masthead photo

Oscar Poll

Participate in our 12th annual Oscar poll! Come vote for who you think SHOULD win and who WILL win in the top six categories at www.sltrib.com/oscars

PLEASE LOG IN
TRIB ID:
PASSWORD:
Remember Me
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Have you seen this movie?
Tribune Rating:
Average User Rating: No Rating ( 0 reviews )
Parent's Guide: SVL  What's this?

Salt Lake Tribune Review


It's always great to indulge in an action movie that's just dumb fun. But the makers of "G.I Joe" only fulfill half of the deal -- they get the dumb, but not the fun.

Inspired by the line of action figures -- and the toy marketing is evident before the opening credits, when Hasbro gets its own vanity logo right after the Paramount Pictures mountain -- the movie is chock-full of characters wearing body-hugging Kevlar and employing all sorts of high-tech gadgetry.

It's like watching the toy shelf at Target come to life, with all the missile shooters and sound chips going off at once.

There's some semblance of a story here: After their missile convoy is attacked, U.S. soldiers Conrad "Duke" Hauser (Channing Tatum) and Wallace "Ripcord" Weems (Marlon Wayans) are rescued by an elite fighting unit, called G.I. Joe, and are temporarily invited onboard by the team's leader, Gen. Hawk (Dennis Quaid).

The Joes are hunting for the baddies who want the missiles -- with metal-eating "nanomites" that could wipe out a city -- and start suspecting that the arms tycoon who developed them, McCullen (Christopher Eccleston), is playing both sides. Front and center for the bad guys, an underwhelming group collectively called Cobra, is The Baroness (Sienna Miller), who turns out to be Duke's former fiance Ana.

Being an origin story, the committee-written script has about three times as much backstory as story. In some ludicrously introduced flashbacks,we learn of Duke's romance of Ana and how Duke held himself responsible when Ana's science-officer brother, Rex (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), was lost in battle. Even more awkwardly inserted are the histories of G.I. Joe's silent martial-arts fighter, Snake Eyes (performed by Ray Park, who played Darth Maul in "Star Wars, Episode I"), and his childhood rival-turned-enemy, Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee).

Director Stephen Sommers ("The Mummy") tries to throw everything into the pot and hope there's soup at the end. There are massive CGI set pieces, from the destruction of the Eiffel Tower to a Cobra lair that most James Bond villains would find ostentatious.

Some acting is as stiff as the toys that inspired the characters (Tatum and Miller especially), while other performers go completely over-the-top (notably Eccleston, the former "Doctor Who," whose slimy arms merchant uses as a shield his impenetrable Scottish accent). Sommers also throws in cameos from "The Mummy" (hello, Brendan Fraser) and catchphrases pulled from the '80s "G.I. Joe" cartoon -- such as "Yo, Joe!" and "a real American hero" -- that fall with a thud when delivered.

Paramount Pictures opted to hide "G.I. Joe" from movie critics before opening, with a spin-control campaign saying the studio wanted "to let the audience define the movie." That's a cynical approach that assumes audiences aren't bright enough to sniff out the producers' desperation in trying to salvage this noisy mess. Audiences know the signs of a lame August release -- and, as the Joes say, knowing is half the battle.

-- Sean P. Means


Be the first to Review This Movie

Additional Photos


The rundown: Hasbro's toy fighters take center stage in this action movie, as an elite commando squad battling the evil COBRA. 118 minutes.

Synopsis: From the Egyptian desert to deep below the polar ice caps, the elite G.I. Joe team uses the latest in next-generation spy and military equipment to fight the corrupt arms dealer Destro and the growing threat of the mysterious Cobra organization to prevent them from plunging the world into chaos.

