rock did come only 1 year before Con Air, little Louis loved that shit) but I do find his movies pretty intolerable in general.

So the thing is, critics hate Michael Bay movies but audiences can't get enough of them. They all make boatloads of money and he gets to make a new one every year. When I heard that G. I. Joe ( helmed by The Mummy's Stephen Sommers) was not going to be screened for critics before it was released to the public I just assumed that it was because the studio knew it was bad, but that it was going to be just as financially successful as Bay's Transformers sequel. Transformers was universally panned by critics with perhaps my favorite quote belonging to Michael Phillips from the Chicago Tribune. Phillips says that the film is 'like listening to rocks in a clothes dryer for 2½ hours.' Even his citymate Roger Ebert who likes at least something about every movie he sees loathed it, giving it only 1 star. Now I didn't see Transformers 2, I saw the first one and didn't really feel like going to a movie that was just supposedly a louder, longer version of the original, but I initially expected G. I. Joe to be more of the same. After sensing the more congenial reception to this movie, and being in a situation where this was the only film available to see while at the movies I ended up seeing G. I. Joe against my initial reservations.

I really don't think it takes much for a studio to make a successful summer blockbuster. For me it boils down to a couple of things:

1. Does it end soon enough not to overstay it's welcome? (2 hours is often the cut-off here)
2. Are there awesome action sequences that don't rely too much on obvious CGI?
3. Does the plot avoid insulting my intelligence?
4. Does the movie avoid being too sexist, racist or offensive?
5. Are there explosions?

If a summer blockbuster fulfills all 5 of those things it's a pretty good chance I'll like it and have a good time at the movies. I'll let you know right now that G. I. Joe has all those things and that in general Michael Bay movies do not (well they both tend to have more than enough explosions) and that this is the big difference between most 'good' action movies and the stuff that Bay puts out.

To elaborate, Bay movies tend to be mindless, sexist, confusingly shot movies that are laborious to watch. Obviously 13 year old boys (or those who think like them) don't tend to be sensitive to these things so it's not a problem for a large section of our populous. Not only are the women treated like pure objects in Bay's movies (Megan Fox) but the men all act like the biggest jerks in the world. Most of the men walk around with their tough guy posturing saying 'fuck' approximately 3.2 times a minute and generally acting like Quentin Tarantino wishes he could. In addition the action is badly shot and confusing to watch. It's hard to know what's going on during any action scene (the first Transformers was a particularly good example of this) and I haven't even mentioned the product placement (see The Island) or racism (Transformers and the 'black' robot Jazz).

G. I. Joe isn't the best film ever made, and it's not really up there for me in terms of action movies, but it's pure good fun. Now this is the argument that people always use for Michael Bay's success, but I think we should still be selective when it comes to 'fun' movies. There can be 'good' fun movies that are a blast to watch and make us laugh and smile. But there can also be 'bad' fun movies that are poorly planned or executed and use offensive stereotypes for cheap laughs.

If you notice above I didn't mention quality acting as a part of my requirements for a summer action movie. In fact G. I. Joe has some of the laughably worst acting I've seen in a while (aside from indie darling Joesph Gordon-Levitt). Bad acting sometimes makes action movies better because it would be hard to take someone like Russell Crowe seriously during the obligatory fast vehicle 'WOOOOOO' scene. Speaking of Gordon-Levitt, he's great in this movie! He spends the entire film as a proto Cobra Commander that leers and gestures while wearing a mask covering everything except one eye. Gordon-Levitt really hams it up and enjoys this role, so it's easy for the audience to do the same. He pretty much acts circles around everyone else in the film, stealing every scene he's in. I almost want to see it again just to rewatch his scenes.

There's not much to say about G. I. Joe except that it's a lot of fun and a pretty good 'summer blockbuster.' The action keeps it going and the plot involves a pretty original (for summer Hollywood movies) nanotechnology based scheme that is a breath of fresh air compared to the movies that keep relying on nuclear warheads or other traditional threats. There's the sassy redhead, the serious evil brunette, the stoic large chinned alpha male and the energetic black best friend that cover all your action movie stereotype bases. Although, the women are given more to do than just wear hot pants and Marlon Wayans is pretty successful in helping to save the day. The movie does seem to just end in kind of a random place, but I'm OK with that knowing that there will be the inevitable sequels. G. I. Joe is the kind of movie I wouldn't mind letting my hypothetical 13 year old son watch.