What Finn Should Have Been

Soldier

1998

D: Paul W. S. Anderson

**********

 

 

       With the dominant trend of enforced mediocrity resulting in things like the Star Wars sequel trilogy, it’s become commonplace to reevaluate disreputable movies from the past.  Some might say that this is from nostalgia and the soft bigotry of low expectations, but it’s definitely valid to question a critical consensus that has proven itself unreliable.  Soldier is a movie I disliked when I first saw it years ago, partially due to its flawed director, but I found it much better after a recent viewing.

       I once found it moderately annoying that this movie was supposed to be a spin-off of Blade Runner, but now I believe it to be a creative addition to the franchise, even if it might not be “canon.”  In fact, I believe it does for more justice than Blade Runner 2049, which, enjoyable as it was, seemed bit too much like a rehash that sullied the excellent finale of the Blade Runner Director’s Cut.  While BR2049 boasts vastly superior cinematic technique, Soldier works as part of the universe while still being a distinct story.  It is slightly cheesy in comparison, but it has an old-school charm and many of the stylizations are quite nice, which is possibly because of help from cinematographer David Tattersall.  The action is decent, and nothing in it is annoyingly tacky in a way that detracts from the experience.  It does have the occasional moment of surprisingly unobtrusive CGI and some pretty good miniature effects.  It has good production design with some a few edgy designs for the vehicles, but it’s not completely perfect: I’ve never understood, for example, how 80’s/90’s sci-fi directors got the impression that the Franchi LF-57 looked “futuristic” when it actually looks like the 50’s submachine gun that it is.

        The movie’s introduction involves the automatic induction of orphaned infants into a special military training program in 1996.  They are desensitized to death and executed for failure to perform and comply in a brutal regimen akin to the one I assume Moe’s put its employees through to ensure that they reliably say “Welcome to Moe’s” when you enter the restaurant.  They come out of the training with no apparent emotion and are willing to execute any civilian if it is efficient.  The protagonist, a soldier named “Todd” 3465 (Kurt Russell) later admits that he still feels the fear that the indoctrination is based on; he grapples for any other emotion to counter it and the only thing he could come up with is “discipline.”

         The plot begins when Todd and his comrades are replaced by an improved batch of soldiers that are heavily implied to be replicants.  These newcomers prove to be physically superior to Todd’s batch in virtually every way, and, when defeated by one of the replicants named Caine (Jason Scott Lee), Todd is dumped onto junk planet Arcadia 234, where he is adopted by a small community of struggling exiles.  The movie does a good of showing his character grappling with newfound emotions that are being validated for the first time as he struggles to fit into the community.  He remains awkwardly stoic and borderline mute, but he develops loyalty for the people and is protective of a mute child (Jared & Tayler Thorne).  There is some skepticism from the group, but he is backed up by Mace (Sean Pertwee).  He is momentarily exiled due to a misunderstanding, but he returns to help when the director of the soldier programs, Col. Mekum (Jason Isaacs) selects the colony for a purge.  Todd uses his experience and cunning to believably fight the replicant soldiers, and acquires help from his old unit, who have been reduced to menial roles.  Eventually he succeeds in escaping the planet with the colonists and his comrades as the villains are left behind with an armed nuke.  It’s a fresh twist on the outside-rescues-village archetype.  

           The cast is strong.  Kurt Russell, always charismatic, shows further versatility by nailing the role of a stoic character who’s trying to grasp newfound emotions; his normally blank expression still betrays the suppressed terror that motivates him, and his body language is abrupt and efficient the few times he does move. Unlike Finn from The Force Awakens, he actually acts like someone who has been trained since early childhood to be a remorseless killing machine.  Jason Isaacs is memorably slimy as the villain, and Gary Busey, despite being part of a malicious soldier program, comes off as strangely grandfatherly in a corrupted way.  The solid cast includes Connie Nielsen (as Sandra), Jesse D. Goins, K.K. Dodds, and Michael Chiklis.

           The movie is well-executed, fun, and stylish.  In an example of one’s favorite thing’s not necessarily being the best thing, I find myself listing a Paul W.S. Anderson movie as my favorite from a year that gave us true classics like The Big Lebowski, Saving Private Ryan, Dark City, Mulan, and Prince of Egypt.  It goes to show that sometimes it’s good to rethink your priors. 

