Category Archives: Movie Reviews – G

REVIEW: “Grudge Match”

by

37

GRUDGE POSTER

Sylvester Stallone and Robert De Niro have had incredibly successful movie careers. What a shame that they have reached a point to where they would sign on for something as gimmicky and flimsy as “Grudge Match”. The trailer for the film left nothing to be desired. It made the movie look shameless and utterly predictable. Well, after seeing it I can confirm that it hasn’t an ounce of shame and you’ll see everything coming from a mile away. That said, it’s still not as bad as it could have been. But that doesn’t mean it’s good.

Stallone and De Niro have both had big successes with boxing movies – Stallone had “Rocky” and De Niro “Raging Bull”. It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to see this film is clearly milking the whole Rocky Balboa versus Jake LaMotta novelty. Yes these are different characters who have different stories and different personalities. But this is clearly meant to cash in on the two older and superior movies. The big problem is I couldn’t care less about the gimmick.

GRUDGE1

The story is a pretty ridiculous and cliché-riddled. Henry “Razor” Sharp (Stallone) and Billy “The Kid” McDonnen (De Niro) were big time boxers who had a heated rivalry stemming from their two fights where each won one apiece. But right before the decisive rematch Razor retires. Thirty years later Kid is still furious that he was denied his shot at Razor. But as luck would have it a loud mouthed aspiring promoter (Kevin Hart) eventually gets a rematch. It’s first viewed as a big joke but soon, through the power of the cell phone generation, people begin to take notice of this grudge match for the ages (did I really just say that?).

Perhaps the best thing about this film are the performances. Both Sly and Bobby give committed performances even though the material is weak. To be honest I’m not surprised that Stallone would take a part like this, but it’s really sad to see De Niro reserved for such fluff. That aside, each gives all he has to try to make it all work and they are both really good. The problem is you have to wade through endless ‘out of shape’ jokes, over-the-hill gags, and some trumped up drama that is impossible to sell. It has a few funny moments and it is fun watching these two work. But it’s not too much to ask for a smarter and more engaging script.

GRUDGE2

Most of the supporting cast is very good even though they too are hampered by the lackluster material. Alan Arkin is cast as Razor’s crude trainer. Arkin is always good but here is is such a caricature. Kim Basinger also pops up and tries to save a role that is so fabricated and poorly written. We also get Jon Bernthal as a character shoehorned into the story for dramatic effect. He’s actually very good and he’s really proving himself as a better actor with each new role. All of these performances are good despite the narrative obstacles each face. I can’t really say the same for Kevin Hart who seems to be in constant standup comedy mode. Every single scene he’s in features him doing his shtick. Eventually it grew tiresome and annoying.

So how do you summarize “Grudge Match”? It’s a film featuring some good performances, scattered chuckles, and pretty capable direction. But you can dress up the pig all you want and it’s still a pig. When it comes down to it the commitment of the actors and the decent direction can only go so far. At some point you have to have good material and that’s what “Grudge Match” lacks. What we are given is hokey and forgettable comedy that’s not nearly as funny as it wants to be. I was definitely ready to throw in the towel.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Grown Ups 2”

by

15

GROWN UPS POSTERWhy would I subject myself to the torment of watching “Grown Ups 2”? Am I a glutton for punishment? Did I actually think this would be a watchable film? I mean let’s be honest, Adam Sandler hasn’t made a good movie in years and the first “Grown Ups” picture was a laborious exercise in stupidity. So there’s no reason to think this would be a funny and entertaining comedy, right? Or is there? After all it did rake in nearly $250 million at the box office. Oh who am I fooling? “Grown Ups 2” is yet another painfully bad film that I think goes down as one of Sandler’s worst (and that’s saying something).

Where do I begin when a movie is this terrible? How about with the opening scene which clearly tells you what you are in store for. Sandler wakes up one morning to find a huge deer in his bedroom. He scares the deer causing it to urinate all over his face. This sequence is out of the blue, amateurish, and embarrassingly unfunny. Actually that’s a good way to describe this entire movie. I know Sandler has a following and many people subscribe to this brand of humor, but I would rather have my eyeballs dug out with an ice cream scoop than to sit through this torture again.

