GI JOE: Rise of Cobra (Spoilers Ahoy!)

[Shroom Man 777]

I found G.I. JOE very much awesome. In fact, actually qualitatively I'd rate it above REVENGE OF THE FALLEN in terms of being a decent and passing movie (though TF2009 is a really goddamn GLORIOUS MESS that is probably both so AWESOME and so HORRIBLE at the same time that it deserves its own Special Place for Special People - something as special as Commando, if not more so) and it really entertained me.

I came to the movie just at the part where SNAKE EEEEYES and STORM SHADOW were beginning their FINAL BATTLE in the SEA-LABIA, but after the movie finished I also watched it from start up until that part (because afterwards I had to go to class, but it ended up getting cancelled because of the BOMB THREAT earlier that day... so fuck it).

Anyway, mang. Oh mang. It had awesome action, even IF some of the helicopters and VTOL craft looked a bit wonky, but the awesome action would've been generic and unremarkable when compared to stuff like IRONMANGS or TRANSMORPHERS if it had not been for the decent acting and the decent movie composition.

Why? Because the characters were engaging. Come on, STORM SHADOW! And BARONESS, man, what an ice-cool villainness bitch. Sure, she got pussified near the end and I would've prefered my BARONESS to be an unrepentant naughty little whore, but ah, whatever. And, man, the BLACK DUDE was also cool, as well as DUKE DUDE. They were alright and at least in this movie, the TOKEN MINORITIES didn't end up becoming asshole comedy comic characters who end up being used for shit-ass fart jokes and shit - at least they were portrayed as decent and likeable people/human beings (and not bucktoothed hillbilly robots or something).

I also found SCARLETT to be totally badass. The scene where she is SHAMED and BRUISED UP wherein BLACK DUDE pepped her up was pretty good since while she got her ass kicked by the BARONESS, the scene did not in anyway degrade her character into the cliche'd DAMSEL IN DISTRESS or some shit like that. She's actually made out to be a pretty cool and strong character, and her tiny little CROSSBOW HOMING-BOLT-SHOOTING-GUN-PISTOL-WEAPON-ARROW-THING was totally badass! It makes SOUNDS and then THINGS get SHOT AT YOUR FACE! THEN YOU DIE! Mang.

The villains were also TOTALLY COOL. Aside from STORM SHADOW and BARONESS, we have funny-accented delightfully evil DESTRO. Oh, man, when his face gets all burned up and when his face gets TURNED INTO METAL and he utters those goofy lines, well, that was totally cool also. He was great fun, mang!

And, oh man, DARTH MINDBENDER COMMANDER! He was delightful. All HISSING and EVILLING and doing HUMAN EXPERIMENTS before turning on his benefactor and turning him into a DEFORMED METAL-HEADED MUTANT! Man. And also EXPERIMENTING ON HIS SISTER! And going CRAZY and shit!

And, goddamn it, ZARTAN! What an asshole! Imhotep! Man, Arnold Vosloo just LOVED his role, I bet. Whistling his whistle and doing acts of DICKERIES, from STABBING COVERGIRL (IN THE DICK?!) and NOT getting mind-controlled by NANOES and becoming... well... yeah, getting his AWESOME END and all that, well, man. What a cool dude.

ACCELERATOR SUITS! SUBMARINE LAIRS! AMPHIBIOUS SQUADRONS! SUBMARINES WITH HEADLIGHTS! LAUNCH THE SHARKS! NIGHT RAVENS! Hah! Man, oh man.

I take pride in the fact that I only see movies I genuinely want to, and that I only give them praise if I genuinely feel I should, and everyone else's opinion can go fuck itself.

I take pride in the fact that I only see movies I genuinely want to, and that I only give them praise if I genuinely feel I should, and your opinion can go fuck itself.

Seriously. If someone transformed Roger Erbert's reviews into films, they would at least be watchable because their plot would be understandable and their cinematography, acting and all that would be tolerable if not enjoyable - since I generally find his reviews readable because his sentences are understandable and his paragraphs, words and all that are tolerable if not enjoyable.

If someone transformed your posts into films, they would be unwatchable because their plot would be incomprehensible and their cinematography, acting and all that would be repetitive and incoherent - since your posts are generally unreadable because your sentences are longwinded and your paragraphs, words and all that are repetitive if not incoherent.