MEMORABLE QUOTES 

 

SANDRA: Sgt. Todd…what’s it like?  What’s it like being a soldier?  What do you think about?

TODD: …

SANDRA: You must think about something.

TODD: …

SANDRA: What about feelings, then?

TODD: …

SANDRA: You must feel something.

TODD: …

[Sandra begins to leave]

TODD: Fear.

SANDRA: Fear?

TODD: Fear and…discipline.

SANDRA: Now?

TODD: Always. 

 

[Todd is prepping for battle]

SANDRA: How do you know they’ll be back?

TODD: Because they’re soldiers, Sir.  Like me.

SANDRA:  Why are they doing this?

TODD: They’re obeying orders, Sir.  It’s their duty.

SANDRA: Do you know how many there will be?

TODD: Seventeen more, Sir.

SANDRA: Oh my G-d, you can’t fight seventeen more on your own, you have to organize us.  We’re not cowards, we’ll do as you tell us.  We’ll fight.

TODD: No.

SANDRA: Why not?

TODD: Soldiers deserve soldiers, Sir.

SANDRA: But one soldier against seventeen…What are you going to do?

TODD: [stops and looks at her] I’m going to kill them all, sir.            

        

 

Oo-De-Lally

Robin Hood

1973

D: Wolfgang Reitherman

**********

Pros: Story, Voice Case, Most of the Animation

Cons: Some Recycled Animations, Some Overly Goofy Moments

 

 

        Robin Hood is one of my biggest nostalgic Disney films, and it’s also a great testament to the cultural power and influence that the company possesses.  There was talk about adapting the legendary Reynard the Fox, a character of great mystique since at least the Middle Ages.  However, since Reynard was too ambiguous a character for Disney’s wholesome image, they eventually hit upon the idea to turn Robin Hood into a fox.  The narrator, Alan-a-Dale (Roger Miller), is possibly depicted as a Rooster as a reference to Chanticleer.  As a result, Reynard never got a 20^th Century revival in mainstream, and this 1973 movie remains the definitive version of Robin Hood to many people.  In fact, to this day I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the idea that Robin Hood is anything other than an anthropomorphic fox.

        The story is a straight-forward telling of the legend, with Prince John (Peter Ustinov, an effeminate, maneless lion) taxing the poor of Nottingham with Robin Hood’s (Brian Bedford) thwarting him.  Robin’s lifelong friend and sidekick Little John (Phil Harris, a bear) plays the rational straight-man to our hero’s cunning romantic, which I find preferable to more recent depictions of him as a big idiot.  Apparently, the intelligent version of Little John is the more traditional one, so that’s one more hit for the Disney version.  The Prince is aided by the lupine Sheriff of Nottingham (Pat Buttram), who is a bit too fat and comical for the role, despite Buttram’s memorable voice.  

        A particularly intriguing character is Sir Hiss (Terry-Thomas, complete with his distinctive tooth gap).  In addition to being a typically cute cartoon snake, he’s also the least naturally malicious of the villains; he mostly goes along Prince John’s plans out of cowardice/ sycophancy despite his occasional amusing, constructive nagging of Prince John for his stupidity.  He’s clearly the most intelligent of the bunch, seeing through the good guys’ tricks while getting no regard for it.  Almost as if to underscore his banal villainy, he doesn’t have a mean bone in his body: he’s horrified at the Prince’s decision to execute Friar Tuck (Andy Devine) and is overjoyed to see Robin Hood survive the movie’s very suspenseful and effectively thrilling climax.  At the end he seems fully acceptant of his just punishment.

        Maid Marian (Monica Evans) is also a notable character.  Beautiful yet modest, she displays kindness toward the peasant children and is a loving fiancée for Robin.  She displays bravery by pleading with John for Robin’s life and defecting to Sherwood Forest without being an obligatory modern action girl.  Still, she’s a bit more open to love than real-life potential tradwifes from what I hear.  Then again, she didn’t have a diet of chick-flicks to teach her whatever vague rules women judge men by.  Her lady-in-waiting the amusingly robust Lady Cluck (Carole Shelley, a hen), provides an effective foil for her.  It strange that one of the most traditional, yet balanced and developed Disney princesses is a furry.

