All Good Things

There are some things that don't appear to be completely thought out when it comes to Hollywood business ideas. Horror films set in space. Films based on obscure teen novels. Tom Cruise. All of these things are poor, poor concepts that continue to thrive in cinema thanks to the misguided notions of not very bright people; they continue to exist because the people in charge simply don't know any better. Possibly the worst of these offenders is the remake, long reviled by movie purists who use it as an argument that the film industry is all out of good ideas. That isn't to say that there haven't been good - or even great - remakes in the history of Hollywood. Between Oceans Eleven, 3:10 to Yuma, and Let Me In, Hollywood has had its fair share of successes in that particular department. One of the better remakes in history was one of the 1951 science fiction film The Thing from Another World. Though initially failing at the box office, John Carpenter's The Thing would eventually became a cult classic. While 2011's new entry The Thing is in fact a prequel of that title and not a true remake, not many people seem to have noticed this and the fact that it features the same shape-changing creature, Antarctic locale and "who can you trust" storyline doesn't help its cause. Still, it was for me a more compelling a theatrical visit than the new Footloose, so there was no question that I would see this over the weekend.

"We'll blind it... with science!"

In 1982, University of Colombia geologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is invited to visit a science camp in Antarctica which has made a groundbreaking discovery. Deep beneath the ice, an alien spacecraft has been discovered after 100,000 years of solitude alongside an ancient intergalactic passenger frozen completely solid. Sure that they have made the discovery of the century, Kate and the science team are making preparations to take the creature home when the unthinkable happens, as the monster escapes and begins hunting the members of the team. With an ability to shapeshift into any human form and assume the identities of those it kills, it is not long before the survivors find themselves unsure who they can trust and whether they will be able to escape this nightmare scenario.

Winstead doing her best Ellen Ripley impression

When you're making a horror film, even one with sci-fi basis, there's nothing more cliche than the ragtag science team that can't understand what is happening to them. It doesn't help when the people you cast in these roles are so similar-looking as to completely blend into one another save for singular glaring differences. Still, there are a few standouts among them, allowing most of the cannon fodder to be killed off with little to no hard feelings. Mary Elizabeth Winstead proves herself a solid scream queen after impressing me with her perpetually-amused Ramona Flowers in 2010's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Here she plays much more serious a part but doesn't hesitate to carry the film's load squarely on her shoulders when needed. Winstead may not be a household name but with more solid outings like this she may soon be. Joel Edgerton is in just about everything these days. He became known to most American audiences though his small role in last year's Australian crime drama Animal Kingdom, though he had been making random appearances for years in film, including the much-maligned Star Wars prequels. But now he's making a name for himself, and even if his films aren't getting much attention (including the overlooked gem Warrior), Edgerton has succeeded in simply making people pay attention to him. Sure, here he plays the gung-ho American pilot (the Kurt Russell role, I call it), but he manages to take that role and make it his, which is a talent you can't teach. Ulrich Thomsen does his best Kenneth Brannagh impression as the antagonistic lead scientist who puts his own glory ahead of the common good. After that if you can recognize anyone not the black guy (Lost's Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) you've earned yourself a gold star. Most of the rest are a faceless pack, and don't do much to differentiate themselves before they are killed or transformed, which apparently happens whenever they leave our line of sight.

There's a lot of gun pointing going on

One thing to be said about advancements in technology is that what was impossible two decades ago can be reborn quite easily in this day and age. Of course, this also allows for you to get into more trouble if you have little idea what you are actually doing, and both sides of the puzzle are hit upon when it comes to The Thing's special effects department. Certainly the 1982 film built the perfect atmosphere that made the entire Antarctic environs so frightening - it was a classic Carpenter film, after all - but director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr manages to create a world arguably as stimulating if not more so thanks to today's leaps and bounds in technology and set design. Though some scenes, such as one in which Kate views the stars through the clear Southern sky, are beautiful to behold as can be, there are still a few flaws that haven't quite worked their way out. This was a criticism I had with 2010's top Oscar contender The Social Network, but the digitally-rendered frozen breath is more than a little distracting, as it looks no more real than the animated critters in the latest Indiana Jones flick did. Instead of trying too hard with the imagery, the budget for which was obviously heavily invested in the design and implementation of the monsters, perhaps turning down a thermostat would have been easier, cheaper, and more realistic. I have no complaints about the monster itself, which in many forms is rendered with amazing clarity, suffering not one whit when we see it in detail up close. Overall, the fog breath is a relatively minor quibble when the rest is almost masterfully pulled off by an obviously talented team.

In war films, they always run towards the enemy. This isn't a war movie.

