There's a Reason They Call Them Joes: Retaliation

I am a guilty man. Not Operation Yew Tree guilty but certainly skimming the lines of good taste all the same. I, humble reader, enjoyed G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra. That's right I am an insurgent, a terrorist, a threat to good wholesome cinema and by god I will not apologise. It was fun, it was over the top and probably dumber than a bag of retarded cats, but it tickled that inner child (appropriately) with all it's techno ridiculousness and shiny explosions. It was before Channing Tatum even tried to act or Jason Gordon Levitt became a household name and for that we were gifted with the film equivalent of action crack. Cheap, nasty and oh-so satisfying. So when I heard there was to be a second outing for the Joes I was accordingly quite pleased. The withdrawal had become near terminal.  I almost watched a Van Damme movie.

But after sitting for the 110 minute runtime willing something interesting to happen I can safely say any and all previous excitement has been extinguished. This wasn't a G.I Joe movie and much like the new Star Trek films bears a brand, not a franchise. Gone are the exciting sonic weapons, the exo suits, the Pit and the majority of the original cast.  Instead we're left with a bunch of everyday soldiers who quite frankly have almost nothing of interest going for them. They're a special forces team with regular weapons and regular tactics. Sure we get to see a couple of bullets that can be guided round corners but it's all too grounded, as if the producers desperately wanted to prove that G.I Joe can be taken seriously after being savaged by the critics. But that doesn't work because, lets face it, G.I Joe is dumb. It's based on a toy line and really right there is enough said. Battleship and theTransformers franchise are two of the worst creations not only in cinema, but the history of language, art, literature, theatre and any other definable entertainment medium. And why dear reader do I not throw The Rise of Cobra on the bonfire as well? Because it had the common decency to do exactly what it said on the tin and not bullshit the viewer that we were watching a serious, dramatic action film. It was clear we were in it for the laughs, the lights and the explosions. Retaliation violated this sacred accord.

It suffered the Call of Duty effect. It came to believe that action was best expressed by contemporary militaries doing contemporary things with a hyperbolic story line thrown in to convince us fun was afoot. In CoD 3 the Russians invade America. In Retaliation Cobra seizes control of the US government by supplanting the president with an impostor. It sends the entire focus of the film into a tail dive, for on the one hand a terrorist organisation led by a toaster faced baddy has used high tech nannite equipment to replace the most powerful man on earth, but at the same time a couple of Green Berets led by the Rock are going to save the day? Talk about a juxtaposition. Now even if you can buy into this massive discrepancy and think maybe it'll have lots of cool explosions and set piece battles, you'd be wrong. Dead wrong. WMD wrong. For an "action" movie there is surprisingly little actioning going on, with the entire middle of the film meandering around the shocking revelation that the president isn't the president and how super evil Cobra is. There's also a plot focussed on Storm Shadow (a Cobra agent who was tricked into diabolical world machinations) but this hardly qualifies as Sherlock Holmes. If anything it's insultingly obvious. Even the 13 year olds in the audience could figure it out.

So having torn the film a new one maybe you're thinking this is the part when I say, "But at least it stars Bruce Willis." Surely any action film is immediately improved by none other than John Motherfucking McClane, hero of bald men everywhere and had he actually starred I might be saying that. He has about 20 minutes screen time, period. Far, far less than the trailer would lead us to believe and you come out feeling more than a little cheated. He was one of the main reasons I wanted to see the damned film, even mitigating my concern at the new, super real look with good old fashioned star power. Instead he appears briefly midway through the movie, buggers off and comes back for the under whelming showdown. Playing ex General Joe Colton he's supposed to be the creator of the G.I Joes, but we never get any exposition or an explanation of any kind. We really are supposed to just be impressed that Bruce Willis is Joe, a revelation which means nothing without any context. I would have killed to have General Hawk come riding in, declare the whole thing retconned and get back to fighting bad guys with Eiffel Tower eating missiles.

Hawk:  "That's right kids, it was all a horrible Cobra trick to convince you the studio are dumbasses."

