Why isn’t Paramount screening GI Joe to nationwide critics?

[craigdbfan]

By The Numbers: Movies Not Screened For Nationwide Press

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x139/musicspider911/notscreened.jpg

"Paramount Pictures has decided to not invite critics to the nationwide screenings of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, in what one might suspect is an attempt to quash bad reviews. A very targeted select group of online outlets were chosen to screen the film (were any women invited?), and the buzz coming out of their reports has been surprising - the movie isn’t horrible, it might even be a little fun. So why isn’t Paramount screening GI Joe to press if the few critics that did see the film enjoyed it? It’s a question that has been the subject of conversation in the movie geek circles on Twitter last week.

But the bigger question is… does not screening a film for critics mean that a movie is bad? In today’s by the numbers, I take a look at the films released over the last year that were not screened for critics. And by not screened, I should clarify — I mean outside of NY/LA junket screenings.

The graph above shows the 16 films from the last 12 months that weren’t screened for critics nationwide. Click on the image to enlarge.


- The Collector 32%
- Obsessed 19%
- Crank: High Voltage 62%
- 12 Rounds 29%
- Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li 4%
- Madea Goes To Jail 28%
- Underworld: Rise of the Lycans 32%
- The Haunting of Molly Hartley 3%
- SAW V 15%
- An American Carol 13%
- Fireproof 37%
- My Best Friend’s Girl 15%
- Tyler Perry’s The Family that Preys 51%
- Disaster Movie 2%
- Bangcock Dangerous 9%
- Mirrors 15%


Of the 16 films, only one has a certified “fresh” rating from Rotten Tomatoes (Crank 2: High Voltage with a 62%). The 16 films together (including Crank 2) have an average Rotten Tomatoes rating of 22.9%. If Crank 2 proves anything, it proves that a decent movie can slip through the cracks when a studio’s marketing department lack’s faith or marketing budget.

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra certainly doesn’t lack finances. According to a recent LA Times article, the film had a production budget of $175 million, and Paramount is expected to spend $150 million in marketing and distribution expenses. In fact, Paramount is still holding the usual word of mouth “advance screenings” in most of the major cities around the country. For those who don’t know, these are the screenings that regional press and critics are normally invited to. Press just wasn’t invited this time around.

Some lower budget horror films don’t hold any word of mouth screenings, possibly because it would be too cost prohibitive. In that instance, it doesn’t make any sense to screen a movie for critics, as it would be too costly to set-up screenings in all the major cities across the country. Plus, lets be honest: for the most part, critic attendance at the lower budget horror films is minimal (at least from what I can tell in San Francisco). But if a studio believes they have something good, like The Descent, they will promote and screen the film to critics.

And even if the film was a clunker, it isn’t like the bad buzz fuming out of critic reviews is going to hurt the film. For a recent example of this, look back at Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which was slammed hard by most critics, very possibly ending up as the worst reviewed biggest box office success of all time. Remember that old saying, “There is no such thing as bad publicity?” Well it very much applies to these big budget event films.

In fact, I was unable to find a history of huge budget films not being screened for the press. The only possible example I could find was the 1995 film Waterworld (I’m sure there might be other examples I’m missing, if so, leave them in the comments). Usually when a film costs more than $100 million, studios screen it because they know - any publicity is good publicity.

While critics serve to help smaller budget and independent films, their positive or negative opinions don’t seem to help hurt bigger budget releases. But the reviews do function as a form of publicity (”hey look, Transformers 2 is coming out this weekend”) which helps add to the event release. Do you know how much a strip in the New York Times would cost the studio if they wanted advertise in the same space where a movie review would run? A lot. Reviews are basically free advertising for these bigger films.

I could argue for or against the value of movie reviews all day, but that isn’t what this article is about. The question is: why isn’t Paramount screening GI Joe to nationwide critics? They weren’t afraid to screen Transformers 2, and we all know how that one turned out. So what are they afraid of this time around

A very special thanks to Rotten Tomatoes’ Critical Consensus column, which was a valuable resource for discovering which films were not screened to the national press."

- /film (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/04/by-the-numbers-movies-not-screened-for-nationwide-press/)

So we go back to the question why isn't Paramount screening G.I Joe: Rise of Cobra if they didn't fear showing critics TF:ROTF?

My guess is that the Paramount is aware of the bad buzz that was generated somewhat prematurely by a snowball of hate that turned into an avalanche based on "negative" screenings from anonymous sources that could have easily been fake.

Along with the gigantic backlash towards the trailer and some of the character designs. Oh and the rumors of Sommers completely messing up and having multiple editors fix the film and his ousting from post-production which was severely denied by the producer.

The last thing Paramounts needs now is critics giving this film the final blow (even though this might genuinely be better than TF:ROTF).

What do you guys think?

[The Guard]

I suspect it's because TRANSFORMERS: ROTF, which was a big, loud, fun movie in most respects, was brutally savaged by critics. I just think they're not taking any chances. They'll need good word of mouth for the film to have legs as they don't have the built in fanbase ROTF had (being a sequel), and it will take a strong opening weekend. That might be a bit more difficult if critics ripped it to pieces beforehand. Although at this point, I'm pretty sure people will go see this movie regardless.

[Cosmic]

As we were leaving the theater on Sunday, I overheard someone next to me nitpicking various errors and aspects of the story, and I thought, "what's the point?" You are not supposed to think too hard, if at all, while watching this movie. You are supposed to bring your kids, or somebody else's kids, and bring them back again two or three times, and buy them all of the toys. It should be obvious within the first few minutes. The people making this movie clearly didn't care very much about what critics would have to say.

[GhostPoet]

Movies like that are never really enjoyed by critics...it'd be pointless to put your movie out for screening for a majority of critic who have already made their mind up before they even see the movie. I can't even begin to count how many films I thought were great and the audience thought were great that critics completely destroyed.

[Timstuff]

Blame Transformers 2. If it had gotten better reviews, Paramount would have given GI Joe a press screening. Unlike Transformers 2, it doesn't have a built in fanbase, so they can't count on marketing and WOM to overpower bad reviews. I wish they had more confidence in their product than to expect bad reviews, but Paramount is basing their predictions off of Transformers 2, so they're bracing themselves for the worst case scenario.

[GhostPoet]

Blame Transformers 2. If it had gotten better reviews, Paramount would have given GI Joe a press screening. Unlike Transformers 2, it doesn't have a built in fanbase, so they can't count on marketing and WOM to overpower bad reviews. I wish they had more confidence in their product than to expect bad reviews, but Paramount is basing their predictions off of Transformers 2, so they're bracing themselves for the worst case scenario.

