Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
E-mail Michael  |  On Facebook: Comic Riffs  |  On Twitter: Comic Riffs  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 2:35 PM ET, 08/10/2009

The Riff: Why 'G.I. Joe' Could Be a 'Game'-Changer

By Michael Cavna

:


Paramount refused to screen "G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra" for most mainstream movie critics and now I have a pretty good idea why. "G.I. Joe" is not a movie.

Oh, "G.I. Joe" has all the recognizable traditional markings of a movie -- from "actors" (Dennis Quaid is one of the few who's given enough hammy dialogue to chew a little scenery, deliciously so) to nods to "character development" and backstory -- but really, that is only camouflage. The "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise may consist of good to great movies based on a ride, but "Joe" (a comic based on a toy) IS a ride. The breakneck movie is more enjoyable if you stop thinking of it as a movie (we can only pretend to care about even a single character here) and appreciate it for what it is: a $175 million visual videogame (sans joystick).

Perhaps like no movie since "Tron" (the '80s film that will be revisited on big screens next year) has a major film felt like such a videogame ride -- yet the great Jeff Bridges still was given time to emote in "Tron." "G.I. Joe" has minor elements of "Star Wars" and a few scenes are "Top Gun"-on-steroids, but mostly, the onslaught is like one gaming field after another that makes "Terminator" seems like Merchant/Ivory. It's devoid of emotion, and as one character says early on, illuminating her worldview: We're not dealing in emotions here. And that's perfectly fine as empty popcorn entertainment -- because that's exactly what it aspires to be.

Obviously, the masses don't require depth if the hyperspeed ride is cool enough -- for the opening weekend at least. Worldwide box office exceeded $100 million, and "Joe" grossed more than $55 million in North America. Call it a case of "Wii, the People."

On the heels of "Transformers" -- which received such scathing early reviews -- maybe this summer eventually will prove to be a game-changer. This is the season that a few studios may show that the need for character development in a successful sci-fi actioner is at all-time low. A breakneck pace and tsunamis of visual CGI are apparently their own near-indestructible material if expertly deployed -- and what's different is that these films now seriously threaten the box office records of a Spidey, Darth Vader or a Dark Knight, let alone a lethal iceberg (all films or franchises that made character development a compelling element). We've blasted through a new threshhold, and one of the next big tests will be Roland Emmerich's "2012," which in 20 minutes of footage screened at San Diego Comic-Con appeared to be a nonstop CGI-gasm of apolcalyptic effects -- but the overall effect bordered on campy.

For now: "G.I.," we hardly know ye, and yet -- like much of our social networking and cable news -- we seem to prefer it that way. Motto: Keep movin' -- there's only something to see here.

By Michael Cavna  | August 10, 2009; 2:35 PM ET
Categories:  Superheroes, The Riffs  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Dick Cheney' Orders a Hit on Michael Vick: Why YOU Won't See It
Next: Geek Buzz: Spidey's Broadway Bucks & Spielberg's 'Halo' Hopes

Comments

One of the oddities of American society is that even moronic things are viewed as "good", as long as they make boatloads of money. However, measuring the quality of a movie by the amount of money it can rake in is still a stupid idea, because inflation keeps warping the playing field upward. Even the trashiest Hollywood rejects will gross more today than the Oscar winners of a generation ago.

A more sensible (but alas unverifiable) method would be to count the number of PEOPLE who go to see the movie.

Posted by: kilby | August 10, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how this thing can essentially be a video game, when the audience cannot participate or affect what happens on-screen in any meaningful way. As for why it resembles a Wii game as opposed to something on any other system (I would hope its visuals would be more akin to one of the high-power platforms), I'm even more in the dark.
As it stands, a vapid special-effects shooter made a buttload at the box office despite critical disdain, which sounds more like business as usual than a game-changer.

Posted by: nakedfoul | August 10, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company