There are so many egregious problems with this movie. Let’s start with the biggest issue – it’s not the slightest bit funny. I may be wrong but the object of most comedies is to make the audience laugh. If that is a key measurement of success “Grown Ups 2” fails miserably. I sat stone-faced through the majority of the film’s 100 minutes only slightly grinning on a couple of occasions. The humor is ostensibly juvenile and astoundingly idiotic. Sandler and his co-writing compadres seem to have no idea on how to conceive or setup a gag. Instead they wallow in cheap, lazy, and overused nonsense that have become signatures of Adam Sandler movies. For example take Sandler’s infatuation with toilet humor. We get farting, urinating, projectile vomiting, picking and eating from a belly button. All of this lowbrow garbage that serves as a substitute for actual good writing.

GRown Ups

Another glaring flaw is the complete and utter lack of a plot. I’m still stunned at the absence of any cohesive and coherent story. It’s kind of like a series of poorly conceived comedy sketches pasted together to form a storyline. The problem is nothing ever happens. It’s as if Sandler is more interested in creating a playground for him and his buddies. He tosses in several weird and awkward cameos and small roles from the likes of Shaquille O’Neal, Adam Samberg, Steve Buscemi, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Taylor Lautner, Dan Patrick, and several more. Perhaps the filmmakers thought that drowning us in these appearances would divert our attention away from the absence of a decent narrative. It didn’t work.

I suppose Sandler, David Spade, Chris Rock, and Kevin James were trying to make another movie about childhood buddies and their middle-aged lives. Yet it’s interesting that these characters have become more childish and imbecilic in the three years since the first film. But I don’t think anyone involved really cares. There’s no sense of shame whatsoever. With an $80 million budget, this was clearly a cash-in for the whole bunch.

Remember I described the first scene of the movie? Well the final scene features a man passing gas on his wife. Do you get the gist of what “Grown Ups 2” is all about? This film incited more facepalms and head-shakes than laughs and the script feels like something Sandler could have scribbled on the palm of his hand. There isn’t an ounce of creativity, originality, or intelligence and if they weren’t making millions of dollars I would be embarrassed for everyone involved. Instead they are laughing all the way to the bank, and I promise you they were laughing a lot more than I was.

VERDICT – 0.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Gravity”

by

48

Gravity Poster

“Gravity” had an interesting ad campaign leading to its release. The trailers and TV spots practically told us nothing about the story. Astronauts are in space. A terrible accident occurs. That’s it. Yet there was something so attractive and intriguing about what we are shown. Throw in two top Hollywood A-listers (George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) and an intriguing director and “Gravity” quickly became one of my more anticipated films.

Mexican filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron co-wrote, co-produced, and directed this film which could best be described as a space drama/thriller/survival tale soaked in intensity and pure visual splendor. Cuaron has a solid track record and critics have already heaped a ton of praise on him for “Gravity”. But in my experience enthusiasm from critics doesn’t always point to a great film. So my one big concern remained as I walked in for my Rave Xtreme Screen viewing of “Gravity”. Would it be a gorgeous spectacle filled with stunning eye candy but nothing else to really chew on?

Gravity 1

First off there’s definitely more to “Gravity” that snazzy visuals. In fact, one of the film’s strengths is its ability to not only define its characters but to develop a strong and ultimately moving deeper meaning all within its limited space and with its limited dialogue. Much of this is a direct result of the ingenious writing from Cuaron and his son/co-writer Jonas. Their script is smart and strategic giving us morsels of information that over time paint a satisfying picture of who these characters are.

Even more compelling are the numerous themes which “Gravity” touches on. From being a testament to the resiliency of the human spirit to what I found to be a deeper and more personal spiritual meaning, “Gravity” is one of those rare gems that can touch people in a variety of different ways. The Cuarons clearly have this in mind but their execution of it all is nearly flawless. And while the visuals often take center stage, they are simply there to emphasize these greater points.

But perhaps the most affecting theme involves the clever imagery and references to infancy. The first I noticed involved a character floating in a zero gravity fetal position similar to a baby in a mother’s womb. At first I thought it was a slick homage but then I noticed other things. There are several childlike reactions and one particular scene where the same character, in a state of despair, talks in very childlike terms about never being shown how to pray. The infancy metaphor is wrapped up in the film’s fabulous final shot. The idea of starting over, being reborn, and standing up to embrace a new life is beautiful in both message and presentation. It’s that final shot and its stirring message that solidified my love for this picture.