And they should...everyone knows the critics will hate it...if anything, they are predictable. :) Now if Gi Joe was about an army guy dying of cancer and walking through the memories of his past trying to find meaning and solace....critics would LOVE it. Oh and you have to throw in a crying scene...because critics love crying scenes.

lol

[lou2099]

It's not being screened for critics because the Paramount knows the movie sucks ass. It's a common practice.

[Timstuff]

If there was a total media blackout on the movie, there might be validity to that claim. The fact of the matter though is that Paramount is allowing people to see the movie before it's officially out, they just aren't holding screenings specifically for the press. Almost all of the aforementioned movies that had no press screenings were totally shielded from audiences right up until release to avoid negative WOM. Paramount is trying an experiment with GI Joe to see if it's possible to avoid mass bad reviews while simultaneously generating good word of mouth. Personally I think it's a dumb idea, but this is what happens when your other big movie in the same genre gets awful reviews, and you don't have a built-in audience to depend on.

Personally, I'm still hopeful that the general critics will give the movie favorable reviews since the "geek critics" usually aren't that far off from the consensus with big movies. I think Paramount is just overreacting to the fact that Transformers 2 got bad reviews. Their doubts in GI Joe's ability to get good reviews are probably more to do with its genre than its quality, since studio big wigs typically look at objective data (genre, stars, release date, marketing campaign) rather than the subjective things like quality. It might be dumb, but that's how the machine works.

[kane9321]

Paramount is nervous because it might get the "transformers 2" treatment,as in " totally trashed by every critic on earth"...the critics are wrong most of the time,but they were right on the money about that one though (transformers.wow)

[Heretic]

If GI Joe was about a soldier with cancer...during the Holocaust...then itd win the Emmy.

[CelticPredator]

The Oscar you mean.....the Emmy is TV's bro. :hehe:

[Jake Cassidy]

I don't think they're worried. If anything, TF2 proved that the masses either don't read reviews or don't give a damn what critics say. I don't.

[Jolly Rolly]

It's not being screened for critics because the Paramount knows the movie sucks ass. It's a common practice.
Superman The Movie in 1978 wasn't screened and that was a huge hit.

Personally I don't listen to reviewers until after I've seen such movie and listen to their good/bad arguments, I agree that TFROTF was big, loud and too long but damn the critics really came down hard on it.

They totally missed the point that TF was made to put butts in the seats and not deliver tear-wrenching Oscar calibur performances.

[Jack O Lantern]

Honestly I doubt bad reviewers would even effect the box office for a film like this. Loud movies the flop critcally still hit big, especially when there's nothing else showing

[Sarge 2.0]

The simple answer: they know no one over the age of 9 should have any interest in this movie, let alone enjoy it.

[Sarge 2.0]

Here's an interesting article on the subject: http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/08/what_makes_a_movie_bulletproof.html

[Ironfan72]

Personally I have no problem with critics not seeing the film. I do not make my decisions on seeing or not seeing a film based off of what others say, most critics hate popular films anyway, the tore TF2 to shreds and it still raked in money.
The film looks good, no matter what age you are.

[Doctor Jones]

It's meant to be carefree fun I think. People shouldn't take a movie based on a toy too seriously. Just have fun with it.

[Nivek]

I don't see this film being anywhere near as enjoyable as Crank 2.

[Sarge 2.0]

Personally I have no problem with critics not seeing the film. I do not make my decisions on seeing or not seeing a film based off of what others say, most critics hate popular films anyway, the tore TF2 to shreds and it still raked in money.
The film looks good, no matter what age you are.
This post illustrates exactly why you should read the article I posted.

[Timstuff]

If Transformers 2 had gotten good reviews, I would be much more wary of the fact that Paramount isn't screening this for critics. However, I think it's pretty obvious that the decision was Paramount's reaction to TF2's critical reception a lot more than it was to the film's quality. We won't know until we actually see the movie, but I'm still very optimistic. Also, it doesn't change the fact that "geek critics" like Chud, Latino Review, and IGN are speaking highly of it.

[Darkhawk77]

I could care less what a Critic thinks, since they dislike most of my film collection. If a movie looks good, i'll watch it. I'm definitely seeing G.I.Joe!

[Timstuff]

I could care less what a Critic thinks, since they dislike most of my film collection. If a movie looks good, i'll watch it. I'm definitely seeing G.I.Joe!

Same here. Reviews can often sway my decision to watch or not watch movies that I feel iffy about, but if I've been looking forward to a movie as much as this one I'll see it regardless of what the critics say. People who act like it's rewarding studios for mediocrity are really just saying that it's wrong for us to disagree with critics, and that a movie's success should be tied directly to its tomatometer score. If I don't agree with the critics' taste though, why should I let them control what movies I watch?

[CelticPredator]

The simple answer: they know no one over the age of 9 should have any interest in this movie, let alone enjoy it.

And if you dont like it, you should die. You should just ****ing die.



















Hyperbolic spew is fun! But seriously....stfu. I hate when people post **** like this. Its idioic, and rude. Get over yourself. People like to have fun. Sue them. And if you dont agree with me? Oh well? Get over it.

Oh and btw, I didnt think the movie was all that hot (its goin down in my eyes...:csad:) so, dont even think about attacking me over my opinion.

[TheVileOne]

Transformers 2 got bad reviews but it still made a lot of money. So Paramount is scared that this movie won't be critic proof.

[That-Guy]

LOL did anyone notice how they spelled Bangkok Dangerous on the graph?!!

[Timstuff]

Transformers 2 got bad reviews but it still made a lot of money. So Paramount is scared that this movie won't be critic proof.

I don't think they expected Transformers 2 to get reviews as bad as it did. Paramount likely believes that Transformers 2 got good reception due to the built in audience and agressive marketing, and while GI Joe has had aggressive marketing, it does not have a built-in audience since it's not a sequel. The sequel factor was enough make Transformers 2 critic-proof, but they don't have that with GI Joe, which is why they've taking a much more dodgy approach with the reviews. I think if anything, Transformers 2's success in spite of bad reviews emboldened Paramount to the point where they felt secure in releasing GI Joe without mass press screenings.

[TheVileOne]

Timstuff, this movie has had a ton of bad buzz surrounding it for a long time. There was the story of the movie testing badly and Sommers being taken off the movie as well. Transformers didn't have that.

Also, the positive early reviews were from fanboy websites and plants who would pad out the RT rating before it plummeted like it did today.

[Timstuff]

When the "bad buzz" is largely based around Snake Eyes' mask having a mouth and it being from the guy who made Van Helsing (but also The Mummy, which is one of my favorite movies), it kind of de-legitimizes most of said "bad buzz" IMO.

[TheVileOne]

That's really cute Timstuff, I see what you did there.

Also, Van Helsing was a huge disappointment and a flop for Universal, and tons of fans on here CONSTANTLY trashed it when it came out.