If anyone disagrees with me, he is a media slug.

[Vympel]

Well I didn't get to watch it tonight, because I got piked. Fuck.

[Stark]

Dammit! How far did you get before you got piked on? Did you see the cinema? I'm curious if the movie is pulling crowds in AU.

[Stofsk]

I said that ("that" being that I hold movie critics in contempt) because that's how I feel. Film critcs are, near as I can tell, just a bunch of grasping, self-important douches who have no actual authority other than the power that people (for some reason I can never understand) give them. Why should the subjective opinion of someone I don't know have any wieght on my personal likes and dislikes. Now I'm sorry if that bothers some people, but basically if you REALLY need someone to tell you how to feel about a movie, you can ask the bum on the street for free. The notion that someone is paid to think for other people (and as far as I am concerned that's what critics do) is hilariously ironic from people who supposedly pride themselves on their alleged intellectual prowess, i.e. "media snobs".

I actually agree with you on your scorn for movie critics. Literary and thematic criticism is a valid way to analyse, appreciate and enjoy a film or book or some other media, but a lot of the time there is no analysis, just bitching.

As for "deep plot", I have always used that term sarcastically...because it's almost never deep. Name a supposedly deep movie

Science fiction? 2001, Bladerunner, Solaris, 12 Monkeys. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, but 'depth' can have varying meanings and applications. Star Wars is 'deep' if you trawl it hard enough. Some people enjoy doing that (like me) and that's how we find enjoyment in the films we watch, but not everyone is going to share a similar like for looking hard at a film to decode what its themes are. Some people like to munch on popcorn and watch whatever. Although I can multitask both, so...

[Vympel]

Dammit! How far did you get before you got piked on? Did you see the cinema? I'm curious if the movie is pulling crowds in AU.

Before I left the house, so nah didn't see.

[18-Till-I-Die]

As for "deep plot", I have always used that term sarcastically...because it's almost never deep. Name a supposedly deep movie

Science fiction? 2001, Bladerunner, Solaris, 12 Monkeys. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, but 'depth' can have varying meanings and applications. Star Wars is 'deep' if you trawl it hard enough. Some people enjoy doing that (like me) and that's how we find enjoyment in the films we watch, but not everyone is going to share a similar like for looking hard at a film to decode what its themes are. Some people like to munch on popcorn and watch whatever. Although I can multitask both, so...

I've never seen Solaris so I can't say one way or the other. The original or the remake? Cause I may track it down and watch it.

I will say I can understand your feelings, perhaps mainly because you managed to respond without angrily hitting CAPSLOCK so I actually can read what you're saying. I never thought much of 2001 or Bladerunner, the former was just boring and had no actual pay off at the end, while the latter was, in my case, predictable. I was able to guess our hero was a robot about the same time we found out there were robots with fake memories to help them not know they're Cylons...er, Replicants. I just kind of shrugged and said, "Oh ok so he's an android too". There was never any attempt at implying the robots would win, as he killed them all in short order as he found them, even the female one who was some kind of military droid. And that last one just ran out of duracells. I saw 12 Monkeys...it had a good twist, but the plot was so scattershot me and my girlfriend had to watch it twice (at home) to get the story...apparently it was an ontological paradox. The twist seemed forced, with no actual lead up or implication in the rest of the movie, it was just a twist out of thin air.

I did specify that only 9 out of 10 "deep" movies were shallow and stupid, so I'm willing to concede that Bladerunner was pretty well written and thoughtful, if the ending was something of a given (it's a common twist in sci-fi: someone is really a robot/alien/monster/whatever).

Another movie I saw that actually was pretty deep, and mind you this is on a short list of movies here, was Knowing. I was stunned by the ending how much of the final scenes was telegraphed beforehand with foreshadowing. It was a superbly well written movie with really great acting from Cage and the woman, don't know the actor's name, the little girl's mom. The kids were hard on the ears though.