        Overall, the voice cast is very good and appropriate for the roles.  I generally prefer voice actors over celebrities in cartoons, but I admit that the latter ages like wine.  What seems faddish and cheap at the time grows into a nice bonus for dedicated cinephiles.  It especially helps that some of them are character actors with very distinctive voices like Peter Ustinov, Pat Buttram, Andy Levine, and Terry-Thomas.  Ustinov also displays some legitimate VA chameleon skills when he voices King Richard (a maned lion).  Other cast members include George Lindsey and Ken Curtiss as the henchmen Trigger and Nutsy (vultures), John Fiedler and Barbara Luddy as two church-mice, Candy Candido as a crocodilian captain, and J. Pat O’Malley as a bloodhound blacksmith.

        The animation is overall solid.  I know a lot of people complain about the xerography method that dominated this era of Disney, but I think it as a valid and practical innovation.  Unfortunately, it did make it easier for Disney to shamelessly recycle some of its earlier animations from prevous movies and Robin Hood is guilty of its share of that.  That’s really my greatest complaint about the movie; the only other moment of cringe is Lady Cluck’s football rush during the archery tournament battle.  The music is passable and has some memorable moments.

        Because Robin Hood himself is such an effective, admirable, and charismatic hero, everyone wants to adopt him as an ideological mascot.  Left-leaners celebrate how he stole from the rich to give to the poor, while libertarians more cogently point out that he was rebelling against unjust taxation and was a skilled archer who used the skill for very 2^nd Amendment-adjacent reasons.  Still, pretty sure the Trads have the best case considering that he was a Catholic integralist in a movie which had a positive depictions of the Middle Ages.  

        One of the reasons why Robin Hood has stood a test of time (despite Disney’s mild embarrassment of it) is that it’s the most straight adaptation in modern cinema that most of us grew up with, although it doesn't go into the rivalry between the Normans and the Saxons.  Every subsequent adaptation has been somewhat unfaithful and deconstructive.  Even if Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) is much more entertaining movie than people give it credit for, it’s hardly definitive.   Robin Hood is an earnest, fun modern swashbuckler and an unapologetic depiction of traditional heroism, which is why it’s remained with us to this day.  That’s why it’s so refreshing in a sea of deconstruction, and that’s why it’s one of the iconicanthropomorphic stories out there.                    

 

 

         MOVIE PITCH: ROBIN HOOD 2

 

    Despite not trusting modern Disney with anything now (especially Robin Hood), it would be cool to see a traditionally animated sequel to this movie.  Years later, Robin Hood and Marian are married with children, but trouble arises when The Sheriff of Nottingham comes back for revenge.  In this movie, he’s far more intimidating: he’s lost weight and a good bit of sanity from his long time in prison, and he’s out for blood. Reynard the Fox (possibly Will Arnett) could show up as an antagonist who means to manipulate the Sheriff’s vengefulness as a power grab.  

     Robin has to go back and fight, with a tearful separation from Marian.  Marian, not going down the action girl route, remains to tend to the kits while using her position in royalty to handle the political aspects of the conflict (a la Princess Leia in the Legends Universe).  At one point she’s cornered into using some modest combat skills to protect the children.

       There could also be a redemption arc involving Sir Hiss, who’s been spending years in a monastery atoning for his past.  He holds some key information, and the heroes have to learn to trust his perceptiveness (unlike John), and he learns to find his courage.  

        The voice acting could have some challenge with mimicry, but the Sheriff’s voice could be channeled into something creepy while not being off-model.  There could be some well-researched sword-play.    

 

 

 

QUOTES

 

ROBIN HOOD [as a fortune teller]: Your name will go down, down, down in history, of course.

JOHN: Yes, I knew it!  I knew it!  You hear that, Hiss?  Oh, you can’t.  He’s in the basket.

     

HISS: I knew it!  I knew this would happen!  I tried to warn you, but no, no, no, you wouldn’t listen.  You just had to.  Ah, Ah!  Seven years bad-   

[John smashes a mirror over his head]  

HISS: …luck.  That’s what it is.  Besides, you broke your mother’s mirror.