Also, there was the story about Sommers getting fired because the movie was horrible, and Paramount scrambling to save the movie.

[Timstuff]

Van Helsing was a financial disappointment considering it had a budget of 170 million, but a 300 million global gross is still no chump change. It was an underperfomer, but it wasn't any more of a flop than Superman Returns, and yet Bryan Singer doesn't get trashed 1/10 as much as Sommers does (well, the Superman boards not withstanding).

Van Helsing's biggest fault was that it had a broken story. GI Joe has an extremely simple story, but I haven't heard many people claim that it's broken since there's not a lot there to break. I think Van Helsing was a dumb movie (and not dumb in the good way), but I would be lying if I said I didn't leave the theater feeling excited. The movie did not hold up to repeat viewings since the flaws became increasingly apparent, but that was one movie out of the many he's done. I still love the mummy movies, and by now I've probably seen the first one at least 15 times. It was a dumb summer action movie, but it was the best kind possible-- the kind that lets you shut off your brain and have fun, without drawing too much attention to its shortcomings. That is why when Sommers was announced as the director of GI Joe, I was EXCITED, even though everyone else was jeering. I know a lot of people believe that a director is only as good as their last movie, but I'm not one of those people.

And finally, I wouldn't put too much stock in the farce story about Sommers being fired-- as in, none at all. Don Murphy was just pissed off at Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, and decided to play a little "prank" on him that got out of hand. It was bad buzz, but it was false, and the people who still cling to it probably never wanted to see the movie succeed in the first place.

[TheVileOne]

Van Helsing was a financial disappointment considering it had a budget of 170 million, but a 300 million global gross is still no chump change. It was an underperfomer, but it wasn't any more of a flop than Superman Returns, and yet Bryan Singer doesn't get trashed 1/10 as much as Sommers does (well, the Superman boards not withstanding).

Van Helsing was meant to be a huge franchise and also a spinoff TV series for Universal. None of those materialized. It was a failure.


And finally, I wouldn't put too much stock in the farce story about Sommers being fired-- as in, none at all. Don Murphy was just pissed off at Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, and decided to play a little "prank" on him that got out of hand. It was bad buzz, but it was false, and the people who still cling to it probably never wanted to see the movie succeed in the first place.

Also a cute way to dismiss the bad and negative buzz. Not to mention how fans all around the web were trashing the trailers and clips.

[The Guard]

Well, the most recent reviews aren't surprising, but I do think a lot of them are being ridiculously harsh. Haven't seen the movie yet, but it's readily apparent that the mainstream critics who are reviewing it aren't putting much work into doing so. It's also, like many of these movies, readily apparent that they think the basics of GI JOE are silly, with no redeeming qualities. That, or they think GI JOE is nothing more than a catchphrase, a "Real American Hero", and can't get past things like GI JOE being multinational, etc. And quite a lot of them are giving a not so subtle "**** you" to Paramount for not seeing a screening. There's a definite agenda in some of them.

So, Paramount Pictures officials: This is the movie for which you chose to go to war with movie critics?

Ah well. The movie is what the movie is.

[Timstuff]

Van Helsing was meant to be a huge franchise and also a spinoff TV series for Universal. None of those materialized. It was a failure.



Also a cute way to dismiss the bad and negative buzz. Not to mention how fans all around the web were trashing the trailers and clips.

I didn't say Van Helsing wasn't a disappointment. What I said is that it was not a flop. A movie that makes 300 million at the box office is not a flop, or else almost every movie out there would be a flop save for a few blockbusters. A movie that makes 300 million without bringing in a decent profit is an under performer. A flop is a movie that doesn't even register with audiences, let alone make a profit (i.e. Speed Racer, which I loved but the box office did not).

They trash the trailers and clips because of stupid reasons though. It's always about accelerator suits, Marlon Wayans, Duke not wearing a WW2 uniform, etc. Occasionally you'll get a legitimate complaint like how the CG looks fake, but a lot of it is just typical fanboy nonsense that has nothing to do with whether or not the film is enjoyable on its own merits.

Basically, you keep bringing up bad buzz, but none of it is really that relevant to whether or not the movie will be a success with audiences. The audience doesn't care that Cobra Commander wears a scuba mask instead of a hood, nor do they follow rumors about the director being fired. They watch the trailer and commercials, decide if it's how they'd like to spend 118 minutes, and then they either go or they don't. Most people do respond favorably to GI Joe's ads, so while the internet community may be up in arms over the movie I doubt they will have much control over the movie's performance.

Also, as The Guard said, many of the critics are rather dismissive of the source material just as much as they are of the movie, so I don't understand why so many fans who are against the movie use them to validate their opinion. The critics would probably say the cartoons and comics are just as kitschy as Rise of Cobra, so if you are expecting a decent GI Joe movie to be looked at as high art your expectations are waaaay too high.

[TheVileOne]

Eh prove it the Guard.

This all sounds pretty ridiculous to me if you look up the reviews for a movie like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, and Paramount reportedly put even more money into GI JOE than what were the budgets for each of those movies.

[Doctor Jones]

This is the first movie in a big potential franchise, they don't want to take any risks with it. I can understand that. But hopefully it pulls in enough money. I sure as hell want a sequel. There definitely could be one.

[TheVileOne]

Any movie is basically a risk. And they still don't block potential franchise movies from critics more often than not.

[Timstuff]

Eh prove it the Guard.

This all sounds pretty ridiculous to me if you look up the reviews for a movie like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, and Paramount reportedly put even more money into GI JOE than what were the budgets for each of those movies.

Iron Man had a budget of 186 million, wheras GI Joe's was 170 million (also, a large chunk of Iron Man's budget came from Marvel). Keep in mind though, that comics are now considered a "classy" source material. GI Joe and Transformers are primarily toys and cartoons, and it should go without saying that a lot of critics aren't going to be particularly forgiving of them for being true to their roots.

[Timstuff]

This is the first movie in a big potential franchise, they don't want to take any risks with it. I can understand that. But hopefully it pulls in enough money. I sure as hell want a sequel. There definitely could be one.

Superman didn't screen for critics, and it got 4 sequels. ;)

[TheVileOne]

Iron Man had a budget of 186 million, wheras GI Joe's was 170 million (also, a large chunk of Iron Man's budget came from Marvel). Keep in mind though, that comics are now considered a "classy" source material. GI Joe and Transformers are primarily toys and cartoons, and it should go without saying that a lot of critics aren't going to be particularly forgiving of them for being true to their roots.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman.htm

BOM says $140 million, and Favreau was also quoted as saying that after the movie came out, so take that for what you will.

Timstuff, the toy excuse doesn't fly. All these movies have tons of toys and merchandise.