User Comments

sltrib said on August 08, 2009 12:01pm:

I invite those of you commenting to post your own review of the movie! Just log in at the top right with your TribTalk/Tribune comments ID (or register - just takes a few seconds), then post your own view! We compile the reader stars so that others know what YOU think, not just what we think. [ Report Abuse ]
sltrib said on August 08, 2009 12:00pm:

FYI, the paragraph issues are due to a glitch on the new site. We are still actively working on it while the site is still in development. The original review DOES have paragraphs, we assure you! [ Report Abuse ]
Guest said on August 08, 2009 04:48am:

Sean, I found your review interesting, as well as Guest's rebuttal. I felt both of you had valid points although I was inclined to agree with Guest's overall premise. Which if I understood it correctly, was, that a. you don't care for cartoon based movies, (with greater dislike for Toy based movies), and anger at not having the opportunity to review the movie before general distribution. Like Guest, I do believe that critics are so cynical, they believe so greatly in the power of their own pen (today it would be processor, instead of a pen) they automatically assume the movie is bad, and their anger at not being able to exercise their rights of a free movie and the opportunity to pompously bash someone's else's hard work, sweat, investments, and beliefs as part of their job. Having said all of that, I believe that critics, who profess they are only sharing the truth, all of it, as they see it. Would indeed be truthful, COMPLETELY TRUTHFUL!! Which means that before they embark on their review of a movie that they would honestly say, "I am angry at not having the opportunity to review this movie so my review will be biased." OR, "My readers should know before I begin my review that I don't like cartoon based movies, or I don't care for romantic comedies, or I hate comedy movies. At this point critics, or reporters say something along the lines of "I am a professional and I am able to keep my biases out of my articles and my views." Please forgive my honesty, but that is completely bogus. NO ONE is able to completely divorce themselves from their biases. It is generally exposed through the use of certain words that convey more than just the review. So please, be strong, set a trend by being completely honest in your reviews. JI JOE----it was a fun popcorn movie with a weak plot, and characters at times seemed stiff, but based upon the cartoon character were a fairly consistent presentation. I felt the comedic relief was applied at well thought out times. I thought Wayans did a good job of delivering dead pan lines that helped to relieve mounting stress from building violence. I would give it 2-2 1/2 stars for popcorn fun, some character development and for a script that showed signs of cohesion and interest at times. Thank you for your time, and opportunity to share my thoughts, Lewfall1 [ Report Abuse ]
Guest said on August 08, 2009 04:05am:

I find it ironic that it is your job do describe the inadequacies of those who made the film while you yourself, as a writer, have apparently never heard of the word paragraph.... [ Report Abuse ]
Guest said on August 07, 2009 11:41pm:

Guest: I watched the cartoon in the 80`s and read the comics until they were cancelled. And the movie was a pile of crap. Just so you know. [ Report Abuse ]
tivogirl said on August 07, 2009 03:24pm:

Wow, Guest. I think you're reading more into the review than was actually there. [ Report Abuse ]
Guest said on August 07, 2009 02:50pm:

Sean, I love reading your reviews, especially when they seem to be less of a review of the movie itself and by itself, and more of a review of your personal anger for not getting to see the movie in advance, or maybe because you were denied the wonderful GI JOE action figures during your childhood. So being allowed to see it in advance gets it more credit than not? Seems pretty self important of you to feel this way. The studio has no responsibility to you at all. You don't work for them, and often work against them, using personal biases to give us a review that doesn't actually tell us if it was good for those who would want to see it or not. For you it wasn't good, but for others, how are we to know if you are dishonest in your review process? I don't think that reviewers should get first hack at films and be able to destroy them based on information that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE!!! I counted way too many references to how much you hate HASBRO and TRANSFORMERS and in general the Action figure market, but how well did this movie stack on its own? You never actually answered that simple question that people are eager to know. No one who would be interested in this movie cares about how well it is compared to ANY OTHER FILM, or how cheesy you think it is because it is based on a doll that you apparently have no love for. You should have recused yourself and asked some actual FANS OF GIJOE instead. I know this is your job, but we either buy your paper or we don't. If we think that we are getting bogus reviews based on personal bias and not the film iteslf, then why would I do anything to help you get paid for that? When was the last time you reviewed a movie from the blank slate perspective? Why does every film you know you wont like have to suffer from your personal opinion coming true once you see it? When one looks for evil, one finds it. When one thinks a movie is bad before one sees it, you usually make that come true. You pointed out that you knew it would be bad in advance of seeing it. You couldn't have been any clearer. Since your opinion was so slanted to begin with, how can anyone trust it? [ Report Abuse ]

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

choose a date
Zip Code
Distance
arrow