JOHN: Ah! Mommy! [sucks his thumb] I’ve got a dirty thumb. 

 

LITTLE JOHN: You know something, Robin?  You’re taking too many chances.

ROBIN: Chances?  You must be joking!  That was a bit of a lark, Little John.

LITTLE JOHN: Oh yeah?  Take a look at your hat.  That’s not a candle on a cake.  

ROBIN: Hello!  This one almost had my name on it, didn’t it?  They’re getting better you know.  You gotta admit it, they’re getting better.

 

SKIPPY: That old Prince John doesn’t scare me!

TOBY: I’m scared of Prince John, he’s cranky.

 

CLUCK: Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

MARIAN: Or forgetful.

 

[Robin has just burned a pot of food]

ROBIN: Sorry, Johnny.  Guess I was thinking about Marian again.  I can’t help it.  I love her, Johnny.  

LITTLE JOHN: Look, why don’t you stop moonin’ and mopin’ around?  Just, just marty the girl.

ROBIN: Marry her?  You don’t just walk up to a girl, hand her a bouquet, and say, “Hey, remember me?  We were kids together.  Will you marry me?  No, it just isn’t done that way.

LITTLE JOHN: Aw come on, Robbie.  Climb the castle walls.  Sweep her off her feet.  Carry her off in style.

ROBIN: It’s no use, Johnny.  I’ve thought it all out, and…it just wouldn’t work.  Besides, what have I got to offer her?

LITTLE JOHN: Well, for one thing, you can’t cook.  [sniffs at what’s left of the food and sneers]

ROBIN: I’m serious, Johnny She’s a highborn lady of quality.

LITTLE  JOHN:  So she’s got class, so what?

ROBIN HOOD: I’m an outlaw, that’s what.  That’s no life for a lovely lady.  Always on the run.  What kind of future is that?

[Enter Friar Tuck]

FRIAR TUCK: Oh, for heavens sake, son.  You’re no outlaw.  Why someday you’ll be called a great hero.

ROBIN: A hero?  Do you hear that, Johnny?  We’ve just been pardoned.

LITTLE JOHN: That’s a gas, we ain’t even been arrested yet.

 

JOHN: I sentence you to sudden, instant, and even immediate DEATH.

 

HISS: Well, I tried to warn you, but no ,no, no, you wouln’t listen.  Your traps just never work.  And now look what you’ve done to your mother’s castle.

 

 

2023 Movies Ranked

<< 2022    2024 >>

10. Beau is Afraid

D: Ari Aster

**********

9. The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Aaron Horvath, Michael Jelenic

**********

8. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

D: James Gunn

**********

7. Nefarious

D: Chuck Konzelman, Cary Solomon

**********

6. Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Part 1

D: Christopher McQuarrie

**********

5. Suzume

D: Makoto Shinkai

**********

4. The Whale

D: Darren Aronofsky

**********

3. Puss in Boots: The Last Wish

D: Joel Crawford

**********

2. Sound of Freedom

D: Alejandro Monteverde

**********

1. John Wick: Chapter 4

D: Chad Stahelski 

**********

<< 2022    2023 >>

The Even Odd Rule Actually Applies

Star Trek Into Darkness

2013

D: J.J. Abrams

**********

Pros: Villain, Effects, Action, Music

Cons: Some Logical Problems, Forced Fanservice, Rushed Ending

 

 

         Simon Pegg, being a company man, asserted that the Star Trek reboot broke the Even/Odd Rule, but a more absurd lie could hardly be told.  Not only is it untrue of the odd-numbered movies of the original run (whose reputation largely suffered from their not being crowd-pleasers), I believe this rule ironically applies to the reboot movies far more.  I seem to be in the minority, but I thought Star Trek and Star Trek Beyond were unwatchable pieces of garbage while finding Into Darkness pretty fun.

        Much of this is due to Abrams’ own interests and passions.  Abrams admitted that he was always more of a Star Wars fan, which explains his reducing Star Trek to a phoned-in attempt at a Hero’s Journey.  This also explains why The Force Awakens, as bad as it is, was at least watchable.  However, even most non-Trekkers enjoy The Wrath of Khan, which Into Darkness is inspired by.  As such, Abrams was able to muster enough interest to develop characters, even though the very idea was a reflection of his lack of imagination.  At least he mixed up the story a little bit, unlike TFA.

