Read YO Joe's review of the GI Joe movie.
Read YO Joe's review of the GI Joe movie.
Last edited by PJDonnell; 08-04-2009 at 08:45 PM.
GI Joe comic fan since 1982.
I believe Brendan Frasor is Sgt. Slaughter, they say it in the film.
He is although it's just a small role. I just saw the movie and thought it was fantastic.
Brendan Fraser had a cameo Sgt. Stone in the movie. Unfortunately, an action figure tat looks Like flint was also made of him.
They say STONE in the film, not SlaughterOriginally Posted by sportscardgiant
Looking for Arctic Commando Snow Serpent, Starduster version A, and 82/83 trooper rifles.
On Wikipedia, Brendan Fraser is listed as Sgt. Stone in his filmography. "Sgt. Slaughter" might still be copyrighted considering he is still alive. In fact, he is hosting Monday Night RAW this Monday.
Last edited by protozao21; 08-11-2009 at 04:26 PM.
Well, I just saw it earlier today. And well overall I would say 6 out of 10. If you go into this movie with a brain full of the GI JOE mythos, based on the comics, action figures, and the cartoon series you will be let down in a number of areas. If you go looking for a science fictiony action movies where stuff gets blown up you will be kinda happy. Yeah I know it would be very difficult to distill 25+ years of back story and characters into a movie and have a general audience understand it. But even with that some off the characterization was way off base.
Most notable was the Baroness, the entire brainwashed and being Dukes ex fiance was just really hackneyed. And the final insult for her character was the lack of an accent, totally unforgivable.
Next in the character chopping block is Ripcord, and I hate to say it, but the best way to sum his character up is token black/comic relief. Which is such a shame since there are many good black characters in the GI JOE mythos. Also why does he use the codename Ripcord? Implying a specialty in HALO jumping? When in the movie his specialty is supposedly a pilot? Why not use the name Airborne or Ace? Heck give him a Texas accent, slap a cowboy hat on his head and call him Wild Bill.
Onto the plot, the main threat in the movie are the nanotechnology based missiles. But this opens several plot holes, It is stated that McCullen needed to use the NATO money to develop them, but then it is shown he has a major undersea base. Seems like his priorities are out of order, also if these missiles are his beat all weapon, and he fires all of them to make his point, how does he expect to get his demands? The rest of the world would quickly attack all of his external manufacturing plants, and since the missiles that were fired could be tracked to their source, he could expect a counterattack. You would need more of the missiles on hand to be able to have a trump card. Then we have him alluding to the big picture which I obviously took as Cobra Commander, but the character did not technically exist until the final few minutes of the movie. And about the design of Cobra Commanders mask, the producers stated that they did not use the traditional hood because they felt like some people would make a connection a Klansman's hood. Which is ridiculous we had a hooded CC in the 80's cartoon, comics, and action figures. If the hood was acceptable then why would it be so unacceptable now? I never made a connection to the hood and a Klansman, even if some people did make such a connection, so what? He is bad guy, so it would not be glamorizing the KKK.
Eh, enough rambling. It was an ok movie, but you would be best to wait for it to come to home video and rent it.
The whole premise of the original GI Joe story was that terrorist cells in the USA were operating and GI Joe was formed to go and eradicate them all while keeping everything hush-hush. It was reality based and any technology used was either already in existence, or about to be soon.Originally Posted by SolidusRaccoon
Back then the whole idea of terrorists and terrorist cells operating in America was looked at as a sort of "ha ha it can't happen here" mentality, so this part of the story seemed like fantasy. ("Ha ha the Statue of Liberty is under attack - only in a kids' cartoon"). Transformers, which I always thought was lame, was fantasy crap, and GI Joe was keepin' it real and informing me of the world we live in in its own way.
The story had to be re-written for a post 9/11 audience where there is no longer a "ha ha it can't happen here" mentality. That's one way to look at the new movie.
One of the biggest travesties I've read so far is no hooded Cobra Commander. No Destro in a silver face mask. Everything is brand new, as if the past 25 years was just one of those soap opera dreams we've woken up from and didn't really happen.
Will someone do a comparison of what is shown in the movie, and what vehicles, characters, weapons (like HISS tanks?) are the same or have changed?
I know in order to keep things moving it has to appeal to the lame Transformers type crowd these days. Maybe it is better if this movie is just action scene after action scene with little plot so we don't have to miss the original, realistic and educational story line. We can look at it as a totally new movie, being GI Joe in name and code name only.
Some good point, as much as I like action movies, the trend of constant action scenes in today's movies just plain stink. I myself often get confused and disoriented, hard to tell whos who and whats what. Look at older war based movies, you can have action and not cause the audience to feel vertigo or motion sick.
Gah, I know I went into this movie with low expectations, I know I should be happy with what we got, but I still feel kings grumpy.
It might even help to go to the movie without even thinking it is a GI Joe movie at all.Originally Posted by SolidusRaccoon
Tell me, you saw the movie, did the technology they use represent modern equipment? Was the "future technology" believeable as becoming reality within the next 10 to 15 years or "declassified"?
I watched a trailer that depicted some kind of attachment forming on the front of a vehicle. It looked like right out of the Transformers movie. I immediately balked. It didn't look like anything I have seen in action today, and therefore I can't believe anything like it would be available or in use a few years from now. It looked like 100% computer generated fantasy Hollywood effects.
Maybe GI Joe can't survive without having a Transformers fantasy tie-in. But I really disliked the Transformers/GI Joe comic book tie-in. It was so lame.
GI Joe was originally great because it was believeable something like that could actually be occurring.
Those suits they wear in this movie, are they anything in use today? The weapons are realistic? What's up with that black suit that the "new Duke" is wearing?
Maybe the bulk of paying moviegoers now judge what is good about movies differently than in the past.
Box office sales sure seem to indicate an immense interest in the movie.
On the one hand I feel bad for anyone expecting familiarity and tying in one "generation" to the next. What you knew about GI Joe, if this new GI Joe movie takes hold, then you don't know anything anymore.
But if the majority of paying moviegoers are paying and EXPECTING dizzying, action intense scene after scene, and this is what the movie delivers, then the moviemaker's firm has successfully captured the budget for the follow-up film. And the GI Joe line will continue on because of it.
At least the latest GI Joe toys look really detailed! However for realism in 1:18 it is BBI all the way!