Skip to Content

REVIEWS: MOVIE REVIEWS: “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” (2009)

Republibot 3.0's picture

There’s been a lot of punditry in the last few weeks - in my opinion, utterly pointless punditry, and counterproductive at that - taking umbrage at the idea that the version of G.I. Joe being depicted in this movie is an international force, and not the all-American team they remember from their youths. One of the conservative commentators leading the charge on this (Who shall remain nameless not so much because I don’t want to insult anyone, but because I’ve already forgotten his name, and I’m too lazy to look it up) was decrying the fact that the Joe team in this movie was not the Joe team he remembered from his days as a kid during the Vietnam war. He seemed completely - and rather hilariously - unaware of the Joe’s revival in the 1980s as an anti-terrorist special mission force based around little Star Wars Figure-sized toys, and a very popular cartoon. He’s not the only one I’ve come across who seems to feel the need to reflexively complain about the corruption of our nations’ youth by pop culture figures that he’s clearly never heard of and is too lazy to look up. At a certain point it becomes apparent that some of these people are just complaining for the sake of complaining, or, worse yet, deliberately complaining about non-issues so they can get a little notoriety for themselves, get a soundbite on the news, and get a rep as the new up-and-coming bastion of common sense against all that is evil and unholy out in Hollywoodland.

Oh come on. Seriously, just come on, and think about it objectively for a minute: That’s just stupid. Honestly. It’s not true, and *even if it was,* what does it matter? If the Joe Team were depicted as working for the Chinese Communist Party (Not unlike Al Gore in the ‘02 Election), or if Tinky Winky from the Telletubbies really is gay, who gives a damn? You’re talking about a movie that’s based on a CGI cartoon that’s based on a cartoon that was based on a comic book that was based on a line of toys that was itself based on another line of toys that was ultimately based on the idea that little boys should have some equivalent of Barbie Dolls to play with. As much as I love the 80s GI Joe (And trust me, I have an obsession with it that is of only questionable sanity), I’ll be the first one to admit that it just doesn’t matter. And if you think it does - if you think that this version of G.I.Joe is somehow too politically correct, and will contribute to the depravity and ruin of America’s ‘Tweens and thereby the downfall of our republic, trust me friend, you already have problems far beyond those that a simple movie could cause or cure. It seems odd to me that someone would take it upon themselves to go on broadcast television to decry this movie - which is pro-American and pro-democracy in every way - and yet a film set in a futuristic One-World-Government Maoist Utopia like Star Trek comes and goes without any outcry whatsoever.

This movie is yet another reboot of the ridiculously long-running GI Joe franchise. As such, and as with all reboots including the recent “Trek” movie, most of the major characters are there in some capacity, but they don’t share much, or in some cases any, of the backstory with their previous iterations. This disturbs a lot of people, but, as with the X-Men movies, we’re looking at an incredibly complex fictional history that spans thirty years. One can’t hope to reasonably depict all that on the big screen in two hours, so a lot of compression and conflation and outright simplification is required. In fact, to my surprise, they did a much better job of this than I’d anticipated. In fact, I’d expected this movie to be out-and-out terrible, but to my pleasant surprise, it’s not that bad. I mean, it’s undeniably stupid as hell, but it’s a fun kind of stupid.

I don’t want to give too many spoilers because it is a currently-running movie, and though most fans and neophytes will be able to figure things out pretty quickly, and actually spotting the difference between this version and previous iterations was one of the unexpectedly fun bits. Though the story is never anything but large-scale silliness, it’s no worse than a Roger Moore-era

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
No argument from me

We used to joke that if he'd been on the Challenger, no one would have died, he would have just parachuted out holding the entire crew in his arms somehow...

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
Chuck Yeager

Chuck Yeager to quote Wolf had the right stuff. Brave bold innovative he was one of those people that was born with the hero gene. No mater what century he was born in he was one fated to leave a mark.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Nukes!

No one ever said these sorts of things made sense. Chuck Yeager was a fighter pilot in the days before they imposed the "College Graduate" rule, and I think they did it mostly as an attempt to winnow down the number of aplicants for flight slots in the 50s. Yeager later became a test pilot, the first man to fly faster than sound, and the last General in the US Armed Forces to get a star without having gone to college, and yet he was denied a slot as an Astronaut because...again...no degree.

Crazy, huh?

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Egocentonic Civilians and Noncom Pilots

It all boils down to everyone being the star of their own story. Whatever they are just happens to be the best thing there is to be, and any group that isn't part of their own is obviously inferior. Most Americans tend to look down on members of American subcultures - Southerners, New Englanders, whatever - and it's been shown again and again that people automatically assume anyone with an accent (Aside from english) is kind of dumb. (Sorry, Southerners. I'm not saying you *are* dumb, I'm just saying that some dumb people in Illinois *think* you sound dumb). The Military is a very distinct subculture, with other subcultures contained within it, and since *most* Americans have little or no experience with it, it is 'different' and therefore 'bad.' The fact that about half the people in the armed forces are Southern probably doesn't help matters either.