       Perhaps what makes such a big difference between Into Darkness and the other two reboots is the presence of a charismatic, nuanced villain whose motivations actually make sense.   In Star Trek we had a supposedly complex normal person driven mad by the destruction of his home and family, and instead of taking the opportunity of time travel to fix the problem, irrationally blames Vulcan and wants to murder everybody; he is effectively one-dimensional in the context of the movie’s conflict and plot.  In Beyond, the villain blames society for subjecting him to dangers that he consented to as a space explorer and wants to murder everybody; he is effectively one-dimensional in the context of the movie’s conflict and plot.  Both characters are played by actors usually good at playing human beings, but are too restrained by heavy makeup and bad writing to actually act.  

       In contrast John Harrison (later revealed to be Khan Noonien Singh) is played by Benedict Cumberbatch in all his glory.  His performance is stylized a bit to maximize his wonderful baritone, but his performance is still nuanced and charismatic.  In this timeline, he was awakened early by Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), who uses him as a consultant in designing a battleship able to fight the Klingons in a war he was anticipating, using Harrison’s crew as a bargaining chip.  When Harrison escapes, he understandably projects his own savagery onto Marcus, assuming he has murdered his crew in retaliation, and begins a campaign of homicidal revenge.  While clearly villainous and acting on violence, you can feel for him when he utters an effectively simple line that our hero can relate to: “My crew is my family, Kirk (Chris Pine). Is there nothing you would not do for family?”

       This provides an effective foil for Kirk, who must face the reality of making sacrifices for the good of his crew and his ship.  He does so without resorting to the murderous methods his enemy does, his civilized morality's contrasting with the villain's barbaric and tribalistic (but still human) one.

        Unfortunately, Marcus’ reasoning makes little sense.  It’s made clear that Marcus needed Harrison’s “savagery” to design a ship like a warrior.  Why would you need a barbarian to think to put some guns on a ship?  In fact, this also goes against the a subtle theme in the franchise in which the Federation, which values creativity and innovation, ends up making more effective warships than the Klingons.  It’s the same paradox that was reflected in the Spartans vs. the Athenians and the North vs. South Koreans.  Harrison even reinforces the buffoonery by asking Spock (Zachary Quinto) how he can break bone when he cannot even break a rule, oblivious to the entire concept of justifiable violence and extenuating circumstances.  

        Strangely enough, The Wrath of Khan itself preemptively deconstructs this!  For all his intelligence, Khan's lack of experience in space tactics makes it difficult for him to think 3-dimensionally; he ultimately succumbs to Kirk's hard-earned expertise.  Then again, he might just be a match for the reboots relatively green itnerpretation of "Kirk."

        The resultant plot is fun enough.  Kirk and Harrison form an unsteady alliance against the rogue Marcus culminating in a delightfully gruesome death for the admiral.  A better way to make an alternate timeline version of this iconic rivalry is for Harrison to show mercy to Kirk and his crew, demonstrating a sense of gratitude and honor while having an interesting twist: imagine a universe in which these two characters ended up being friends of a sort.  Instead, the villain decides to murder Kirk and Co, which lacks the personal drama of the original timeline. This plays out in the far lazier twist we’ve grown to expect from Abrams: the same thing happens except with Spock and Kirk’s roles reversed.  After the villain’s ship is crashed into the water, (the opening sequence has the Enterprise's hiding in a lake for apparent reason than to cut a misleading trailer in which it seems to reemerge like a phoenix after the crash, much like the trick of showing Finn’s holding a lightsaber at times) and without the sacrifices made in Star Trek III, Kirk is revived using the villain’s blood, which is tested on a tribble, another bit of fanservice for pseudo-Trekkers.  In the end, our villain is harmlessly frozen, a moral victory for a civilization that values mercy and due process.  I like the theme and the intriguing plot, even if it is a reflection of the writer’s being a 9/11 truther.

