Comments on: Movie Review – GI Joe: Retaliation

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:16:14 +0000

In reply to Lynn. 3D makes my eyes strain (I don't wear glasses, I have no need to) and gives me a tension headache after a while. Perhaps the more I watch 3D the more my eyes will become used to it, but at the moment, I can't tolerate it for more than an hour or so, which rules out all but the shortest of films. Thanks for dropping in, Lynn!!

By: Lynn

Lynn — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:12:31 +0000

Yeah Rodney I have the same problem with the 3D. For whatever reason I just can't watch one without getting a headache. I tried to go to one with my granddaughter a while back, but unfortunately I had to leave and take her to a different movie. Kinda irritating really.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:18:31 +0000

In reply to Nostra. The only good bit in the whole film was probably the cliff-face swordfight. Thankfully, 3D gives me a headache so I have a legitimate reason not to watch it in that format. ;)

By: Nostra

Nostra — Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:46:00 +0000

I feel the same as you do. I really liked the first one, but this one was a huge disappointment and the 3D didn't add anything and made the action almost impossible to follow.
My recent post Pain & Gain (2013)

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 01:18:43 +0000

In reply to rorydean.

Try this one!
http://www.fernbyfilms.com/2013/08/31/opinion-bru…

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 01:16:25 +0000

In reply to rorydean. You should hunt down my article on Bruce's current woes, it's a cracker. I agree with you that Willis probably needs a director with the balls to stand up and say "hey Bruce, give us MORE!" but those would be few and far between. Still, he just seems to be going through the motions, and I, for one, am sick of it.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 01:15:13 +0000

In reply to rorydean. As you know, I'm a huge fan of empty, vacuous blockbusters (Armageddon et al) but this one lost me. I just couldn't get into it - it was too loud, too stupid and silly, and lacked any semblance of reality (which probably puts me outside the demographic for it) and consequently, I gave up on it. Story is always key, and Retaliation just utterly lost me.

By: rorydean

rorydean — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:00:32 +0000

In reply to Rodney.

Oh, yes..hell yes about Bruce. I mean I think it is less to do with him as it is he's tired of the same type of director approaching him with directions like, "..do what you did in that film only don't smile as much…" I mean that is by far the death of any actor. That's not to say there isn't a whole helluva lot of other things going on in the old boy but I'd wager he needs what all actors need – a director confident enough to make a decision about what they want, adjust all actors the same, with the same ferocity and clarity of mind and action as any other, from the walk on to the seasoned veteran.

Once they see your weakness and uncertainty, they gather round like dire wolves prepared to make a meal of your ineptitude. I've been there, trust me it ain't pretty until you take the reigns back. That being said, check this:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/24/actor-…

Oh, and I've linked my review of Looper – which I really liked. (http://rorydean.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/looper-2012/)

By: rorydean

rorydean — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 18:53:02 +0000

Hey Rod, almost agree with your entire review with our differences of opinions far too minute to require needling. I think your line, "..which leaves Retaliation mired in tiresome, noisy inanity that fails to excite in even the smallest way..." is both spot on and nicely put -and- a little slight of hand as I'm sure you'll be the first to admit that the $371M in worldwide profits out of the $130M budget does actually tell us that a great many did indeed find the film exciting, albeit for reasons that you and I would befuddled to guess. I think we are right on with how we feel about story being thrown under the bus for the sake of spectacle here, and CGI is no replacement for actual locations and events and actors being pressured to react to them or get banged up in their malaise, but this is just one example of many big budget concept flicks that live and breathe in the success/failure of situational violence so far removed from proper screenwriting, enticing plot and character development, hell even as you point out the big guns they bring in (Rock) and (WIllis) only modestly elevate the thing ever so slightly above as you describe, "...Asian cinema blended with 80′s trashy B-flicks..." I would dare to suggest this sequel does best the crap catastrophe of the first film, but I would prefer one large can of petrol, one box of Ohio Blue Tip Strike anywhere matches, comfortable lawn chair with requisite cup holder for well blended tequila sunrise sans fruit and umbrella, and one gully with a ridge just so as to observe the ensuing fire down below of these two films in their greatest potential to entertain - a bonfire. Cheers! My recent post Game of Thrones

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:18:29 +0000

In reply to Nick Powell.

I think there's a major editorial post to be written by somebody about Bruce Willis' apathy towards film and his fans. He's really got an attitude problem these days, and my thinking is that if he's bored with making movies, he should just stop – leave it alone and get out. You can really tell in every film he's made in the last four or five years that he's jst phoning it in: Die Hard Russia, RED2, Expendables, this; hell, every film he's made recently he looks like he can't wait to simply grab his paycheck and go back to his mansion and watch sports.

As for Palicki – hell yes, I could watch her jog and wear those slinky dresses for days!!! Thanks for putting that image in my head man!! LOL!!! B)