Retaliation failed because it wanted to be something it wasn't. It wanted to be serious, a film that the critics wouldn't laugh at, a new and more respectable kind of G.I Joe. Whoever decided that whether it be Jon M. Chu, the writers or some suit they deserve pistol whipping. Preferably with one of those big Cobra rifles from the first film. You ruined a ridiculous premise with a need for vindication. You traded science fiction for the Rock. You destroyed your franchise not by making a commercial flop but by making a totally forgettable movie that while possibly spawning a third has no personality, no sense of fun. Retaliation deserves to be consigned to ignominy as a warning to every other studio out there that some films don't need a sequel, even if you're desperate to turn a buck. Rather that you should call a Channing Tatum movie a Channing Tatum movie and move on. Leaving those who despised the first to their fist shaking and we happy few who loved it to our drooling and much fuller wallets.

A Comparative Assessment of an Unfunny Story

Book to film conversions. Some are certainly more successful than others and I don't mean financially. The Harry Potter series for instance generally languishes in the so-so department while stories such as Eragon are damn near villainous in their portrayal. A bad script, poor direction and Edward, fucking, Spleers. The guy was obviously chosen as a pretty face, not for his abilities. Now, when dealing with sensitive topics such as mental illness I cannot say one medium is superior over another, however in this case a clear distinction exists. It's Kind of a Funny Story is a tale centring on Craig, a teenager for whom the rigours of life have finally become too much, and he ends up on a 30 day psychiatric hold in Six North.  Let's say it's a quirky place for quirky people. In the book his personality, his dreams and the failings of his psyche are developed with keen interest. They help us to understand that Craig's life is not the sole reason behind his unhappiness, alluding to the chemical issues at work in ones brain while depressed. And this is a book aimed at teenagers. It educates as well as aids in both understanding and dealing with depression, and quite frankly, the film fails miserably.

DVD Cover: It's Kind of a Funny Story

Keir Gilchrist, our resident Craig is problematic to begin with, but we'll get to him. No, the central issue with the movie is the way in which it pulls away from depression being an illness and rather a single manifestation of Craig's oh-so difficult life. I would like to say here that I am in no way saying that problems within ones life cannot lead to depression, but rather this departure from the book is unforgivable. While in the novel Craig's family is supportive and entirely dedicated to his getting better, the film gives us a dysfunctional and emotionally distant unit, possessing an overbearing dad and a useless mother, acted by the poorly used Lauren Graham. It seems like the directors, Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck were desperate to show that his depression was firmly rooted in reality, as heaven forbid, we don't want people to think it's an actual illness anyone could get. That could cause a panic.

 I'm sad and stuff.  (Sigh) Depression is hard. 
The entire escapade is further damaged by the directors irritating take on Craig as a character. You see, in the novel Craig isn't cutting his wrists and weeping to some two bit love ballad, he's more subtly askew. It makes him easier to relate to and strikes a decent balance between the unavoidable darker sides and moments of humorous levity. Sure he throws up and can't keep his food down, however this is tempered by Craig's amusing observations and peculiar world. The directors in their haste seem to lose sight of this nuance, making Craig into a rather insufferable little sod in the process. A poster child for electro shock therapy if ever there was one, he comes across as moody, shallow and downright dull. I understand that the film was supposed to be up lifting, but it would have been also rather nice had Craig exhibited any of the other symptoms common with depression. Other than his obligatory throwing up we are given no real indicators that he is unhappy, apart from being an arse throughout the movie. This is of course then compounded by declaring his love for his best friends ex girlfriend as to sleep with her, while also standing in front of the girl who was supposed to be his love interest. And said love interest hooks up with him anyway. Interesting the way in which Boden and Fleck took the moment of the book designed to inspire and fill teenagers with a sense of all will come right, and instead made Craig appear to be a Herculean, cheating scum bag.

                                                                                    Zach Galifianakis says what?                 
The supporting cast just doesn't seem to exist, comprising a series of peculiar characters who are never developed. Even Bobby, the head patient as it were, played by Zach Galifianakis feels more like a peripheral character, his problems boiled down to a difficult relationship with his child. It's far from the rich and plain quirky characters in play in the book, if anything they seem like cut outs of Ned Vizzini's creations, placed their to help us all bask in the greatness of Craig's tragic life.

                            
 Now, considering that this article is veering heavily in the direction of a rant, I shall conclude my slightly comparative musings with a final nod to a fine book and a terrible film. If I could describe it as anything, I would say it's flat, dreary and wholly misses the point of the story by languishing with Craig, and only Craig. A boy so uninteresting he made me pine for Charlie, the over the top creation from The Perks of Being a Wallflower. If you've read my review of that particular work, you'll know of the hefty disdain I feel for young Charlie, but this pales into insignificance in comparison to It's Kind of a Funny Story, the movie.