Gravity 3

Oh, and did I mention this film takes place in space? While I may have been surprised that this movie had as much emotional pop as it did, I wasn’t a bit surprised that it looked so good. Quite honestly this is one of the most visually stimulating experiences I’ve had at the theater in some time. With the exception of one brief scene, the entire film takes place in the Earth’s orbit. In this setting Cuaron captures both the vastness of space and the claustrophobic confines of spacesuits, space stations, and space shuttles. I found it to be extremely effective. There were also moments where I was caught up in the sheer beauty of what I was seeing.

But the effects really reach a new level once a catastrophic accident occurs which propels the main story. The mind-blowing realism of these scenes are amazing. They ratchet up the intensity by drawing you in and I constantly found myself trying to dodge shrapnel or blinking for fear of being struck by debris. Those reactions are one reason this film should be seen on the biggest screen possible. It also features the rarity of some well implemented 3D. Now I don’t think the 3D was utilized as well as it could have been, but it certainly had those moments that really stood out.

Gravity 2

And I have to give props to the two wonderful performances from George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. Clooney is rock solid as always and some of the film’s best lines belong to his character. But this is really Bullock’s movie and she knocks it out of the park. She flawlessly handles all of the physical and emotional requirements of her character and she’s a vital component to the film’s success. It was also cool hearing Ed Harris’ voice as Houston mission control (“Apollo 13” anyone). He’s just one of several tips of the hat that “Gravity” throws out there.

I haven’t said much about the story and that’s intentional. The less you know going in the better. To be honest, there’s not a lot of story there. Yet when mixed with the assortment of thought-provoking motifs and breathtaking atmosphere, it seems perfect for its 90 minute package. I’m really curious about how it views on a smaller screen and if people will think as highly of the film a few years down the road. But for me the initial experience was unforgettable. Completely original, strikingly bold, and brilliantly made. It’s a movie that actually lives up to its hype and it should be a sure-fire contender come Oscar night.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “The Graduate”

by

21

Classic Movie SpotlightGRADIt could be called a comedy, drama, or romance. But truth be told, “The Graduate” is a little of all of those things. More importantly, it’s a sharply written and beautifully crafted film that ushered in a new approach to filmmaking. It’s touted as a highly influential picture and has grabbed a top 10 spot on AFI’s Top 100 Movies list. While I certainly wouldn’t heap as much praise on the movie as many have, it’s still a really good film with its share of memorable moments.

Mike Nichols directed and won an Oscar for the film which is based on a novel by Charles Webb. Dustin Hoffman plays Benjamin Braddock, a disconnected and isolated recent graduate from an east coast college. His parents put together a graduation party but that does nothing to dent his general apathy towards grad school and his uncertainty for the future. He’s such an interesting character who sometimes comes across as an irreverent jerk. But he’s also sad and sympathetic and a bit of a social pariah. He can be flippant and impudent but we find out early on that he has genuine problems understanding what he’s supposed to do during this new stage of his life..

Perhaps all of this is why Benjamin is such easy prey for Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft), a much older friend of the family who married for the wrong reasons and is thoroughly unhappy with her circumstances. She baits Benjamin into an illicit affair which over time adds even more complications to his already muddled life. Some critics have argued that Mrs. Robinson is the most appealing and alive character in the film. They point to her ability to see things as they are and to pursue her own happiness. But I had a much different reaction to Mrs. Robinson. She is shameless, dishonest, and self-absorbed. Most of her circumstances are of her own doing and instead of handling them responsibly, she goes the route of disgraceful self-indulgence with little to no moral conviction. Her maliciousness shows itself even more when Benjamin inadvertently falls in love with her daughter Elaine played by the lovely Katharine Ross.

GRAD YES

Some have said that “The Graduate” hasn’t held up well over time. I disagree. I still see “The Graduate” as very much a late 1960′s film. But I truly believe it has maintained it’s solidity and uniqueness and hasn’t been hurt by the passing of time. It’s moments of humor are still funny, Benjamin is still an engaging character, and the brilliant final shot on the bus is still as mesmerizing as ever. Simon and Garfunkel’s perfectly placed songs still give several scenes an extra emotional punch and the direction from Mike Nichols is still satisfying.

