|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
07-26-2021, 12:25 PM | #171 |
COBRA Child Psychologist
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: High above you.
Posts: 647
|
So, to conduct a proper post-mortem, I read every single review I could find (from critics who mattered). And when taken in totality, they paint a pretty disturbing portrait, actually*. Though not just of this one lousy movie, but of the brand as a whole.
Variety's Rebecca Rubin referred to the film as "a reboot to a long-in-the-tooth series that already wasn’t particularly beloved by audiences." RogerEbert.com reviewer Simon Abrams said, "more often than not, 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is a dire checklist of clichés that were already gathering moss back in the 1980s, when 'G.I. Joe' was a popular children’s cartoon." However, the most damning line of all came from a supposedly favourable review by Owen Gleiberman (also of Variety): "It's a better G.I. Joe movie, in no small part because it looks almost nothing like a G.I. Joe movie ... 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is probably about as good a movie as you’re going to get that has the words 'G.I. Joe' in the title. Maybe that’s because it seems to have very little to do with anyone’s conventional idea of G.I. Joe." Ouch! Though this may be hard for some to swallow, there is unquestionably a terrible stigma attached to the name/brand "G.I. Joe". As well as a clear lack of respect/outright disdain for the source material (including apparently among the screenwriters themselves). Perhaps it truly is time to turn the page. * Not unlike John Currin's horrific painting of a nude Bea Arthur**. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/s...ie-review-2021 https://variety.com/2021/film/review...ng-1235023560/ ** https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5684049
__________________
CLEVER QUOTE COMING SOON ************* ************* ************ ************ ************* Thoughts/opinions expressed are solely my own and do not reflect the views or beliefs of any toy company ... that may employ me as a consultant on child development/pediatric mental health (hint, hint). https://www.princetonhcs.org/care-se...grams/children |
07-26-2021, 12:40 PM | #172 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,346
|
Quote:
So, to conduct a proper post-mortem, I read every single review I could find (from critics who mattered). And when taken in totality, they paint a pretty disturbing portrait, actually*. Though not just of this one lousy movie, but of the brand as a whole.
Variety's Rebecca Rubin referred to the film as "a reboot to a long-in-the-tooth series that already wasn’t particularly beloved by audiences." RogerEbert.com reviewer Simon Abrams said, "more often than not, 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is a dire checklist of clichés that were already gathering moss back in the 1980s, when 'G.I. Joe' was a popular children’s cartoon." However, the most damning line of all came from a supposedly favourable review by Owen Gleiberman (also of Variety): "It's a better G.I. Joe movie, in no small part because it looks almost nothing like a G.I. Joe movie ... 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is probably about as good a movie as you’re going to get that has the words 'G.I. Joe' in the title. Maybe that’s because it seems to have very little to do with anyone’s conventional idea of G.I. Joe." Ouch! Though this may be hard for some to swallow, there is unquestionably a terrible stigma attached to the name/brand "G.I. Joe". As well as a clear lack of respect/outright disdain for the source material (including apparently among the screenwriters themselves). Perhaps it truly is time to turn the page. * Not unlike John Currin's horrific painting of a nude Bea Arthur**. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/s...ie-review-2021 https://variety.com/2021/film/review...ng-1235023560/ ** https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5684049 Even if they went less military and just focused on the characters being a team of well-armed bad-asses, they'd probably do pretty well. And that's just assuming they *want* to avoid the military aspect. I don't know why though. 1917 was the second-highest grossing movie of 2020 (not that 2020 was an amazing year for theatrical releases). People actually like military movies but yeah, I guess it is fun to pretend otherwise.
__________________
https://instagram.com/gijoe_adventures |
07-26-2021, 01:00 PM | #173 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,050
|
Quote:
That's funny because I think a GI JOE movie that is more true to its ARAH roots would do very well. In what world are movies about teams of heroes using cool tech/weapons and dressed in cool, unique costumes *not* doing well at the box office? Hello, MCU.
Even if they went less military and just focused on the characters being a team of well-armed bad-asses, they'd probably do pretty well. And that's just assuming they *want* to avoid the military aspect. I don't know why though. 1917 was the second-highest grossing movie of 2020 (not that 2020 was an amazing year for theatrical releases). People actually like military movies but yeah, I guess it is fun to pretend otherwise. |
Formulazl1 |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by Formulazl1 |
07-26-2021, 01:03 PM | #174 |
COBRA Child Psychologist
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: High above you.
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
And that's just assuming they *want* to avoid the military aspect. I don't know why though. 1917 was the second-highest grossing movie of 2020 (not that 2020 was an amazing year for theatrical releases). People actually like military movies but yeah, I guess it is fun to pretend otherwise.
