A Ranty Review

So, I finally broke down and watched the live action G.I. Joe and since seeing it I have been talking every one's ears off about how terrible this movies is. I figured I'd better write these things down here before I lose any friends or family members over my incessant nit picking of this movie. Now, It's true that I still enjoy the
80s cartoon, but I hardly call myself a die hard fan. I don't own any G.I.Joes and I've only read a handful of their comics... Still this movie was terrible and before you read ahead (just in case you haven't seen this terrible terrible movie). This review (rant) is chocked full of spoilers.

After watching I really believed that this was written as a futuristic military movie and during the second draft on of the producers thought that they could change a few names in the script slap the name G.I.Joe on it and they could collect more money and get it made easier. Watching this movie I could not find any choice the director made as being passable yet alone the correct choice. First there's the lame explanation of G.I.Joe that goes along with Duke and Ripcord's recruitment. this was so lame, I really wish more directors would get the advice Mike Baron gave me when I should him my comic book ideas. Show Don't Tell!!! They spent way to much time explain the concept of G.I. Joe when they could have saved so much time just dropping you in a la Star Wars and letting you discover this world as the plot unfolds rather than just using every military movie cliche to over explain everything. Next there's "The Baroness" whose so lame the cartoon version would pimp slap the taste out of her mouth if the two ever met.

This movie feels like the writers did absolutely zero research while making this movie. Zero. Probably the least offense is making Ripcord black. The flashbacks of Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow I felt were better than the actual movie. The film makers completely ruined The Baroness, turning her for a hard as nails femme fatale who is ruthless and will betray anyone friend or foe to accomplish her goals. Into a weak brainwashed damsel in distress. Whom is rescued by her former boyfriend Duke. It's really sad that the cartoon is more brutal and has stronger characters in both the protagonists and antagonist than the movie. Seriously, the actually toned down The Baroness, Snake Eyes and Destro's origins. WTF! I repeat the toned down their origins.

Actually, compared to the 1987 movie, they toned down just about everything in this version. Now, I don't want to be one of those folks who trashes something without giving ways they could have made this a decent movie. Sadly, I feel if they would have done any of these and kept everything else the same this movie would be a keeper rather than I punishment not permitted by the Geneva Convention.

First, they could have had more Joes in the background, hell in the workout scene alone they could have had 8 or 10 non speaking extras that could be identified in some form or another. Like having a guy on the treadmill next to Scarlett with a large tattoo of the Marines emblem on his chest or a guy in a red football jersey grabbing some weights or a guy wearing a Union Calvary or a Red Socks hat picking up weights. I mean this is supposed to be an ultra elite branch of the military and they only have 5 members and one of them never leaves the office? LAME. They could have had Xamot and Tomax in a meeting with Destro just wearing business suits with Cobra tie pins and I would have been happy.

Another way is if they had not changed Snake Eyes and The Baroness' origins so much making them pansies compared to their animated doppelgangers. Hell, the girls from W.I.T.C.H. could win a tussle with these characters. The director and writer could have learned a lot if they would have approached this project the way J.J. Abrams approached Star Trek and, though I'm not much into Star Trek that movie actually made me rethink my beliefs about Abrams and his talents (or lack there of). This movie also has the problem of stealing its biggest piece of action from Team America and actually doing a worse job at it. Seriously, if you are thinking about finally seeing this movie go watch either G.I.Joe: The Movie (1987) or Team America and you will have a much more entertaining viewing experience. This movie should be used in film school as how not to make a movie and by that I don't mean as an adaption of another work or as reworking of an old franchise I mean a just a general movie. The professor and his students should have the writer(s) and director visit their classes (or attend them to learn what film making actual is) and have the students go over it scene by scene and tell them how off the mark they were in each one. I honestly believe these film makers should personally give back every dollar that this movie made to us poor saps that sat through it.