My bigger problem with the film is with the relationship between Benjamin and Elaine. Even though she comes across as simple and passive, their relationship begins on a pretty strong note. But things start to unravel a bit and the relationship falls apart. But soon Benjamin heads to Berkley to find and propose to Elaine. Ross gives a great performance but her character is shortchanged by the material. It’s impossible to understand Elaine’s thinking and her decision making is rash and sometimes out of the blue. A tighter script would have sold the romance better in the second half by opening up the relationship and upping the stakes. I still love and understand the ending. But things get a little clunky before we get to that wonderful final scene.

I still believe “The Graduate” has earned the respect it’s been given. It may not be the most tight-knit script and some key character relationships are underwritten. But anchored by some stellar performances and a great soundtrack, it’s still a lot of fun. Like all really good movies, this has held up well over time for me. Would I put “The Graduate” in my personal Top 10 like AFI did? No, I wouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a really good movie.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Great Gatsby” (2013)

by

53

GATSBY POSTER

One of my more eagerly anticipated films of 2013 is “The Great Gatsby”. Originally set for a late 2012 release, the movie was eventually pushed back to an early summer opening date. It’s one of several film adaptations of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel which was published in 1925. I’m a huge fan of Fitzgerald’s masterpiece and recently reread it in preparation for this film. My love for the novel evoked two different reactions leading up to my viewing the movie. First was excitement at the possibilities of a truly great cinematic telling of Fitzgerald’s work. The second was concern over whether director Baz Luhrmann could capture that unique and graceful vibrancy that permeates every page of the novel.

Luhrmann, a 50-year old Sidney, Australia native, is best known for his modern retelling “Romeo + Juliet”, the Oscar nominated “Moulin Rouge!”, and the sprawling epic “Australia”. Each of these films embrace parts of Luhrmann’s distinct style of filmmaking, yet none of these lean as heavily on style as does “The Great Gatsby”. In fact, ‘style’ is a word that seems to find its way in nearly every review I’ve read. Many have viewed the film’s style as its strongest asset while others claim it stresses style over story and the movie suffers for it. To be fair, it’s impossible to talk about “The Great Gatsby” without mentioning its vivid, stylistic presentation. But does its visual grandeur and panache drown out the heart of Fitzgerald’s magnum opus?

GATSBY 3

Well let me get the style thing out of the way first. Luhrmann’s vision of “The Great Gatsby” is dripping with flamboyance and spectacle. It’s impossible not to notice starting with the incredibly cool opening credits. But some people have taken issue with the style saying it subverts any heart and feeling the movie may be going for. Let me say I disagree. “The Great Gatsby” is about several things, among those is the decadence and excess of the Roaring Twenties. Much of the movie’s style is spent indulging us in the excesses of the time. It isn’t just style for the sake of style. From the lavish party sequences to the lively speakeasies, the style is used to visually impress but also to draw us into the loose and raucous period. I found it to be very effective.

But for me the best visuals weren’t found in the wild parties with the gyrating dancers and showers of confetti. The movie certainly looked good there. But it looked even better when it was showing off the bustling city. The bright lights, the busy sidewalks, the tall buildings – it’s all beautifully realized through Luhrmann’s camera. We see it as midwesterner Nick Carraway sees it – as a surreal and exotic new world brimming with life. The visuals also shine in two different sequences where Gatsby takes his gorgeous yellow custom car “into town”. There’s clearly plenty of CGI trickery at work, but I felt these scenes were as wild and fast-paced as the lives these characters were living. This film also features one of the more interesting uses of 3D. It’s flashy when it needs to be, but often times it’s subtle in its implementation. I wouldn’t say it was completely necessary, but unlike most uses of 3D, here it added to my experience.