         Another moment I liked is when Scotty (Simon Pegg) refuses to sign off on cargo that is not properly inspected, which turns out to be part of Marcus’ conspiracy.  He displays integrity by forfeiting his job, but the movie displays its characteristic ignorance of military structure by having him being replaced by an ensign (Anton Yelchin’s Chekov) as CHENG.  Spock and Uhura’s (Zoe Saldana) questionable romance continues, but there is a good line in which Spock explains to her that he purposefully shut down his emotions when he thought he was going to die because he cared so much for his loved ones and did not want to feel grief; sometimes one has to be emotionally distant to care.  

         The movie has great production value that enhances its action and makes it really fun to watch.  People don’t often talk about how important sound design and mixing are to this, and Michael Giacchino’s theme helps as well.  I like the sinister design of the Vengeance, as well as its intimidating buzz, and of course I love the design of the AU Enterprise.  The design falls flat when we see a Klingon ship; I’ve always loved the look of their craft, but this one has the “generic spiky green alien ship” look.  The Klingons themselves are flat, and Uhura tries to appease them with generic mentions of the word “honor.”  While most people complained about a bikini scene involving Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), even more egregious was how the Caitians fell victim to normie thirst. 

        Star Trek Into Darkness, despite its flaws, is a fun, well-paced movie with plenty of twists, and I was invested in the conflict.  The confrontation on Kronos, which could only be interpreted by the Klingons as an act of war, also sets the stage for the subsequent war, which we obviously could not have because that makes too much sense and would be too interesting. 

 

 

Good Friday, 2023

The Passion of the Christ

2004

D: Mel Gibson

**********

 

       Foreshadowing the increasingly anti-Christian attitudes of our society, this movie was a source of controversy for its alleged antisemitism.  While those accusations were apparently vindicated by a drunken rant from Mel Gibson, no honest viewing of the film itself could yield that interpretation unless one were to the think the New Testament itself was antisemetic.  Sadly, accusations of antisemitism are no longer a necessary pretext.  Gibson, after all, has generally done a good job hiding his views when sober, although that may have been a bit forced in one of the Lethal Weapon sequels (Passion also features a villainous Roman soldier contemptuously snarling the word “Jew.”).  In truth, the movie is a well-executed and theologically-accurate depiction of the Crucifixion. 

        To reinforce this controversy, the movie was also dismissed as fetishistic in its ultraviolence, a particularly hypocritical criticism coming from regular consumers of R-Rated movies.  In fact, the movie’s violence is pretty tame compared to that of many horror movies.  I’m usually not one to find gore tastelessly funny, but I will call out one moment I found unintentionally(?) funny: Jesus’ (Jim Caviezel) scourging ends with Abenader’s (Fabio Sator) walking in on it like, “Wtf is wrong with you idiots, you’re not supposed to kill him,” following immediately by the movie's cuting to a high angle shot of Jesus’ lying on the ground with a ridiculous amount of blood everywhere (another accidental chuckle comes from a slightly cartoonish moment in which Simon of Cyrene (Jarreth Merz) disappears over the horizon at the exact moment Mary (Maia Morgenstern) and Co. appear over it).  A nitpick is that Jesus bleeds far more blood in this scene than the human body contains.  Then again this could be possible because of His divine power, then gain people might have noticed this, then again maybe lack of modern medical science prevented them from doing so.  

        The Scourging scene also contains a good depiction of the Banality of Evil with the Roman Officer who oversees it; the only emotion he displays is annoyance when his absurdly sadistic underlings tease him with their implements of torture.  Indeed, the Romans are depicted as the evilest people in the movie, with the Sanhedrin’s displaying unease at their brutality and eventually remorse when the Temple is split.  One could accuse Gibson of overcompensation.  

        On the flip side of the ideological spectrum, many found this movie to be a spiritual experience of sorts.  As a cradle Catholic, I found this to be a strange reaction; I had always been exposed to images of the Crucifixion, and I simply thought this to be not much more than a relatively well-executed cinematic adaptation of it.  Perhaps this is an indictment of many Protestants’ views toward iconography: much of Reformed Christianity touts the experience of being “saved,” and the ban on images could serve to keep Christ’s sacrifice as an abstraction until such an epiphany happens.  Ironically to took a Catholic’s exploiting a (silly) loophole in that rule to discredit it. 