[powerbomb1411]

I think it's been proven time and time again critics views on a movie don't matter for jack.

And I'm glad to see it's not being screened for them. I think there is seriously wrong with someone being paid to look for flaws in something that is supposed to be entertainment.

[Doctor Jones]

Dude, you keep wanting to be something that it's not. It's based off a cartoon and a toyline. That's what they first were. What's wrong with basing it off of that? Maybe the sequel can go to the comics more?

[TheVileOne]

Dude, you keep wanting to be something that it's not. It's based off a cartoon and a toyline. That's what they first were. What's wrong with basing it off of that? Maybe the sequel can go to the comics more?
Once again, more ******** excuses. So what if it was based on this or not? That means it has to be dumb and stupid and idiotic?

Batman is based on a comic book. you know, people running around in tights fighting crime. So what's wrong with Batman and Robin?

[Timstuff]

Because Batman and Robin had manipples, neon, and 1,253 ice puns. :o

Seriously, GI Joe CANNOT be that bad.

[The Guard]

Eh prove it the Guard.

Prove what, exactly?

This all sounds pretty ridiculous to me if you look up the reviews for a movie like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, and Paramount reportedly put even more money into GI JOE than what were the budgets for each of those movies.

THE DARK KNIGHT had a budget of $185 million. IRON MAN's appears to have been somewhere around $140.

But GI JOE appears to be a much larger film in terms of scale than either of these films. That said, what does the budget for GI JOE have to do with anything in terms of its quality?

[TheVileOne]

It means they invest a lot of time and money in this ****. You know, get something good out of it.

[Sarge 2.0]

Nobody is expecting it to be "high art". They're just expecting it to be a decent movie. The fact that it's based in juvenilia doesn't help it's chances, though. If anything, critics are harsh on films like these because they go into it with *reasonable* expectations (because they watch lots of movies and see a ton of terrible ones, and they know good from bad at this point in their lives) only to be severely underwhelmed. Fanboys go into a movie like this with a completely different mindset, and thus view the movie differently. The critical community, for the most part, is more evolved and informed in their tastes and understanding of cinema than the demographic for this film. So why should they lower their standards and expectations to calibrate with fanboy mentality? They're not expecting "artsy fartsy". Just a decent movie. But fanboys and mainstream audiences taste is so marginalized that their view of a "good movie" is completely different than what your standard, well versed film critics is. So I don't get why you guys complain when people who have a higher understanding of film than you do trash a movie like this. Why shouldn't they? It doesn't mean they "don't know how to have fun at the movies anymore", it just means that cheap, juvenile movies made to cash in on toys isn't their idea of fun. They can have fun with real movies instead.

[TheVileOne]

Star Trek was one of the best reviewed movies of the year.

CRITICS LOVED STAR TREK. Star Trek is not going to win any Oscars for acting performances.

[Sarge 2.0]

Star Trek, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight are proof that the "artsy fartsy" critics can still "have fun at the movies".

That being said I don't think Star Trek was a very good movie. Although I loved the acting.

[Figs]

Have you seen it yet Sarge2.0?

[Raiden]

Just because G.I.Joe was based on cartoons, comics, and toys doesn't mean they can s**t all over the established backstory and personalities of those characters. But Sommers doesn't give a damn and he screwed up the characters in whatever way he sees fit. Seeing how much disrespect he paid to G.I.Joe is enough to turn me off from seeing it, because I know this isn't the G.I.Joe that I like growing up.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah that's kind of my point Sarge 2.0. Fans on message boards just get into this defensive mode when critics bash a movie they want to see and like critics hate everything.

And then when something Spider-man 2 is one of the highest rated movies of the year, people are like WHOA that's awesome, how is that possible?

[xwolverine2]

Seriously, GI Joe CANNOT be that bad.

u shall see:oldrazz:

[terry78]

It'll be accepted the same as Transformers was. The internet geek/hipster/film buff crowd will either hate it or love it ironically, and the average joe type who like to talk/text during the movie and act like a-holes will come out saying how ****ing awesome it was. I'm gonna go see it twice...once at the local "ghetto" theatre and again at the suburban upper middle class theatre and see what the diff is.

[The Guard]

Some critics may have a more evolved sensibility about film. In general, though? Hardly. Not based on what I've seen here, and in the past.

It strikes me as ridiculous to believe with some of these reviews that most of these critics have an inherent higher understanding of film than the average person. There's simply not much there to support that. A broader vocabularly maybe, when they're sitting there with a thesaurus. :).

People with a high understanding of film shouldn't just be making broad statements about an entire film and then relying on slanderous jokes and puns in their reviews instead of actually assessing the movie, they should be specific and knowledgeable about a film's strengths and weaknesses, in the context of FILM. They should be comparing this movie to other movies, to the source material, to literature, assessing the various techniques, approaches, etc, and doing so in intelligent manner. Even if that comparison makes it look subpar compared to other films.

By and large, they aren't doing that.

Frankly, any idiot can say "The CGI was bad and the acting sucked and this was just silliness for two hours". It doesn't take some "evolved understanding of film" to spot that stuff, or to just say it, whether its true or not.

And by the same token, if you are a critic and have a knowledge of film, one assumes you would also have a knowledge of the spectrum of film and genres. It just seems absolutely absurd to go into what you KNOW will be an almost straight action movie and expect it to have loads and loads character development, and then to condemn it for that lack of development. Indiana Jones movies didn't have much in the way of character development. Nor did Die Hard, the Lethal Weapon films, or any NUMBER of beloved/classic actions movies. And yet, I don't recall critics savaging them for it.

[The Guard]

Just because G.I.Joe was based on cartoons, comics, and toys doesn't mean they can s**t all over the established backstory and personalities of those characters.

I'm pretty sure that, other than maybe WATCHMEN on some level, every single comic book and cartoon adaption ever has done this, in some fashion. It's annoying, but it is the nature of the Hollywood adaption.

[The Guard]

Read a few more reviews, and I feel like I don't need to read anymore, because they're basically all the same. I really, in the long run, don't care what most critics say. It's always fascinating though, to see "film school reject style" vitriol.

It's this kind of stuff that gets me about the critic reviews:

Today's evil is brought to you by a Scottish weapons industrialist who wants to force the world to bend to his will and then his operatives will take over. He comes from a long line of rascals, apparently, because the very first scene takes place in France in the year 1641 and involves a man in an iron mask. Because that's exactly what belongs in a "G.I. Joe" movie.

There's a lot of that kind of stuff. A clear lack of knowledge about the basics of the mythology. As evidenced by oh, about 75 percent of the critics, who, in mocking the film, outright mock the mythology it's based on to begin with as well.

(The character names - which include such howlers as "Dr. Mindbender" - give you an idea of the general wit involved.)

Ripping on the codenames again.

