Skip to main content

Let's move! The world ain't saving itself!


G.I. Joe: Retaliation
(2013)

The best thing about the generally crappy G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra was the subplot involving the infiltration of the Whitehouse. It gave Jonathan Pryce, never one for underplaying, a chance to take centre stage. It was also one of the few parts of the movie that didn’t encourage Stephen Sommers to bounce off the walls like the ADD, taste-free scourge of cinema he is. So it’s welcome news that the sequel continues with that thread. And, with John M Chu at the helm, it’s certainly better assembled than the first movie. But it says something that, for all the action stars assembled here, the only character to have any real impact is played by Ray Park. And you can neither see his face nor hear him.


Until he is swallowed up during the third act, I was enjoying Park’s masked maestro Snake Eyes. Park has all the moves and then some, of course, but it was mainly the sheer bonkers bravura of the character that kept me interested. I found myself questioning how the Hollywood machine didn’t spit out a revised Snake Eyes, completely altered from his toy persona. If Judge Dredd takes his head gear off, surely Snake Eyes will doff his helmet and engage in a sparkling dialogue with some lovely lady. Instead, he’s this ever-imposing, black-clad silent knight. Presumably he always wears this gear when he goes on a mission and never says a word. I’m astounded that he ever gets results; he’ll stick out like a sore thumb if he goes out in daylight or anywhere remotely populated. And, if he needs to interrogate someone, that speech impediment’s really going to put a cramp in his style. He’s conceptually unfeasible, basically, and the film’s all the better for his presence. It could have done with embracing a bit more of that silliness rather than ending up as just another action movie.


During the opening scenes, Channing Tatum’s Duke strikes up a good rapport with Dwayne Johnson’s Roadblock, but once Johnson’s left playing against bland D. J. Cotrona the chemistry fizzles. There’s only so much renta-Johnson franchises can take to spice them up, and his charisma isn’t best served here. Back when the first film came out I barely registered the lovechild of Stockard Channing and Tatum O’Neal; four years later when he absents the screen he creates a void.


So who better to fill it than Bruce Willis, wisecracking his way through every scene like he did in his heyday? You remember the first Die Hard and Last Boy Scout. Unfortunately it’s not that Bruce Willis. This is the same Willis who’s more intent on drifting stony faced through cameos (see also The Expendables), unwilling to goof off in David Addison mode. Apparently Bruce is responsible for the friendly sparring between his’ “original Joe” and Adrianne Palicki’s Jaye. You just wish much more could have been made of it. Willis does deliver the odd funny line (although you’ve heard the best if you’ve watched the trailer), but this is further evidence that he’s spent the last decade pissing his career away (Wes Anderson aside).


Then there are the villains. Byung-hun Lee is saddled with the most ridiculous character development as Storm Shadow; it’s very much on the “Doh!” spectrum. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s non-return sees Cobra Commander voiced and performed by two different people and Chris Eccleston was never coming back even if the first movie had received Best Picture Oscar. Arnold Vosloo returns, eager for work, but it’s little more than a cameo. So that leaves Ray Stevenson, whose Firefly has the bulk to take on Roadblock but little else. Stevenson seems preoccupied with his lousy Southern accent and fails to inject any fun into the proceedings; it’s left to Pryce to make the villains sell the menace of Cobra (he gets to “hang out with Bono” and even makes a line like “You know, they call it a waterboard, but I never got bored” kind of work).


Chu’s direction isn’t bad; certainly good enough to wrench himself from the doldrums of directing Step Up movies and Justin Bieber documentaries, but he never manages to give the film as a whole much momentum. Individual sequences work fine, but that’s all they are. You’re not invested in getting anywhere with the plot so before long listlessness sets in. Even the fight on the cliff face, which looked like the highlight from the trailers, doesn’t quite have the thrill it ought.


There are a few daffy elements to note; more emphasis on that tone might have made for more memorable results. Storm Shadow undergoes a healing process that involves a curious mixture of Eastern magic/medicine and science. There’s an early training session between Jinx (Elodie Yung) and Snake Eyes that’s also big on the Eastern wisdom, with RZA presiding as a blind master. It verges on Austin Powers self-parody but, alas, it’s played deadly straight.


A movie this mindless obviously has no worthwhile pretentions of making statements about the state of the planet. Cobra’s world domination gambit is particularly ridiculous. But I did wonder if there was some modest propaganda in there. The whole premise is a celebration of the US armed forces after all, even if in a somewhat adulterated way. So North Korea is established as an out and out enemy in the first scene, while Pakistan is identified as incredibly weak (you can steal their nukes and kill their president in the blink of an eye). I’m not sure what the mass destruction of London is about, but Roland Emmerich would be proud. Then there are the shout-outs to the greatness of Patton; the whole movie desperately needed to have its tongue firmly in its cheek, but there’s only the odd wink.


A third instalment is inevitable, as the Hasbro brand has managed to expand its appeal overseas (to the tune of $100m on top of Rise of the Cobra’s gross). It seems that Chu is attached, and he’ll no doubt refine his skills. But the series really needs a shot in the arm in the script department, and to embrace its essential absurdity.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.