Note I didn't say all "deep" movies are shallow and stupid, just 9 out of 10. I specified that because, really, it's true. There is always going to be that diamond in the dung heap because of sheer chance, or skill on the part of the writers. But it's almost never intentional, it's never broadcast as such, it's just something inherent therein. Movies that TRY to do that on purpose...I've never seen one that's good. People have shown me ones or suggested ones that were supposed to be, but they never panned out. I don't doubt that 1 out of 10 of these movies can infact be deep and meaningful, but it's almost universally by accident, or if done right it looks like it is since it is much less pretenteous about it.

When people say "deep" though they really don't mean "deep" like thoughtful and meaningful, my experience shows they mean some specific definition of the word that was devised by people who have never actually seen a really well done movie. Like for example I've heard people say South Park is "deep, biting social commentary"...mind you this is the show where one episode involved a turd summoning a whirlwind of shit, and another had a camp gay character lead a little boy on a Disneyland like boatride to explain why it was ok his dog was gay. People find some kind of meaning in this, I guess, but if that is what is considered "deep" then none of the movies you mentioned count...when I think of a movie that is thoughtful and meaningful I think of a movie that makes me feel something independent of the actual film, so the story itself is important to me. That I mean I like movies that provoke actual thought and have meaning, hence the use of the words thoughtful and meaningful. When someone says they get a stiffy because someone used symbolism in a movie it makes me roll my eyes.

Star Wars would probably count, under that definition. It made me really think about the nature of heroism and how it requires a deep, personal sacrifice. I don't even like my father but I couldn't imagine killing him, or going to kill him, or watching him get killed to save me. Terminator 2 also, as I said before. Again this kind of goes back to personal issues, but the actions of the Arnold Terminator in the movie really struck home for me and meant something deep and important to me, on a personal level. I felt something different than just what the movie asked for me to feel. Just like I thought about things more than one Star Wars asked me to think of. Same thing for, say, Knowing which caused me to consider genuinely what would happen had I been in the situation of the main character, and what precisely the nature of the aliens were (like were they aliens, angels what?) and it was quite thought provoking to go and see what they meant when certain pieces of dialogue are compared to the actual ending where it all comes together so wonderfully. Now that is deep.

Of course I could maybe name two others, three if we count Bladerunner. It's rare and people overestimate the effectiveness of the kind of handwaving, distracting fakery that is perfuse in most of these movies. So if I seem dismissive of them, it's because most of them don't actually provoke thought, have any inherent meaning that isn't explained in the text of the film, or over-rely on film school tricks to create "symbolism" and "drama".


Also, ShroomMan, what do you mean "repetitive"? I've heard this twice now, what the fuck does that mean? How can someone's opinion be repetitive? What should I change my opinion to be more exciting? Why do people get so pissy about this...is it that important to you? Are you like really genuinely angry, because if so I'm sorry I insulted Ebert or whoever but I'm not suddenly going to change my whole outlook on life and entertainment because it's not in line with what people on this board think, so get over it ok.

But I do want to know how someone can be "repetitive" when we're talking about their personal tastes...what do you really expect me to say, "Oh you're right I'll change my whole worldview to be more popular with folks on the internet!" that's retarded and you fucking know it. Repetitive...what does that even mean in this context. And I'm supposed to be incoherent and longwinded somehow...oh yeah, "longwinded", because somehow trying to put forth information is longwinded. Christ this argument isn't even logical, you're saying my sentences should be shorter and I should change my opinion based on how exciting it would be or something, because that's all I got from that.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I've never seen Solaris so I can't say one way or the other. The original or the remake? Cause I may track it down and watch it.

While I haven't seen the Soderbergh remake, I'd say don't see the Tarkovsky original. I love it and it's a beautiful film, but it's also long, very drawn out, and rather dull. So you'll probably hate it.

[Ford Prefect]

Dammit! How far did you get before you got piked on? Did you see the cinema? I'm curious if the movie is pulling crowds in AU.

I went to see it on Sunday and there was a pretty hefty crowd. It wasn't exactly Half Blood Prince packed or anything, but there was a serious bunch.

[Stofsk]

I've never seen Solaris so I can't say one way or the other. The original or the remake? Cause I may track it down and watch it.

I've only seen the remake, and I thought it was quite a good film. Spanky has already given you his opinion of the original, and what he thinks you will think of it.