Actually, lots of things never become clear in "G.I.," which is so busy setting up a sequel that it doesn't even tell us what has become of two of the three main bad guys

Really?

About 80 percent of the reviews start with "Critics werent allowed to see a screening of this" or some varation of it.

And most of these reviews just aren't that clever. They are, almost every single one of them, stuffed with the same angry reviewer cliches, like "No Joe, Say it Aint So Joe (which I think I saw about 12 times), etc.

There's a general lack of logic and dislike of the source material that's informing almost everything that's written about the story and the concepts. Critics are *****ing about the nanobots that have to be weaponized (there is a reason for the weaponization, per the script, which this movie obviously has about 95 percent of in it, which has to do with McCullen's hatred of the French), things like "The action doesn't make sense". Really? The over the top, bombastic action strains credibility of physics? Really?

I get the sense that a lot of them simply didn't, or couldn't, pay attention to the movie very much, because when the worst line of dialogue you can come up with is "This is just the beginning" or something like "Yo Joe" or "Real American Heroes", etc...yeah.

[craigdbfan]

Looks like the backlash is starting to become apparent.

The LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/08/gi-joe-reviews-how-bad-can-they-get.html)is reporting that Joe Morgenstern reviewed the movie based on the trailer. Guess some didn't take to kindly to Paramounts blocking.

"But why bother seeing the movie at all? For the Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern, not seeing is believing. When Paramount refused to screen the film for him, the critic called the studio's bluff by writing a review anyway, basing his opinion on a viewing of the film's trailer. This has to be a first for a critic at such a widely respected publication. So far there has been precious little consternation, which I take as a clear sign of just how little regard the elite media has for the cynical way studio summer films are made and marketed.

Morgenstern's justification? As he wrote:

Why do I have to see it to review it? People debate the merits of movies they haven't seen all the time--especially on the message boards of the Web, where vast numbers of fanboys, apprentice fanatics and professional grousers turn an endless supply of baseless assumptions into groundless conclusions. At first I felt shut out, but then I realized ... the studio has set me free to reach my own conclusions--not quite groundless but close--on the basis of the "G.I. Joe" trailer.

Needless to say, Morgenstern concluded that the movie was a stinker. But was he being fair to the film, even if it had every appearance of being an unbelievably dumb exercise in mindless violence, by reviewing it without seeing it? Or was that a defensible act by a critic who had been deliberately kept away from seeing the movie? I'm torn between my regard for Morgenstern and my concern that this sets a bad precedent.

Does anyone have a strong opinion, yea or nay?

[terry78]

This was the film of the year that is the black sheep. There's one every year where the media has gotten wind of how much it's supposedly going to suck, so they already go in with a mindset. And a positive review already makes you out to be a shill or something.

[The Guard]

You know, I almost said "A lot of these reviews could be based on the trailer". :)

[Figs]

Great points and examples The Guard!

[Timstuff]

Great points and examples The Guard!

Agreed. Well said, The Guard!

I was going to see this movie at 8:00 tonight, but since one of my brothers is getting home late we're going to be seeing it at midnight. I'll try to post an initial reaction when I get back, with hopefully a more in-depth review this weekend.

BTW, I think I'm noticing a very clear trend that people who were looking forward to the movie are liking it, and a lot of people who were complaining from the start are hating it. I haven't seen it yet so I can't be sure, but I think that with the mainstream critics in particular, they are approaching the movie as if it has a stigma since it's based on a toy line, is hot on the heels of Transformers 2 (which they hated), and was not screened for the general press. With that in mind, can you really blame Paramount for not wanting to screen it? Some of these critics seem to have more disdain for the GI Joe cartoons and toys than they do the movie itself.

[TheVileOne]

Well Paramount only screened it to their plants, so what do you expect? They know they made a POS.

[xwolverine2]

Agreed. Well said, The Guard!

I was going to see this movie at 8:00 tonight, but since one of my brothers is getting home late we're going to be seeing it at midnight. I'll try to post an initial reaction when I get back, with hopefully a more in-depth review this weekend.

BTW, I think I'm noticing a very clear trend that people who were looking forward to the movie are liking it, and a lot of people who were complaining from the start are hating it. I haven't seen it yet so I can't be sure, but I think that with the mainstream critics in particular, they are approaching the movie as if it has a stigma since it's based on a toy line, is hot on the heels of Transformers 2 (which they hated), and was not screened for the general press. With that in mind, can you really blame Paramount for not wanting to screen it? Some of these critics seem to have more disdain for the GI Joe cartoons and toys than they do the movie itself.

i thought the trailer was crap... but i knew it would at least have some fun moments like transformers.
i was hoping with my low expectations id be dissapointed.

nope it was even worse.

[Timstuff]

Well Paramount only screened it to their plants, so what do you expect? They know they made a POS.

Any proof that AICN, Latino Review, Chud, IGN, and the others were all bought off to give it good reviews? Other than that they were invited to see it, and you hated the movie?

[terry78]

It's pretty sad that people view the above as plants, when they have been some of the most reliable geek reviewers for a decade or more.

[Doctor Jones]

I know. They just want this movie to fail. Hey, maybe the liked the movie? I guess people who respond positively to the movie that means they're plants right? They can't actually like the movie and *gasp* have a different opinion and not take things so seriously!

[Sarge 2.0]

Some critics may have a more evolved sensibility about film. In general, though? Hardly. Not based on what I've seen here, and in the past.

It strikes me as ridiculous to believe with some of these reviews that most of these critics have an inherent higher understanding of film than the average person. There's simply not much there to support that. A broader vocabularly maybe, when they're sitting there with a thesaurus. :).

People with a high understanding of film shouldn't just be making broad statements about an entire film and then relying on slanderous jokes and puns in their reviews instead of actually assessing the movie, they should be specific and knowledgeable about a film's strengths and weaknesses, in the context of FILM. They should be comparing this movie to other movies, to the source material, to literature, assessing the various techniques, approaches, etc, and doing so in intelligent manner. Even if that comparison makes it look subpar compared to other films.

By and large, they aren't doing that.

Frankly, any idiot can say "The CGI was bad and the acting sucked and this was just silliness for two hours". It doesn't take some "evolved understanding of film" to spot that stuff, or to just say it, whether its true or not.

And by the same token, if you are a critic and have a knowledge of film, one assumes you would also have a knowledge of the spectrum of film and genres. It just seems absolutely absurd to go into what you KNOW will be an almost straight action movie and expect it to have loads and loads character development, and then to condemn it for that lack of development. Indiana Jones movies didn't have much in the way of character development. Nor did Die Hard, the Lethal Weapon films, or any NUMBER of beloved/classic actions movies. And yet, I don't recall critics savaging them for it.