As to GI Joe, yeah, in all the forces, fixed wing pilots have to be officers, however the Army consistently uses Noncoms and Warrant Officers as copter pilots, and the USAF is now using enlisted men to pilot ROVs, though since the pilot is never in the air, it really doesn't count. However unrealistic it may be, though, most of the GI Joe personell were noncoms, and even most of the pilots were, too. I think it might just have been an attempt to appeal to a more blue collar audience, and keep it as non-Trek as possible.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
True

true that to fly fixed wing aircraft in the US military you have to be a commissioned officer, you can be a warrant office to fly a chopper. But I all ways found this a little funny since when I was a 19 year old enlisted man I stood watch on a naval nuclear reactor that cost more than any aircraft at the time.

wolf
wolf's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/16/2009
Weird civilian thought processes

I'd make an argument for that by saying that most civilians tend to think of themselves as on par with officers versus enlisted men. I remember reading Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice" and he mentions that. For some reason or another many civilians have this self important view of themselves which translates to the fact that they think of themselves as "better" than the enlisted men and women. And since the movie is geared to a wider audience (which includes adults) they make the characters officers to allow us to relate to them better.

As for the fighter pilots, it was my understanding that pilots tended to be like doctors in the military. You kind of had to be an officer in order to be responsible for that multi-million dollar piece of equipment or someone's life.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
One strange difference....

...between the cartoons/comics and this movie was that virtually all the Joe team were officers in the movie (Excepting Ripcord, who's a master sargent), and virtually everyone in the cartoon/comics were enlisted specialists. Not that rank came up very often in the cartoon, but General Hawk, Lt. Falcon, and the admiral in charge of the Flagg seemed to generally be the only officers around. I think one or two of the fighter pilots were too - slipstream, for instance - but the vast, overwhelming majority of the Joe Team were just grunts and noncoms, you know?

But, yeah, the command structure of the team never made much sense.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

wolf
wolf's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/16/2009
Apparently I'm the young kid on the block

I grew up with the 80's G.I. Joe and remember the cartoon rather well but I have to agree that looking back it's all rather silly. What with red and blue laser beams depending which side you were on and I seem to remember Sgt. Slaughter being in charge of the entire team for a while despite the fact that they had officers available. But to a kid those things either don't matter or make it that much cooler.

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
I was going to say I did not

I was going to say I did not remember it in the 60's. But I did have a Major Matt Mason. I got his moon base and my brother got the crawler with the laser thingie.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
My bad.

Good catch, Church. I misremembered the Intruders as being from the late 60s. Sorry.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Church
Church's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2009
Intruders

Don't forget the seventies 8" version that fought the alien Intruders.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Well of COURSE it's silly!

It's GI Joe. It is, by definition, silly. And I'm sure you're right, absolutely. The pundit I was talking about in the article was clearly unaware of the 80s revival, and had no clue what he was talking about, and pretty clearly he's going on about it for the same reason you cited.

That said, these things change over time. I mean, GI Joe spent most of the late 60s fighting aliens as public opinion turned against the war. The 80s Joes were an anti-terrorist force. The early-90s Joes were an ecological defense team fighting polluters and whatnot. There is no deep moral center to all this, it's not like someone is retelling the gospels to make Jesus out to be a hippie (That would be "Godspell"), or rewriting American History to say that Southerners didn't own slaves, and had the utmost respect for the black people in their employ (That would be "The Patriot"), or anything like that, it is, at root, just a silly toy that has always been adventurous in the safest path of least resistance, socially speaking.

But this kind of thing happens all the time. Batman in the 30s/40s was dark and brooding, batman in the 60s was a gay sitcom, batman in the 80s was allegedly dark and brooding, but was, in retrospect, just an excuse for a lot of elaborate set design. Batman nowadays is dark and brooding again, but the cartoon versions are much lighter than they were in the 90s. Which is the right version? Whichever one fits your own sense of style, really. Likewise, there's no shortage of comic books, and if you're really attached to the 80s cartoon (As I am), then Warren Ellis' recent tv special, "GI Joe: Resolute" is freakin' great.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
The reason

I have not seen the movie so I will not comment on it but I will say something about why people in my age group might react negatively to it. When I was a little kid playing in my back yard with my G I Joe fighting the commies I had older relatives (Uncles, Step Father, even my biological Father) fighting in Vietnam at the time. So to throw in a little pop psychology I would think that for some the Joes where totems for the people they knew at war. So it makes sense that it would upset some that they are shown to be something different than what they are a symbol for to my age group.

It is silly to have an international group named for a slang term for US soldiers.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Status

Bleeding Heart does not have a status.

Latest Status Updates

Ginrummy Ray Harryhausen, Visual Effects Master, Dies Aged 92 2 weeks ago
SheldonCooper Iron Man 3 review will be live first thing in the morning! 2 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long Second, it reminds us to never stop looking to the future and trying to make it better. Everything Trek's ever stood for 3 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long Observing a fictional event like First Contact Day is, first and foremost, just fun. 3 weeks ago
Kevin Long @SheldonCooper: can you comemorate an event before it happens? Or what about celebrating an event that didn't, like September 13th, 1999? 3 weeks ago
SheldonCooper @Kevin Long according to Star Trek, April 5, 2063 will be the day we make FC with the Vulcans. Thus, April 5 is FC day 4 weeks ago
Kevin Long @SheldonCooper: Huh? First contact day? 5 weeks ago