I never thought much of 2001 or Bladerunner, the former was just boring and had no actual pay off at the end,

It was boring and the pacing is Kubrick standard of slow ass teasingly leading you on to a payoff. I dispute that there was no pay off, the end scene where Bowman goes through the light show (meant to simulate FTL or some other kind of supra-normal travel mechanism via the monolith if I'm not mistaken) and then afterwards, seems to be under a microscope. That scene always felt very chilling to me, because it always felt like Bowman was being 'tinkered' with and observed by some unseen intelligent entity. (the only personafication, if you could call it that, and presence being the black monoliths - completely mysterious and unscrutable, and no way to tell if they are benign or volatile) But as you see in the accelerated aging of Bowman, he is being driven to some purpose, and the final closing scene of the glowing fetus seems to suggest he has died and been reborn as a superior being, with the whole world as his plaything - a feat humanity may be capable of achieving by itself, or influenced towards becoming, whether you choose to view human development from a noninterventionist or interventionist perspective (the monoliths were there in the beginning to 'inspire' the hominids into picking up the thigh bone and using it to not only strike down game but to also defend against interlopers - the clear implication being that they 'kickstarted' human evolution)

while the latter was, in my case, predictable. I was able to guess our hero was a robot about the same time we found out there were robots with fake memories to help them not know they're Cylons...er, Replicants. I just kind of shrugged and said, "Oh ok so he's an android too". There was never any attempt at implying the robots would win, as he killed them all in short order as he found them, even the female one who was some kind of military droid. And that last one just ran out of duracells. I saw 12 Monkeys...it had a good twist, but the plot was so scattershot me and my girlfriend had to watch it twice (at home) to get the story...apparently it was an ontological paradox. The twist seemed forced, with no actual lead up or implication in the rest of the movie, it was just a twist out of thin air.

Deckard killed Zhora but not without considerable effort. Zhora suckerpunched him with a strike to the throat, at which point she had him at her mercy, but retreated when the showgirls came through the door. Then it became a cat and mouse affair, with Deckard holding the advantage because he had his big fuck-off gun. Pris similarly owned Deckard until Deckard checkmated her with his gun. Leon however, deprived him of the gun and was about two seconds away from driving his fingers through his skull when he had head his blown off by Rachael. Roy Batty completely owned Deckard and was schooling him throughout, even if Deckard had the gun. Indeed, Roy was so contemptuous he broke Deckard's fingers then gave him back the gun. But none of the replicants were killed off in short order, except maybe Pris. And Pris wasn't a combat replicant. (I don't think Zhora was either, she was the infiltration specimen, which might explain why her actions were to escape and seek refuge rather than kill Deckard - it might have been her programming) And Roy Batty didn't simply 'run out of juice' like you imply, he made a choice not to kill Deckard when he had him at his mercy (and in fact, actually saved Deckard as he was losing his grip and would have fallen to a certain death).

Bladerunner and 12 Monkeys are alike in the sense that both have 'heroes' who aren't very heroic (Deckard and Bruce Willis' character) and they sure aren't working for the good guys (none of the humans in Bladerunner are at all respectable, and they all seem like pieces of human filth - the cop chief, Tyrell, that slimy Club owner, Sebastian), while the 'villains' seem to be the ones who have been wronged, and the environment is chaotic, dehumanising and bleak - which fits the themes inherent in the plots of each. As far as the twist for 12 Monkeys goes, look it's been years since I last saw it, and I was a kid when I did see it, but it affected me when I saw it because it seemed clear that the scientists were the ones who caused the future and they did so deliberately, and that explains why they send a goddamn convict in the past to try and stop it from happening - so perhaps there's your implication there, if they have the power to send anyone back in time in order to understand how the virus was introduced, why didn't they send someone more able to complete the mission? unless of course they were the ones who caused everything in the first place - but maybe I need to watch the film again.

[Shroom Man 777]

Also, ShroomMan, what do you mean "repetitive"? I've heard this twice now, what the fuck does that mean? How can someone's opinion be repetitive? What should I change my opinion to be more exciting? Why do people get so pissy about this...is it that important to you? Are you like really genuinely angry, because if so I'm sorry I insulted Ebert or whoever but I'm not suddenly going to change my whole outlook on life and entertainment because it's not in line with what people on this board think, so get over it ok.