Read a few more reviews, and I feel like I don't need to read anymore, because they're basically all the same. I really, in the long run, don't care what most critics say. It's always fascinating though, to see "film school reject style" vitriol.

It's this kind of stuff that gets me about the critic reviews:

Today's evil is brought to you by a Scottish weapons industrialist who wants to force the world to bend to his will and then his operatives will take over. He comes from a long line of rascals, apparently, because the very first scene takes place in France in the year 1641 and involves a man in an iron mask. Because that's exactly what belongs in a "G.I. Joe" movie.

There's a lot of that kind of stuff. A clear lack of knowledge about the basics of the mythology. As evidenced by oh, about 75 percent of the critics, who, in mocking the film, outright mock the mythology it's based on to begin with as well.

(The character names - which include such howlers as "Dr. Mindbender" - give you an idea of the general wit involved.)

Ripping on the codenames again.

Actually, lots of things never become clear in "G.I.," which is so busy setting up a sequel that it doesn't even tell us what has become of two of the three main bad guys

Really?

About 80 percent of the reviews start with "Critics werent allowed to see a screening of this" or some varation of it.

And most of these reviews just aren't that clever. They are, almost every single one of them, stuffed with the same angry reviewer cliches, like "No Joe, Say it Aint So Joe (which I think I saw about 12 times), etc.

There's a general lack of logic and dislike of the source material that's informing almost everything that's written about the story and the concepts. Critics are *****ing about the nanobots that have to be weaponized (there is a reason for the weaponization, per the script, which this movie obviously has about 95 percent of in it, which has to do with McCullen's hatred of the French), things like "The action doesn't make sense". Really? The over the top, bombastic action strains credibility of physics? Really?

I get the sense that a lot of them simply didn't, or couldn't, pay attention to the movie very much, because when the worst line of dialogue you can come up with is "This is just the beginning" or something like "Yo Joe" or "Real American Heroes", etc...yeah.Internet bloggers =/= real film critics. A.O. Scott, Ty Burr, Jim Emerson, Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, Joe Morgenstern, Christy Lemire, etc. are all real film critics.

Which means they've seen films by Ophuls, Antonioni, Altman, Pasolini, Ozu, Tati, Fassbinder, Cassavettes, Fellini, Rossellini, etc. And thus have a wider breadth of knowledge and understanding of film than you. Which is basically a fact. Also, when you see *any* of the above critics review the film you should give it a read. You just might learn something. :)

[Timstuff]

In Ebert's review he basically insults anyone who likes the movie. I don't care how many movies you've seen, that's internet troll behavior and professionals should not be acting that way. I'm sick of the idea that because someone is a "proffessional" movie watcher means that they should dictate what other people watch, or that their opinion is better than everyone else's. And given that Transformers 2 is one of the most successful movies ever despite being one of the worst reviewed this year, I think the general audience is getting fed up with the elitist attitudes of many critics too.

I'm not saying I want critics to become irrelevant, because they are an important part of the industry. However, they are only driving themselves into irrelevance when they insult people's intelligence just because they find a lowbrow action movie entertaining, and that's not benefiting anyone. By endorsing the elitist idea that there are "good movie watchers" and the rest are the drooling masses, they are only giving those "drooling masses" all more reason to ignore them.

[CelticPredator]

Internet bloggers =/= real film critics. A.O. Scott, Ty Burr, Jim Emerson, Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, Joe Morgenstern, Christy Lemire, etc. are all real film critics.

Which means they've seen films by Ophuls, Antonioni, Altman, Pasolini, Ozu, Tati, Fassbinder, Cassavettes, Fellini, Rossellini, etc. And thus have a wider breadth of knowledge and understanding of film than you. Which is basically a fact. Also, when you see *any* of the above critics review the film you should give it a read. You just might learn something. :)

Stop being like that. You come across very rude, and snobish.

[Red Mask]

Critics unfortunately become too informed on what makes great films. Adapting franchises like G.I.Joe - which has so much backstory - is bound to get confusing even for mediocre critics. While they'll jump at the style of Dark Knight, they can lose sight of G.I.Joe's own entertaining aspects. In today's world people confuse adapting current sensibilities to just making a fun update to old work.

I agree that Transformers 2 was a waste. Sommers Van Helsing was corny to me because I have a lot of respect to classic monster films. He struck the right note with G.I.Joe, even in this pos 9/11 world.

[Sarge 2.0]

In Ebert's review he basically insults anyone who likes the movie. I don't care how many movies you've seen, that's internet troll behavior and professionals should not be acting that way. I'm sick of the idea that because someone is a "proffessional" movie watcher means that they should dictate what other people watch, or that their opinion is better than everyone else's. And given that Transformers 2 is one of the most successful movies ever despite being one of the worst reviewed this year, I think the general audience is getting fed up with the elitist attitudes of many critics too.

I'm not saying I want critics to become irrelevant, because they are an important part of the industry. However, they are only driving themselves into irrelevance when they insult people's intelligence just because they find a lowbrow action movie entertaining, and that's not benefiting anyone. By endorsing the elitist idea that there are "good movie watchers" and the rest are the drooling masses, they are only giving those "drooling masses" all more reason to ignore them.
I just read the review. He didn't insult anyone. :huh:

Also, if you were even vaguely familiar with Ebert's writing you would know that it's his dictum to *not* dictate what people watch. Any good critic will tell you that, because any good critic knows not to say "See this/don't see this" or "you will/won't like this". A critics job is to communicate their reaction to the film so that the reader can discern whether or not to see it based on how the critic reacted. Even if the critic reacted negatively, someone could still be motivated to see the film because they might like the things that the critic disliked.

[xwolverine2]

I just read the review. He didn't insult anyone. :huh:

Also, if you were even vaguely familiar with Ebert's writing you would know that it's his dictum to *not* dictate what people watch. Any good critic will tell you that, because any good critic knows not to say "See this/don't see this" or "you will/won't like this". A critics job is to communicate their reaction to the film so that the reader can discern whether or not to see it based on how the critic reacted. Even if the critic reacted negatively, someone could still be motivated to see the film because they might like the things that the critic disliked.

yeah seriously..

ebert's review (even if i dont agree with them) are always extremely professional

this guy wrote the book on critiqueing... literally
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/eberts_little_rule_book.html

[xwolverine2]

just read ebert's review... cant stop laughing at the ice caps bit :D

[deathshead2]

yeah seriously..

ebert's review (even if i dont agree with them) are always extremely professional

this guy wrote the book on critiqueing... literally
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/eberts_little_rule_book.htmlWow, Gene was right, I'm never going to watch a trailer ever again.

[Red Mask]

I keep forgetting that Ebert can't speak anymore. Poor guy.

[bullets]

I always like to read his reviews whether I agree or not.