GATSBY 1

But enough about style and visuals. What about the story? As I said, “The Great Gatsby” is about several things. It touches on the decadence and self-indulgence of the filthy rich. It exposes the shallow nature of the upper class. It looks at the elation and heartbreak that accompanies true love. It examines the futility of trying to recreate the past. Like the novel, there are so many themes interwoven throughout this story, and I think it works here for the most part. This is in large part due to Luhrmann’s faithfulness to Fitzgerald’s work. I can’t say it’s as engaging or as enthralling as the novel, but so much is pulled from the pages that it left me quite happy.

The story revolves around the mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby is an extremely wealthy man who lives in an extravagant mansion and is known citywide for his wild parties. No one knows who Gatsby is but everyone has an opinion. Everyone includes Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), Gatsby’s innocent and wide-eyed neighbor who also serves as our narrator. Along the way we also meet Nick’s lovely cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), her boisterous husband Tom (Joel Edgerton), and Daisy’s beautiful best friend Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki). Through Nick these characters are opened up and the mystery surrounding Gatsby is peeled back one layer at a time. But there’s a red herring neatly tucked away in all of this, and the story ends up about something much more satisfying. To look at this story simply as a tale of a mysterious rich guy is to miss the greater point.

la_ca_0104_THE_GREAT_GATSBY

Luhrmann’s directing is a key part of the movie but the film would never work without its great performances. The tone of each performance is unique in that it not only captures the characters of 1922, but also an older style of acting. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Gatsby whether he’s being the handsome, wealthy, but secretive party host or tackling some deeper emotions later in the film. Carey Mulligan is also good as Daisy and Tobey Maguire, an actor I’ve never been excited about, really surprised me. I loved Joel Edgerton as Tom. It’s said Ben Affleck was initially sought after for this role, but I think Edgerton knocks it out of the park. But it’s newcomer Elizabeth Debicki who’s a real scene-stealer. I gravitated to her each time she was on screen, and I kept wishing she had more screen time.

Many people have had numerous problems with the movie, and I would love to say they were wrong. But while I like the film more than many, it does have a few shortcomings. While I did feel the movie had heart, I don’t deny that there is a coldness throughout the picture particularly in a key relationship. This leads to a brief lull halfway through. I also felt the movie would be better if they had decided to include the romantic tension between Jordan and Nick that we get in the novel. It would give the movie more warmth and provide both characters with more to do, especially Jordan. I also felt the soundtrack was all over the place. When it’s playing the jazzy music of the time or a variation of it things are great. But then we’ll get sudden injections of Jay-Z rap tunes which feel terribly out of place. I’m not sure what the thinking was, but I found it odd and distracting.

Baz Luhrmann may be trying to capture the vivacity of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel through his visual style, but I think the story itself retains plenty of that for my taste. In fact I had a lot of fun with “The Great Gatsby”. It respects its inspiration by sticking to the story, and some really strong performances help ensure that this isn’t strictly a visual spectacle. This may not be a perfect movie, but I found myself wrapped up in it. It’ll never supplant Fitzgerald’s novel as the greatest telling of this mesmerizing story, but as far as adaptations go, this one really succeeds.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”

by

25

GIPOSTER

One of my great joys growing up was reading the G.I. Joe comic book series. The action figures, the vehicles, the cartoon series – G.I. Joe equaled big money in the late 80s and early 90s. But my favorite remained the comic book. I read it for around 100 issues and I loved the way it treated its characters, their relationships, and their storylines. So imagine my frustration when “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” hit the big screen in 2009. It was a movie ripe with potential but full of crap. The shoddy acting, the overt political correctness, and the ridiculous story supplied enough reasons to dislike the film. But for me its biggest vice was the butchering of the characters that I’ve loved since my childhood. Whether it was poor research or poor creative decisions, I don’t know. But I do know I despised that movie.

Four years have passed and now Paramount Studios have given us a sequel, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”. This time around they dangle Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Bruce Willis like a carrot in front of a horse, trying to convince us that this movie aims to be better. Well, actually it is better but I’m not sure that’s saying much. One thing that stood out was that it did attempt to be a little more faithful to the comic book source material than the previous movie. There are several tips of the hat and even a side story straight from the pages of the print series. Unfortunately the side story will make absolutely no sense to anyone who hasn’t read it and this leads to the biggest problem with this entire project – the lame and often times amateurish writing.

