GI Joe Retailiation

MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
Forum Member
I watched this today and it was better than the first film but that isn't saying much.It was so boring and it if you have seen the trailer then you have seen most of the film!

I wasn't expecting much but it was worse than I thought!

Comments

  • ASIFZEDASIFZED Posts: 1,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Saw this today as well. Beg to differ, it was much worse than the first I thought.

    I quite enjoyed all the super powered suits, the lovely ladies in leather (Rachel Nichols, Sienna Miller) and the sheer outrageousness of some of the set pieces in Rise of the Cobra. I actually came out of the cinema and said to my mate, that was a great 'popcorn' movie. 'Retaliation', though littered with action throughout and likeable characters, was pretty dour and lacked the extreme elements that part 1 had.. Yep - this definitely had more of a stripped down approach and more militaristic in its combat scenes. I did of course know Bruce was in it, but would rather he just give up the ghost with these phoned in / near cameo appearances and spent his efforts on giving us a decent Willis flick. Like a good Die Hard film for a start!

    But as far as a Friday night movie goes, there are enough bangs,explosions and a busty Adrianne Palicki to keep punters amused for its just-short of 2 hrs running time. Just wished the battle suits had returned. Oh well, guess we have Pacific Rim to look forward to on that front.

    Rating - 6/10. No need for a part 3, if it's more of the same.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    ASIFZED wrote: »
    'Retaliation', though littered with action throughout and likeable characters, was pretty dour and lacked the extreme elements that part 1 had..

    Before I saw 'Retaliation', I knew from the trailer that London would be wiped out. Surely, that makes it more extreme than the first film.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Saw this today. First one was miles better and not just because of Sienna Miller in the catsuit and Rachel Nichols on that running machine :D

    Just about watchable though - the mountainside set piece probably saved it overall for me.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    last 45mins good

    rest was terrible

    i fell asleep for a while! and rock was so cringy with the american hero stuff
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    ASIFZED wrote: »
    Rating - 6/10. No need for a part 3, if it's more of the same.
    More of the same it may be.

    Variety report a GI 3 in the works as Retaliation opens to a surprising $132m worldwide weekend.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suppose that nowadays, if a film does those numbers, they'll just churn out another one and it won't be radically different either. You just have to look at the Fast and Furious franchise - they rake in the cash so they keep making them.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    I suppose that nowadays, if a film does those numbers, they'll just churn out another one and it won't be radically different either. You just have to look at the Fast and Furious franchise - they rake in the cash so they keep making them.

    I don't really think the Fast & Furious series is a fair comparison, the fifth one was a fairly big departure from the conventions of the previous films in the series (e.g. barely any street racing). I can't stand the first four Fast & Furious films, but i loved the fifth film, one of the best OTT action thrillers of the past 5 years in my opinion.
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,684
    Forum Member
    GI Joe - Retaliation: 3/5

    I rather enjoyed it :):o

    Cheesy but fun action film with The Rock and a
    President stand-in/double plot that seems like a rip off of one of the Naked Guns :P
    - Jonathan Pryce hams it up, I didnt really know the characters but the Storm Shadow character was pretty cool :D :cool: I actually rather enjoyed it, and a busty Adrianne Palicki provides decent eye candy :D
    Loved the mountainside set piece with the parkour and ninjas :cool:
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,729
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This film is standard fare.

    Entertaining & pretty predictable, but not too bad overall.

    PS: Amber Heard is totally gorgeous!! Why does she keep appearing in testosterone fuelled 'blokey' films?
  • 007Fusion007Fusion Posts: 3,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This film is standard fare.

    Entertaining & pretty predictable, but not too bad overall.

    PS: Amber Heard is totally gorgeous!! Why does she keep appearing in testosterone fuelled 'blokey' films?

    She generally doesn't and didn't appear in this film either. You have her mistaken with Adrianne Palicki.
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,729
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    007Fusion wrote: »
    She generally doesn't and didn't appear in this film either. You have her mistaken with Adrianne Palicki.

    D'oh.:o:o:o

    I totally confused her.:o
  • Chris197800Chris197800 Posts: 981
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I enjoyed this film.

    It was what it was, big action sequences and a very good fight scene involving the the two ninjas. As mentioned they went with a more stripped down approach this time rather than the multitude of characters that featured in the first film and I think this formula worked much better allowing more screen-time for the key characters, the plot-line was also more serious unlike the silliness of the first film.

    They must be kicking themselves though for killing off Channing Tatum who has developed into a much bigger box office attraction than he was when the first movie was filmed. I heard a rumour that the release date of this film was delayed so much so they could edit in some extra Tatum footage.
  • Syntax ErrorSyntax Error Posts: 27,729
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I enjoyed this film.

    It was what it was, big action sequences and a very good fight scene involving the the two ninjas. As mentioned they went with a more stripped down approach this time rather than the multitude of characters that featured in the first film and I think this formula worked much better allowing more screen-time for the key characters, the plot-line was also more serious unlike the silliness of the first film.

    They must be kicking themselves though for killing off Channing Tatum who has developed into a much bigger box office attraction than he was when the first movie was filmed. I heard a rumour that the release date of this film was delayed so much so they could edit in some extra Tatum footage.

    That really shocked me.

    Tatum was arguably the joint biggest star in that film, yet he was killed off early.:eek:
Sign In or Register to comment.