GIJOE not reviewed by
Posted by
Michael Bay (aka ceregon)
Aug 7 '09, 17:58
|
Ka-BOOM! OK, now that I have your attention we can start; hi, I�m the awesome director Michael Bay and this is my review of a not so awesome movie�
I know that most movie-goers have the attention span of a teenager with ADD after a couple of red bulls. I make sure I cut my trailers to appeal to people like that, because if I don�t like my trailer then I know that they won�t like it. I did like the one for the Final Destination movie but I wonder if the director has a fetish for killing women with high velocity impacts to the head. He should just buy a gun like everybody else. I didn�t like the preview for The Book of Eli because there wasn�t enough ass-kicking and way too much character development. The one for The Last Airbender was almost perfect because there was no dialog, just cool special effects shots. I say almost perfect because it still had the M. Night Shyamalan film credit on it.
Before I tear into this movie, I have to say that Hasbro offered the GI Joe movie first based on my work with their Transformers line, but I passed because all of the characters are human. Humans always need complex motivations, robots are easy, they just want to blow shit up, and besides robots don�t pee in your coffee.
The movie doesn�t make much sense. You�d think that a movie like GI Joe would start in the present, but no, it starts in medieval France. In fact, much of this movie takes place in France, even though France would be the country least likely to appreciate a movie like this. There�s this sinister Eurotrash arms manufacturer, who has developed nanobots, that act like remote control termites capable of consuming large amounts of metal in record time. The main character, who is actually named Duke, is assigned to a convoy guarding four of the nanobombs as they are transported from a secret factory is super secure Kasakhstan to NATO. Of course, there is an ambush but it uses so much science fiction high tech weapons that it makes Star Trek look realistic. Now I love an over the top action sequence as much as everyone, and the first part is entertaining, but then the plot gets silly. Minor first act spoiler coming�the sinister Eurotrash arms manufacturer is really the bad guy. Shocking, I know. See he needed NATO funding to make the nanobombs, but then he needed them for his diabolical plan so he had to steal them in transit, as opposed to making a few extra of his own, telling NATO that he needed a few more months to deliver a finished product, etc. I could almost buy the NATO funding part, except that later it�s revealed that he has a super secret underwater base that makes those cheesy 80�s Bond villain bases look modest.
Not to be outdone, the good guys have their own ridiculous secret base in the Sahara desert that is so big it even has an entire level devoted to underwater combat training, with submarines! In the Sahara! This comes in handy, because there�s a submarine dogfight that looks like somebody was trying to rip off Pearl Harbor or Star Wars, except underwater. One scene shows the two groups of submarines charging each other from a distance, and it looks like two rival wads of sperm going into battle.
There are plenty of battles and chases, and enough stuff blows up to keep it interesting, but a lot of the CGI is bad. There�s a long chase sequence in Paris, and it�s a pretty safe bet that none of the actors filmed a single scene in France. This isn�t even the best movie based on a Hasbro toy this summer, no wait, it isn�t even the best Marlon Wayans movie based on a Hasbro toy, because he was also in Dungeons & Dragons.
Now, if I was ten years old, this would be the best movie ever. I�m sure many of my critics would say that I act like I�m ten, but really it�s more like fifteen; a ten year old can�t appreciate Megan Fox�s ass bent over a motorcycle.
I could say more but I have to go now and blow up something cool in my back yard.
|
Responses:
|