It doesn't really matter what you say about Ebert or anything, since it's not like we're super-best-friends or something and other people have ripped into him in this and the TF2009 thread, so meh.

The thing that's "repetitive" and irksome is the fact that you suddenly segue and digress into long posts that go on about the shittiness of so-called "deep movies" and go on about how movies like Sea Biscuit or Ocean Oreo and how much they suck despite being critically acclaimed or some such. And this happens in threads where no one, at all, is even talking about Ocean Oreo or Water Waffle or whatever, where nobody else is even talking about "deep" movies. It kind of gets grating after a while, especially since your views don't really hold any more weight than those of those critics you despise - and as flawed as some of them may be (yeah, people have differing opinions), at least they don't go on about Sea Biscuit in threads that totally have nothing to do with Toby McGuire riding a pony puff princess. It's, like, you always talk about how movie critics suck and that's like the only thing you talk about.

Also, you kind of sound like you think that everyone is a "media snob" if they attempt to criticize a movie or assess its merits or on how watchable it is - even if their claims may seem legitimate to other people who aren't you. But I guess they can go fuck themselves, am i rite?

But I do want to know how someone can be "repetitive" when we're talking about their personal tastes...what do you really expect me to say, "Oh you're right I'll change my whole worldview to be more popular with folks on the internet!" that's retarded and you fucking know it. Repetitive...what does that even mean in this context. And I'm supposed to be incoherent and longwinded somehow...oh yeah, "longwinded", because somehow trying to put forth information is longwinded. Christ this argument isn't even logical, you're saying my sentences should be shorter and I should change my opinion based on how exciting it would be or something, because that's all I got from that.

I don't expect you to change your whole world view to be more popular with folks on the internet - though I think it would be cool if you did.

Anyway, you seem "repetitive" since your tirades here and in the TF2009 thread are practically the same. Longwinded because you end up talking a whole lot about things that have nothing to do at all with the topic on hand - like Sea Biscuit or the Breakfast Club. I don't know, the only information your putting forth is that movie critics and their opinions suck... which seems like the only thing you're saying.

It's not really important or serious or anything.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I've never seen Solaris so I can't say one way or the other. The original or the remake? Cause I may track it down and watch it.

While I haven't seen the Soderbergh remake, I'd say don't see the Tarkovsky original. I love it and it's a beautiful film, but it's also long, very drawn out, and rather dull. So you'll probably hate it.

I'd give the Soderbergh version a rental. It's certainly a very different movie, very much more focused on the relationships and human drama within and the whole fantasy vs. Reality angle, but I think it deserves a watch. As far as being good science fiction, it's a decent example of classic 'Weird sci fi feature as plot device', so that combined with its themes make it kind of like Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind, only not as good and on the Nostromo.

But it's not bad by any stretch.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I'd give the Soderbergh version a rental. It's certainly a very different movie, very much more focused on the relationships and human drama within and the whole fantasy vs. Reality angle, but I think it deserves a watch.

I actually do have it queued, I just need to get around to it eventually.


I wanted to address 18's frequent (Shroom is right) citation of the film Seabiscuit; I don't really recall the movie ever being regarded as a particularly "deep" film. A popularly inspiring film based on something that actually happened, yes, but never as a genuinely "deep" movie. I can't imagine it's anywhere near as "deep" or complex in subtext as films like Breathless or Seven Samurai, for example.

Additionally, My Sister's Keeper isn't a "deep" film in the least. It's an emotionally manipulative, weepy movie based on an emotionally manipulative, weepy book: it's the kind of movie women go to so they can cry at it. It's not "deep" at all, in any way.

[Stark]

You don't get it; anything more complex or requiring more thought than a Michael Bay movie is automatically a pretenious artsy movie. It's not that he's illiterate and insecure at all.

[Shroom Man 777]

Water Waffle is a movie about a polio-ridden Toby McGuire riding his asthmatic horsie and being the underdog racing against steroidified jockies in Nazi regalia and their quadruped stallion steeds dosed-up on methamphetamines. It's actually about as "deep" as any underdog movie like those about some juvenile delinquent orphan shits taken in by Micheal J. Fox and his diseased nervous system to play some hockey against Canadian communist cockfags, or about some completely asocial dork outcast loser fucks playing dodgeball against Ben Stiller's team of supervillain hyperthyroid stormtroopers (with names like Blade, Laser, Blazer and Taser!).