[Nivek]

Any proof that AICN, Latino Review, Chud, IGN, and the others were all bought off to give it good reviews?

Let's see how many "Paramount exclusives" and site updates happen over the next few months.

[The Guard]

Good lord. You're all on this "plant" stuff? AICN, Latino Review, Chud and IGN are run by hardcore "fanboys". They're not your typical film critics, and have never been.

Internet bloggers =/= real film critics. A.O. Scott, Ty Burr, Jim Emerson, Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, Joe Morgenstern, Christy Lemire, etc. are all real film critics.

Uh...ok. Did I say they weren't?

Which means they've seen films by Ophuls, Antonioni, Altman, Pasolini, Ozu, Tati, Fassbinder, Cassavettes, Fellini, Rossellini, etc. And thus have a wider breadth of knowledge and understanding of film than you. Which is basically a fact. Also, when you see *any* of the above critics review the film you should give it a read. You just might learn something.

So your point is that...they are professionals, and they've, as such, probably seen more movies than I have.

I see.

But this was not my point. I aem certain there are people who know more about film than I do, simply by virtue of having seen more, studied it, etc. I have never denied this, and it would be silly to do so.

But this is reflected in the dozens and dozens of general critics reviews how?

The reviews I'm reading give me no reason to believe the majority of these professional critics and bloggers have a "higher" sensibility of film based on THEIR OWN WORK. It leads me to believe they know how to use to a thesauraus, and to come up with lame "Joe" puns. I'v eknown a LOT of people who have seen films, and studied film, and studied writing, and guess what? I know people who haven't who can nontheless assess films and write circles around the people who are supposed to be experts on the subject matter.

See, a person can tell me that they studied at Julliard, and that they've been on Broadway, but until I see a decent performance from them, that means next to nothing to me in terms of their actual talent and ability.

Now then. Since you think I might learn something from one of the film critic masters...let's take a look at Ebert's review, shall we?

The film is inspired by Hasbro's famous line of plastic action figures. The heroes are no longer exclusively Americans, but a multi-national elite strike force from many nations, which provides Paramount the opportunity to give top billing to an actor named Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. And to think there was a time when Maurice Micklewhite was not considered a good name for a star.

So he states the obvious...ok...

And then, what's this? A knock and/or random comment about an African and his name? How devilishly clever! So much mature, intelligent assessment of film therein. Let's read on.

The Joes, as they are called, are needed to counter a secret nano-tech weapon which is a green liquid that eats up people and buildings and stuff. This weapon has been invented by the evil disfigured scientist named McCullen (Christopher Eccleston), who steals it back from the people he sold it to, and plans to use it to conquer the world. Why is McCullen so pissed off? His Scottish clan was insulted centuries ago. Those Scots.

So this far in, we obviously see that he thinks the source material is stupid. How is McCullen's grudge any lamer than any other terrorists issues over religion, land, etc? He's a megalomaniac, he has a unique grudge. This is bad because...

His conquest plans are not sophisticated. He launches four nano-missiles at world capitols. Two of them are Moscow and Washington. The third one is destroyed, and if I'm not mistaken the fourth one is forgotten by the plot and is still up there somewhere. But that's the kind of detail I tend to get wrong, because that's more fun that getting it right.

There are only three giant nano missles launched. One is blown up, the other two are chased down. It is clearly set up that there are three via both visuals and dialogue, and action. The man apparently barely paid attention to the movie.

No "film" knowledge being absorbed yet...let's read on.

How fast are these missiles? They rocket into space and zoom down to earth. A Joe named Duke (Channing Tatum) commandeers the enemy's rocket airplane and, even though he's never seen it before, flies it so well that he catches up to the Moscow missile and destroys it, and then he turns around and flies halfway around the globe to chase up with the missile headed for Washington. He uses verbal commands to fire his air-to-air weapons, after a fellow Joe named Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) intuits that McCullen would have programmed his plane to respond to Celtic, which, luckily, she happens to speak.

So he has a basic problem with one of the best, and, as the movie shows us, likely most intelligent people in the armed forces knowing Celtic, and making a logical decision.

K.

And he has a problem with superfast jets, and missles that don't hit their targets in a reasonable amount of time. Ok, that's a bit silly, I'll grant that.

No amazing assessment of film yet, however. Still waiting.

These plot details are not developed at great depth, because the movie is preoccupied with providing incomprehensible wall-to-wall computer-generated special effects. I should have been carrying a little clicker to keep count, but I believe that director Stephen Sommers has more explosions in his movie than Michael Bay had in "Transformers 2" only last month. World records don't last long these days.

Apparently he could not follow what was going on onscreen. Despite the fact that I suspect children could probably follow the action in this movie.

No amazing assessment of film yet. Still waiting.

What is Cobra? What nationality are its leaders, other than Scottish? What will it gain by destroying world capitols? Reader, I do not know. Even the U.S. President (Jonathan Pryce) asks incredulously, "Don't they have any demands?" His role is otherwise limited to being briefed about the Joes.

So, despite the fact that the movie is called RISE OF COBRA, and the fact that the end of the film has the main villain say, flat out, "It is time for The Cobra to rise", while the main villain dons a vaguely snakelike mask, he still can't figure out what "Cobra" refers to?

Really?

No amazing assessment of film yet, by the way. Still waiting.

Cobra has a woman named the Baroness (Sienna Miller) to match Scarlett of the Joes. These women are interesting. They have leather fetishwear and are seductively made up, but are otherwise honorary boys, because us Joe fans don't like to watch a lot of spit-swapping. But because us fans liked the two jive-talkin' robots in "Transformers," "G. I. Joe" gives us Ripcord (Marlon Wayans), who is comic relief, says black stuff, and can't control his high-tech armored suit, so he runs into things. We guess he's a contrast to the calm, macho heroism of Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje.

I'm sorry...Ripcord says "Black stuff?"

Am I reading that correctly?

So now Ebert, who has probably seen oh, hundreds of movies with a comic relief character, has a problem with comic relief characters?

The two teams also each have a skilled Ninja fighter from Japan. Why is this, you might ask? Because Japan is a huge market for CGI animation and videogames, that's why. It also has a sequence set in the Egyptian desert, although there are no shots of dead robots or topless pyramids. And Cobra headquarters are buried within the miles-deep ice of Arctic. You think construction costs are high here. At one point the ice cap is exploded real good so it will sink and crush the G. I. Joe's submarine. We thought ice floated in water but, no, you can see big falling ice chunks real good here. It must be only in your Coke that it floats.

More of "the source material is silly".

Except...what's that? He LOGICALLY assesses the nature of the ice that doesn't sink?

Is...is that an assessment of film?

Oh. No. Darn.