GIPOST1GIPOST2GIPOST3

The movie picks up shortly after the events of the first film. Zartan is masquerading as the President of the United States while Cobra Commander and Destro are in some sort of cryogenic stasis in an underground government prison. But Cobra has a bigger plan at work that of course includes world domination and extinguishing the G.I. Joe team. Meanwhile, the Joes are out doing what they do, thwarting terrorist attacks, retrieving stolen nuclear warheads – you know, standard Joe stuff.

Duke (Channing Tatum) is back and he’s the man in charge. He shares a bromance with his best friend and team heavy machine gunner Roadblock (Johnson). We also get the seemingly loose cannon Flint (D.J. Cotrona) although they completely abandon his loose cannon angle. Then there’s the gorgeous but able Lady Jaye (played by the gorgeous and occasionally able Adrianne Palicki). And of course there’s the super cool and personal favorite Joe of mine Snake-Eyes (Ray Park). After the team is decimated by a Cobra attack sanctioned by the bogus president, the few surviving Joes are forced underground where they must put together a plan to expose Cobra and avenge the death of their comrades.

The movie is really just a series of action set pieces linked together by a few strands of plot. But did anyone honestly go into a G.I. Joe movie expecting anything deep? The story is adequate enough to move this action-oriented film along. It’s when the story tries to branch out into side stories that things begin to get messy. The most obvious example is a side story dealing with Snake-Eyes, Storm Shadow, and the events of their connected pasts. As a fan of the comic series I smiled as I remembered reading this story from the books. But in terms of this movie, its incorporation into the main story is horribly done. It comes completely out of the blue and instead of gelling with the main narrative, it violently collides with it. There’s no sense of place and there’s no real connection at all.

GI JOE2

The poor writing also shows itself in some of the character’s underwritten subplots and in some of the corniest dialogue you’ll hear all year. Some of the jokes and attempts at humor are nothing short of cringe-worthy. There were times, particularly in the first half of the film, where these lines felt so awkward and disingenuous. Then there was the macho military banter, again mostly in the first half of the film, that was so incredibly silly and fake. It’s hard to imagine anyone putting this on paper and thinking it sounds good. It’s also hard to take any of these characters seriously while you’re constantly face palming due to the goofy dialogue! Thankfully a lot of this subsides as the movie goes on.

As with many of this year’s movies we’ve seen so far and that are on the way, the action is the big focus. It’s pretty relentless so be prepared to be bombarded with bullets, blades, and explosions. For me, this was the film’s strong point. I thought the action sequences in the first film did nothing to save it from its serious flaws. The action sequences in this film are actually pretty good and they did help me get past some of this movie’s shortcomings. They also translated well in 3D, something that was a pleasant surprise considering my usual dislike for the technology. But like other movies with such heavy dependence on CGI, things sometimes feel too synthetic. There’s a wildly entertaining ninja showdown on the face of a huge mountain. But as fun as it is, it’s still hurt by its absurdity and obvious computer generated visuals. The action is also helped and sometimes hurt by Jon Chu’s direction. Now I was happy to see a new director on board after the first debacle. But I’m hard-pressed to believe that a director known for the “Step Up” series and “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never” was the best choice.

GI JOE

The Rock is intended to be the big draw here and while he’s big on charisma, he’s not when it comes to emotion. But is that just something that comes with casting him or was he handcuffed by the material he’s given? Another draw was Bruce Willis but this is clearly a check cashing role for him. His short screen time adds a few mild snickers and he serves as a plot hole filler (kind of) but that’s about it. Tatum is as forgettable as usual but again the material does him no favors. I think Jonathan Pryce may be the most fun actor to watch in the film. He plays around and has fun as both the president and Zartan posing as the president.

So after all of that what’s my conclusion on “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”? Is it as awful as I anticipated? Nope, not even close. Is at a good movie? I don’t think I can go there either. Let me just say it’s a better movie than its predecessor and at times can be entertaining. I enjoyed the attempt to add a pinch of realism to the story and I liked some of the money moments such as Snake-Eyes vs Storm Shadow. But in the end “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” seems content to be a better movie rather than a really good one. Granted it’s aimed at an audience made up of teen boys and nostalgic men and it’ll score some points there. But nostalgia only carries me so far.

VERDICT – 2 STARS