__________________
CLEVER QUOTE COMING SOON ************* ************* ************ ************ ************* Thoughts/opinions expressed are solely my own and do not reflect the views or beliefs of any toy company ... that may employ me as a consultant on child development/pediatric mental health (hint, hint). https://www.princetonhcs.org/care-se...grams/children |
07-26-2021, 01:09 PM | #175 |
Cobra Viper
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 252
|
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...205309738.html
I thought the movie was just OK. Mostly script problems as I thought the acting was relatively decent and the directing and fight scenes were good. I agree they make him kind of an @$$hole. If I had been writing it, Definitely would have gotten rid of the snakes (Bad CG)and the Jewel, but you can argue that fits into the Sunbow style of GI Joe. Was Ok with Dad's old job, but would have had SE end up in foster care and then the military which would allow the foster care family to suffer the fate in GI Joe #26 when he got back from serving. That would explain the whole drifter thing that led him to Storm Shadow and maybe had SE be a moral guy and have Akiko be the double agent (and maybe be Zartan?) That leaves the rest of the movie basically intact. Was glad to finally figure out how to pronounce "Arashikage". I think I missed it in the other movies. My wife really liked Granny. |
07-26-2021, 02:01 PM | #176 |
Cyber Warfare Specialist
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,661
|
Quote:
So, to conduct a proper post-mortem, I read every single review I could find (from critics who mattered). And when taken in totality, they paint a pretty disturbing portrait, actually*. Though not just of this one lousy movie, but of the brand as a whole.
Variety's Rebecca Rubin referred to the film as "a reboot to a long-in-the-tooth series that already wasn’t particularly beloved by audiences." RogerEbert.com reviewer Simon Abrams said, "more often than not, 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is a dire checklist of clichés that were already gathering moss back in the 1980s, when 'G.I. Joe' was a popular children’s cartoon." However, the most damning line of all came from a supposedly favourable review by Owen Gleiberman (also of Variety): "It's a better G.I. Joe movie, in no small part because it looks almost nothing like a G.I. Joe movie ... 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is probably about as good a movie as you’re going to get that has the words 'G.I. Joe' in the title. Maybe that’s because it seems to have very little to do with anyone’s conventional idea of G.I. Joe." Ouch! Though this may be hard for some to swallow, there is unquestionably a terrible stigma attached to the name/brand "G.I. Joe". As well as a clear lack of respect/outright disdain for the source material (including apparently among the screenwriters themselves). Perhaps it truly is time to turn the page. * Not unlike John Currin's horrific painting of a nude Bea Arthur**. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/s...ie-review-2021 https://variety.com/2021/film/review...ng-1235023560/ ** https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5684049 Variety's Rebecca Rubin referred to the film as "a reboot to a long-in-the-tooth series that already wasn’t particularly beloved by audiences." This statement is a critique of the movie franchise not movie itself. Her “long in the tooth” description is funny since she’s not likely very “long in the tooth” herself. Her Joe knowledge dates likely dates back to 2009 and RoC. Probably has no concept of the beloved property of the 80’s. RogerEbert.com reviewer Simon Abrams said, "more often than not, 'Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins' is a dire checklist of clichés that were already gathering moss back in the 1980s, when 'G.I. Joe' was a popular children’s cartoon." This Makes no sense. If this movie looks nothing like any other Joe media how can it be a “dire checklist of cliches” from the 80’s? Seriously I think Snake Eyes said “Yo Joe” one time so quietly that I bet many didn’t hear it. I see no resemblance between this and the “popular children’s cartoon” so how could it be made of its cliches. No Nostalgia Here. Dude didn’t pay attention in the movie and didn’t watch the cartoon as a kid. He doesn’t need to but don’t make shit up. |
07-26-2021, 02:04 PM | #177 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ̶S̶a̶i̶t̶a̶m̶a̶,̶ ̶J̶a̶p̶a̶n
Posts: 1,473
|
Quote:
By why should Larry Hama feel in any way responsible for it? He essentially created these characters for Marvel/Hasbro, and he doesn't own any of them, and the way he bitches about having to pay for coffee in green rooms at comic books conventions would indicate to me the guy doesn't get any kind of royalties. Larry is 72 years old, and as far as I can tell has been writing at least ONE monthly book (not necessarily GI Joe)since probably the 70s. Most guys his age just sit around the house and see their grandkids once a month. He's still out there writing these books and going to conventions and signing stuff. Why? Either he's desperately poor and needs the money or he actually gives a crap about his work and the fans of his work. I hope he DID get a check from Paramount, but I'm sure he got jack shit. Just like Jim Starlin got nothing for creating Thanos. |
07-26-2021, 02:13 PM | #178 |
Cobra Soldier
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 70
|
Iron Man was a character that nobody really cared about before 2008 and look what happened. You had a producer in Kevin Feige who respected the source material and a good director in Jon Favreau and the rest is history.
|
07-26-2021, 02:16 PM | #179 |
Cobra Viper
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 414
|
|
07-26-2021, 02:19 PM | #180 |
Cobra Viper
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 414
|
I'm not gonna give Larry Hama a hard time for endorsing this. He was being nice and diplomatic and they probably treated him well on set.
Hama is a veteran. He served this country and went to Vietnam. For that alone he has my utmost respect. |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Snake Eyes Movie reviews and discussion | EyesOfTheShadow | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 267 | 08-09-2021 08:13 AM |
Snake Eyes/Storm Shadow Stealth Cycles | Snake Eyes Movie | Figure Review | MacDowin | G.I. Joe Toy Reviews and Quick Feedback | 0 | 07-08-2021 07:40 PM |
Snake Eyes #15 Spoilers Character Debut | Jay West | Comic Books Discussion | 9 | 08-02-2012 12:46 AM |
Dark Knight Movie Discussion *SPOILERS* | Jeffrozup | Movies DVD Television | 115 | 07-30-2008 08:14 PM |
*SPOILERS* Transformers Live Action Movie Discussion! | DESTRO | Toys | 16 | 07-09-2007 09:57 PM |
|
|