There is never any clear sense in the action of where anything is in relation to anything else. You get more of a binary action strategy. You see something, it fires. You see something else, it gets hit. Using the power of logic, you deduce that the first thing was aiming at the second thing.

This would tend to make him an idiot. It's pretty clear what is going on during the movie, and where things are.

Yet I say this movie is certainly better than "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." How so? Admittedly, it doesn't have as much cleavage. But the high-tech hardware is more fun to look at than the transforming robots, the plot is as preposterous, and although the noise is just as loud, it's more the deep bass rumbles of explosions than the ear-piercing bang of steel robots pounding on each other.

Except that in fact, the movie has MORE cleavage than ROTF did, as it has Scarlett, The Baroness, and if we're counting, Cover Girl. So he can't even get THAT snide comment right.

I mentioned the lack of pyramids. We do, however, see the Eiffel Tower as it is eaten up by nano technology and topples over onto the Place la Condorde. Missiles also strike Mount Rushmore. No, wait! That was during one of the Coming Attractions!

What the hell is he talking about? We see the pyramids very clearly. Oh, he's making a TRANSFORMERS reference, because he apparently cannot separate the two movies.

Hmm. No amazing assessment of film, or assessment of this movie in that context, actually. He did try to be sarcastic, and I suppose in a backwards way one could assume what his issues with the film were, but...no. Sorry. This is nothing approaching a "good" review. It's lazy, and I would certainly expect better from Roger Ebert, who I usually rather like.

What lesson was I supposed to learn from this particular review? Is it "GI JOE as a basic concept is stupid"?

[Sarge 2.0]

Wow, Gene was right, I'm never going to watch a trailer ever again.
It's true, especially of comedies. Trailers for a comedy will almost always spoil the best jokes in the movie. And trailers for thrillers have begun spoiling twists.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Any proof that AICN, Latino Review, Chud, IGN, and the others were all bought off to give it good reviews? Other than that they were invited to see it, and you hated the movie?

I'm sure he'll offer none.

[Red Mask]

Having Cover Girl, Baroness, and Scarlett does not bring more cleavage than T2:RoT****ed unless they're exposing them, which wasn't often.

[Red Mask]

Having Cover Girl, Baroness, and Scarlett does not bring more cleavage than T2:RoT****ed unless they're exposing them, which wasn't often.

[Sarge 2.0]

Good lord. You're all on this "plant" stuff? AICN, Latino Review, Chud and IGN are run by hardcore "fanboys". They're not your typical film critics, and have never been.



Uh...ok. Did I say they weren't?



So your point is that...they are professionals, and they've, as such, probably seen more movies than I have.

I see.

But this was not my point. I aem certain there are people who know more about film than I do, simply by virtue of having seen more, studied it, etc. I have never denied this, and it would be silly to do so.

But this is reflected in the dozens and dozens of general critics reviews how?

The reviews I'm reading give me no reason to believe the majority of these professional critics and bloggers have a "higher" sensibility of film based on THEIR OWN WORK. It leads me to believe they know how to use to a thesauraus, and to come up with lame "Joe" puns. I'v eknown a LOT of people who have seen films, and studied film, and studied writing, and guess what? I know people who haven't who can nontheless assess films and write circles around the people who are supposed to be experts on the subject matter.

See, a person can tell me that they studied at Julliard, and that they've been on Broadway, but until I see a decent performance from them, that means next to nothing to me in terms of their actual talent and ability.

Now then. Since you think I might learn something from one of the film critic masters...let's take a look at Ebert's review, shall we?



I'm sorry...Ripcord says "Black stuff?"

Am I reading that correctly?

So now Ebert, who has probably seen oh, hundreds of movies with a comic relief character, has a problem with comic relief characters?



More of "the source material is silly".

Except...what's that? He LOGICALLY assesses the nature of the ice that doesn't sink?

Is...is that an assessment of film?

Oh. No. Darn.



This would tend to make him an idiot. It's pretty clear what is going on during the movie, and where things are.



Except that in fact, the movie has MORE cleavage than ROTF did, as it has Scarlett, The Baroness, and if we're counting, Cover Girl. So he can't even get THAT snide comment right.



What the hell is he talking about? We see the pyramids very clearly. Oh, he's making a TRANSFORMERS reference, because he apparently cannot separate the two movies.

Hmm. No amazing assessment of film, or assessment of this movie in that context, actually. He did try to be sarcastic, and I suppose in a backwards way one could assume what his issues with the film were, but...no. Sorry. This is nothing approaching a "good" review. It's lazy, and I would certainly expect better from Roger Ebert, who I usually rather like.

What lesson was I supposed to learn from this particular review? Is it "GI JOE as a basic concept is stupid"?Haha, what a ridiculous attempt at parsing his review. His review isn't on the same level as his reviews of masterworks like "Nashville", "Synecdoche, New York", "Cries and Whispers", or films like that because GI Joe is apparently so mundane and hackneyed that he need not devote much thought except to point out all the things that are glaringly, obviously wrong with the film. There are films out there that are most likely worse than GI Joe, and he has gone at length to explain why those especially bad films are especially bad. But GI Joe is apparently so paint by numbers that it's bad in precisely the same ways as many movies of its ilk to come before it. And if you read his reviews of those movies you'll find that they're pretty much the same. Because those movies are bad in the same ways and for mostly the same reasons as GI Joe. If his review is like many of his pans of summer blockbusters of the past it's simply because GI Joe is pretty much the same as many of the crappy summer blockbusters of the past.

[The Guard]

I've clearly been speaking of GI JOE reviews. I already said I generally liked Roger Ebert. I'm not implying that all of his reviews suck. I'm pointing out that this one does.

Anyone else think my assessment of Ebert's review was ridiculous or unfair?

Heh. "Black stuff".

Here's the problem with your assessment of his review, Sarge. The things he points out that are glaringly, obviously wrong, are either:

-The source material, so he must just hate GI JOE in general.

-Not actually wrong, and he is basically just mistaken about them.

Having Cover Girl, Baroness, and Scarlett does not bring more cleavage than T2:RoT****ed unless they're exposing them, which wasn't often.

I'm pretty sure that, shot for shot, there is indeed more cleavage in GI JOE than there is in ROTF. Plus, Scarlett has noticeably bigger breasts than Megan Fox does, so yeah...I think there's more cleavage in general.

[Red Mask]

Fortunately, that eye-candy wasn't as flashy or as obvious as in T2:RoT****ed.

[Timstuff]

I know that Ebert is considered one of the all time great movie critics, but the guy is getting friggin' old. Looking at how many glaring mistakes there were in his review, I kind of question why so many people still base their movie watching habits around the words of a guy who could well be in the early stages of dementia.

[Red Mask]

I do understand the ADD joke. There are so many characters to juggle and they aren't as disposable as space robots.