The only difference between Sea Biscuit and the Mighty Ducks or fucking Dodgeball is that in the former movie, Toby McGuire rode his horse in a time period where people liked wearing top hats and monocles - so maybe that is why 18 likes to think that its a pretentious artsy-fartsy snobby movie, because people like Ebert also wear top hats and monocles.

EVERYONE ELSE'S OPINION CAN GO FUCK ITSELF!

STARK YOU IS AN EVERYONE ELSES.

SO GO FUCK YOURSELF!

[Stark]

TOO LATE!

At least we learned that stating an irrelevant opinion can't be repetitive, though, right? We should all start spamming up threads. I want to drop the whole 'B7 vs Miami Vice' thing in every TV show thread right now!

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I wanted to address 18's frequent (Shroom is right) citation of the film Seabiscuit; I don't really recall the movie ever being regarded as a particularly "deep" film. A popularly inspiring film based on something that actually happened, yes, but never as a genuinely "deep" movie. I can't imagine it's anywhere near as "deep" or complex in subtext as films like Breathless or Seven Samurai, for example.

I think one of the best quotes related to this kind of thing comes from that man 18 hates so very much, Roger Ebert:

All good art is about something deeper than it admits.

I was going to write a few pompous-language paragraphs related to how 'deep' plots aren't about intricate plots, but rather plots that interpret and reflect many aspects of human experience, but what the fuck, I figure everyone except the Gimp (that's you, 18, by the way) knows what I'm getting at. Hell, it's even more retarded to attack Roger Ebert in relation to some strawman about deep plots not being complex plots because, as a rule, Ebert doesn't seem to really like super-intricate plots. He didn't like Memento, or The Usual Suspects, or all sorts of other movies intended to be seen twice. Turns out 18 is retarded and doesn't even know who or what he's ranting incoherently about.

[Balrog]

I really think watching the trailer ruined part of the movie for me, because what could have been a powerful scene just felt boring. The Joes are literally running through the Parisian streets chasing after Cobra, giving Master Chief a run for his money in their magitech power suits with the flipping and the dodging and the "went through the train lulz," when we already know that the bad guys win and knock down the Eiffel Tower. Shit blowing up looks cool, but is pointless when you already know the outcome. Yeah, I know, it's just suppose to be a 2hr live action episode of the cartoon, but there is such a thing as building up the tension.

[TimothyC]

The group I went with conisisted of myself (23), my girl (23), My best friend (23), and my brother (15). All of us thought it was fun, with only my brother (who has no taste) calling it 'great'. My Girl's response was "It was mindless action and CG" To which my brother responded "Don't call it that! It makes it sound stupid!" I went in expecting a mindless action flick that wouldn't rape my childhood, and that is what I got (A two hour live-action cartoon).


Oh and Cobra Comander's mask Sucked.

[Darmalus]

A rather enjoyable action film. I liked the costumes and the submarine base and crazy submarine fighter sequence. My only WTF?! moment was when the ice SINKS and crushes the base.

[Havok]

A rather enjoyable action film. I liked the costumes and the submarine base and crazy submarine fighter sequence. My only WTF?! moment was when the ice SINKS and crushes the base.

Yeah that was a good one. Another shared laughter moment with Jenn. Still despite all the problems, the movie was a blast.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hang on. I so totally didn't notice that. The ice sunk! Mang, what the hell? Maybe it was FAKE ICE! Just like how those were FAKE FISH!

[Zor]

Oh and Cobra Comander's mask Sucked.

I am going to second this comment. I thought they would have done the faceplate, but instead we got that awful tranlucient gas mask thing.

Zor

[Drooling Iguana]

Relevant:

[Terralthra]

The ice sinking through water made me burst out laughing in the theatre.

[Ryushikaze]

The ice was peppered with a butt ton of metal and installation and may have been too dense as a result. Or it was Cobra ice.

I liked the movie, as a whole.

The 'empirical' line irked me, but it was a 'say anything to shut him down' line, so I didn't pay it much heed.

The Commander mask sucked, and the reason for CC's turn was ill explained, but not too out of the realm of possibility with Mindbender involved.