         Mel Gibson, being the skilled filmmaker he is, added some artistic flourishes to his movie, some refreshingly eccentric, not the least of which is when the intentionally androgenous Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) is holding a weird baby-man to mess with Jesus and Mary during the Scourging.  At one point Judas (Luca Lionello) and the audience are treated to a disturbing jump scare of a demon.  More substantially, he includes many moments that have special Catholic significance, and he deftly combines footage of Jesus' lifting up the Bread during the Last Supper with the lifting of the cross.  Commendably, he chose to have the film’s dialogue spoken in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, although the Latin is ecclesiastical rather than classical (the “ch” sounds for “c” are a dead giveaway).  Fortunately he was made to allow subtitles.  

         The movie does a good job depicting the humanity of Jesus, especially His relationship with Mary.  Jim Caviezel is solid, and the acting overall is good.  Pilate’s (Hristo Shopov) struggle is decently handled, and the redeeming faith of his wife (Claudia Gerini) is fleshed out.  The movie also stars Monical Bellucci as Mary Magdalene and a score of cast members from the based country of Italy.  Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel does a great job with the nighttime scenes in the movie.

 

Down to Earth but Not Really

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

2013

D: Jon M. Chu

**********

Pros: Some improved costume design, Ray Stevenson, Walton Goggins

Cons: Anticlimactic plot, Fridge logic, Bland characters, Blander setting

 

 

       In the wake of the negative reaction to G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, the studio decided to take the time to do damage control on the sequel.  Apparently, half the cast backed out, as well.  Four years later (partially due to a misguided attempt to adapt the movie to 3-D), G.I Joe Retaliation was released under director Jon M. Chu, who had previously been known primarily for directing two Step Up sequels and a Justin Bieber documentary.

       Retaliation begins with a rushed montage of exposition which glosses over the “Nanomite Wars” with MARS as a past event and then without further explanation introduces us to a more mundane setting.  No more sonic weapons reminiscent of COBRA’s blue lasers, no more futuristic uniforms and vehicles, no more nanomites and all the potential intrigue that comes with them: just military fatigues and firearms.  People think this is an improvement over Rise of Cobra for some reason.

       Eschewing camp and genre tropes in favor of a more “mature” mundane setting worked in many movies such as Casino Royale and the Dark Knight trilogy, but there’s the subtle trick involved in this trend in that when you do that you actually have to make the movies good.  If you eliminate all these over-the-top gonzo trappings without replacing them with smarter writing, all you did was just make the franchise less fun.  

        The movie begins optimistically nonetheless.  We establish that Duke (Channing Tatum) and Roadblock (The Rock) are the two head soldiers in charge of G.I. Joe.  After some brief action to demonstrate that they’re badass, the movie takes the time to show the two interacting in their natural environment and establish that they have an amusing natural chemistry (that’s a good thing, E-Rod).  Roadblock ends up filling the role far better than Marlon’ Wayans’ suspiciously absent Ripcord.  Okay, so it seems that we have two likable, fun protagonists to lead our fun popcorn movie to keep it entertaining. 

        Duke is unceremoniously killed during an airstrike ordered by Zartan, the remnant of the last movie’s nanomite lore, who is still disguised as the US President (Jonathan Pryce, with occasional flashes of Arnold Vosloo as Zartan’s true form).  As with the previous movie, this fails to explore the terrible social implications.  Once Zartan is revealed at the end, there is little acknowledgment of the mass paranoia caused by the idea that anyone in government can be replaced with a changeling.  As if the undeserved damage to the real president's career is not enough, Zartan actually brags to the poor guy about banging his wife.  

       The hijacked US government has replaced G.I. Joe, now branded as traitors, with a new elite force called COBRA, ignoring the slight but observable use of such branding by the villains in the previous film.  COBRA operatives sport bland uniforms only half-heartedly based on the classic ones, reflective of the movie’s overall lack of style.  