Star Trek: The OC Generation

So, today I thought I'd sure with my readers my thoughts on the newest Star Trek movie. Now this isn't going to be a full on review, but there will be some spoilers in here. So, if you haven't seen the movie yet. Go and check out the posts I've done making fun of Aquaman. There's quite a few of them, since making fun of Aquaman is pretty much a category here at Monkey Knife Fight. For those of you who have seen the new Star Trek flick or those of you that don't care about spoilers. Let's getting down to business.

One of the major things that bugged me about the film was how Kirk was written. Personally, I thought they made him a bit too angsty (of in my world the only definition of angst James kirk has is as a reason to slap Spock around). I thought the guy who played Kirk was pretty good, though he could have used a bit more swagger. I just think the writers tried a bit too hard to flesh out the character of James T. Kirk. I like the Jim Kirk whose goals in life are to make Wilt Chamberlain look like a dateless wonder and beating up Kilingons (for fun). Honestly, I think all the actors did a bang up job in this movie. My to favorites were the guy who played Dr. McCoy and Simon Pegg. The cat playing Bones had a tough job in order to win me over as I think DeForest Kelley was the coolest of the O.G. cast. Even Shatner looked kind of lame when the episodes focused on McCoy. In short McCoy's been my favorite character since I started watching Trek. Now, I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie or trekker or whatever the new one is, in fact this is the first thing Trek, I've watched in years. But, the guy they got to play Leonard McCoy, I thought was pitch perfect (even if they screwed up the meaning behind his nickname). I think the guy who played him is Karl Urban, I hadn't heard of him before the flick. Though looking him up on imdb it looks like he was in Lord of the Rings (which may be why I hadn't heard of him,lol). As for my favorite actor in the flick, Simon Pegg. I thought he made an awesome Scotty, in fact after this I wouldn't mind if in the next digital remixed episodes they replaced Jimmy Doohan with him (I'm joking of course,but he really did an awesome job). Watching the audience roar with laughter every time he opened his mouth was really something. He did fantastic as a drunk Scotsman who's also a physics genius. Really the only cast member I did think did to well of a job, was Eric Bana as the villain (Nero) and really the only problem I saw in his performance was that he wasn't nearly as ham-fisted as you need to be to be a good Star Trek villain. My only other major critique of the flick was it's length. I'm not very into movies being more than 90 minutes long. the main reason for this rule is that after 90 minutes I start getting impatient for the ending as I don't have a very long attention span (Hey,look, a squirrel) I also liked the whole plot as an explanation for continuity errors thing they did in the movie. I thought it was a clever way of getting around continuity and starting the franchise off from scratch. I don't know if it's a good enough flick to buy or keep. But, I wouldn't mind seeing it again if the opportunity came up. All in all a good way to kill a couple of hours. Before the bars open up.

Nothings shaking but the leaves in the trees

So, not much comic booky things going on, right now and I can't really think of a list to do, I don't even feel like making fun of Aquaman today. You know it's bad when I don't feel like make fun of Aquaman. Anyways, on Saturday, I finally met up with Karl Christian Krumpholz. For those of you not in the know, he was the guy who did the Famous Drunks protraits for Modern Drunkard magizine. I met him at comic fest and I wanted to get a print of the Hank Williams protrait he did, but he didn't have it with him there and I couldn't attend the last day of comic fest. So, we've been send messages back and forth and we finally worked it out and I was able to meet him at 3 Kings and buy the print and it is awesome, Hank Williams was the man.



p.s. I also saw the new Star Trek movie that day. I'll try and write up some of my thoughts on it later this week :)

Where no GL has gone before

I've been reading silver age Green Lantern issues lately and a thought occurred to me. Whether, by design or just coincidence (on the part of Star Trek writers) James Kirk is really similar in design to Hal Jordan. Mostly likely this is just because in the late fifties early sixties this archetype was what writers thought was what a man was supposed to be. Like Kirk Hal had a long string of romantic partners during that time, they both were men of action who depended on aliens (Spock the guardians) to step in when they were acting to emotional. In fact couldn't you see William Shatner circa 1964 playing the perfect Emerald Gladiator in a movie of TV show. I think back then Shatner would have made the perfect Hal Jordan.





Am I right? or am I right?