       Forced to go into hiding, Roadblock, Flint (D.J. Cotrona) and Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) seek help from retired G.I. Joe founder Gen. Joe Colton (Bruce Willis), who for some reason has been ignored by Zartan and Co.  Aside from some slight ship-teasing, Flint and Lady Jaye are as bland as you could possibly imagine.  Unsurprisingly, Bruce Willis sleep-walks through the movie like most of the movie as he has through many such lesser works that have cast him for mere name recognition, and this results in some of the most awkward attempts at comic relief I have ever seen.  Colton’s moderate misogyny butts heads with the mild girlboss motivation that passes for character development from Lady Jaye, but he eventually grows to respect her by the end of the movie, which is adorable. 

       Meanwhile Cobra Commander (Luke Bracey, voiced by Robert Baker), Storm Shadow (Lee Byung-Hun), and Destro are being imprisoned in a secret underground bunker overseen by Warden Nigel James (Walton Goggins).  They are kept in a helpless stasis that seems cruel even for villains such as them.  They are rescued by Firefly (Ray Stevenson).  Presumbably because Christopher Eccleston declined to renew his contract, Destro is left to die in the exploding prison, which is a shame because this is a missed opportunity to atone for how awkwardly miscast he was.  Admittedly there is an interesting character moment in which Cobra Commander takes off the mirror-like mask from his stasis suit, decides he likes it, and puts it back on, inspiring the new design of his new costume. 

       Cobra Commander’s costume is one of the few improvements in the movie.  I’m not so sure about the blended version of the classic visor/helmet design, but he looks cool.  Unfortunately, his voice is a generic low pitch; if they were going to have a dub, they should have gone with Charlie Adler, who does a great Cobra Commander voice.  Snake-Eyes’ (Ray Park) costume was also an improvement, creative but faithful. 

        Unfortunately, he’s a pretty flat character, especially with his former friend Duke’s being killed off; no more personal matters.  He’s also pretty passive: all he does is get busted out of prison by his loyal subordinates and then proceeds to do nothing despite having been cool in the last movie (see also: Solomon Lane in Mission: Impossible – Fallout).  It’s too bad Joseph Gordon-Levitt didn’t reprise his role because he was actually great.  I suppose after Inception, he felt he didn’t have to be in such movies any more.  Haven’t heard much from him in a while, though.   

         Storm-Shadow is injured in the prison breakout and sent to a mountain retreat to heal, only to be captured by Snake-Eyes and Jinx (Elodie Yung).  He presented before the Blind Master (The RZA) in order to answer for his murder of the Hard Master.  Storm-Shadow quickly proves his innocence in a way that could have been done years ago.  Naturally this makes everyone present forgive him for joining a murderous terrorist organization bent on world domination, and he joins the good guys free of charge.  For this reason, I’ve never really bought him as an honorable villain, and I kind of agree with Resolute for having none of that.  

         All the good guys unite in Colson’s house.  In an amusing moment, Storm-Shadow declines a firearm while Snake-Eyes lovingly handles to submachine guns; I unironically like it when the less ambiguous hero is the gun guy.  Colson lends Roadblock a Ripsaw tank in which he gets in a token fight with H.I.S.S. tanks while President Zartan blows up London with a superweapon.  Storm-Shadow kills Zartan (who turns out to be the Hard Master’s true killer), Firefly dies tragically, and Cobra Commander escapes. 

         The movie ends with Duke’s funeral, in which Colson gifts Roadblock with a 1911 (a Boomer downgrade from the Joes’ standard issue Glock 21’s) for killing COBRA Commander.  Roadblock then fires the pistol up in the air with the 21-gun salute which, unless the gun has been temporarily modified to cycle blanks, has sent a few live rounds downrange.  

         G.I. Joe: Retaliation isn’t boring, but it’s not particularly good.  Characterization is lacking, and Roadlbock isn’t even mentioned to be a gourmet chef!.  Loathe am I to admit it, E-Rod was right that Cobra Commander is pointlessly passive while Firefly and the Warden are redeeming features.  Duke’s death is inappropriately subversive for such an unpretentious movie and renders it less entertaining.

         The movie owes more to the comic than the cartoon, which I am more nostalgic for.  The action is a mixed bag; you know the director lacks vision when the movie has both shakycam and Snyderism.  Henry Jackman’s score is a mildly atmospheric improvement.  Retaliation also stars Matt Gerald, Joseph Mazello, and James Carville as himself.