Of course, if you've seen the classic John Carpenter thriller, there's little reason that this would need to be on your must-see list in 2011. With remarkably fewer scares, it's essentially the same tale presented here, with some additional back story for the creature and obviously different characters doing little to change the basic themes and ideas that the classic horror film instituted. This is an especially frustrating concept when your title in question is a prequel that feels more like a simple retread than it really should. Winstead and Edgerton may be stars on the rise, but they would have to be the MAIN reasons you want to see this movie, as a simple trip to the video store will gain you the same overall experience without paying out the nose for popcorn and a soda. Still, getting out to see The Thing proved to be an overall good time, so if you really do need an immediate horror experience and since there is literally NOTHING in that genre to see in the theaters right now, this should be right up your alley.

Oh, No Joe!

So it was a slow movie week for The Latest Issue. Tired, lazy, and with mediocre weather waiting outside for me, I decided to spend the day in the apartment, where I slowly went stir crazy for want of things to keep my interest. It was with this mindset that i decided that watching GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra on Netflix streaming was in fact a good idea, especially since the hype for last year's blockbuster hit did draw me in somewhat, if not enough to see it in the theaters.

Baroness is as deadly as she is seductive

Let me say first that I'm no GI Joe fan. I never had the toys as a kid, never followed the shows or comics, don't know much about the characters. I simply didn't grow up with them in my life, although I did know several kids who did and you could say I know what little I know about the toy line from them. I was more of a fan of other big 80's toy franchises: TMNT, Ghostbusters and Transformers were more up my alley. While Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow and the Baroness may be iconic characters to many, that simply is not the case for me. Perhaps that's why I thought I'd like Joe, since the expectations of the franchise's fans would not necessarily affect me in the same way it would others. Contented that I could not be disappointed in the film because my expectations were not high, I laid down on the couch for what I knew to be a mindless film but determined to see it through.

I should have set my expectations lower.

Oh, you two are fighting again SNORE

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is a jumbled mish-mash of character interactions wrapped around a terribly cliched plot involving experimental warheads created by James McCullen (Christopher Eccleston), a weapons dealer whose family historically tended to sell to both sides in armed conflicts. Naturally, of course, when this charismatic weapons dealer makes some warheads for the US that use nanotechnology to strip molecule by molecule whatever it comes in contact with, the military wants it and these weapons become the central plot point of the story, as soon they're stolen from us by the terrorist group COBRA, who intend world domination. The only ones who can stand in their way? A covert, multinational military force known only as GI Joe.

Rachel Nichol's direction: "Look attractive!"

I won't go on too much about the story since just thinking about Joe's simplistic plot starves my brain, but after being rescued by Joe after their convoy carrying the warheads is attacked by a COBRA unit, Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) are recruited into the Joe program by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid) since Duke recognized and could supply information on the leader of the assault, the Baroness (Sienna Miller). The rest of the film has the two opponents fighting one another while decked out in form-fitting leather outfits while Ripcord puts out the occasional one-liner. Heavy Duty, indeed. The plot is a retread of better action films, but the filmmakers are hoping you're too entranced by the classic Joe characters that you'll hardly notice how an elite unit like Joe could be staffed for the most part by nameless cannon fodder easily taken out by a small COBRA strike team. It's plot holes like that that cause wrecks to form.

Poor Breaker, nobody loves you!

While acting is hardly the main focus on films such as this, you still want talented performers doing their jobs well. Tatum was one of the considerations to play the hero in 2011's Captain America film, and I can now see why - despite having the right look for the part - he wasn't offered the job. While perhaps not as wooden as some reviewers might think him, he certainly doesn't show the charm and talent required in your leading man. His Duke is supposed to be the ultimate hero of the tale, but we just keep wishing it had been someone else. If Miller did nothing more than look amazing with black hair, a leather catsuit and dual-wielding pistols, I frankly would have been just fine. Thankfully she does more than that, weaving a cruel and vindictive character that is unfortunately ruined by the script's story. Still, she correctly portrays the type of villain the Baroness was meant to be, when she is allowed to do so. Eccleston is both charismatic and sinister as the man who would be Destro. The actor, who's biggest role to this date is that of The Doctor in the first season of Syfy's Doctor Who, doesn't seem to be stretched too much in his performance. It's almost as if the role was written with him in mind, rather than him necessarily earning the part. Wayans can be a talented actor, don't get me wrong. His role in Requiem for a Dream opened a lot of people's eyes to his potential as a performer. He always picks the same parts in the same type of films, however: silly sidekick who can back up his talk. Typical Wayans role. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje left Lost because he didn't like the material but ended up making Joe instead as Heavy Duty. He basically plays the character most dismissive of the new blood, Duke and Ripcord. Yeah, that ain't a step up. Better is Rachel Nichols as Scarlet, though she does little more than play up her looks than display anything worthwhile character-wise. Storm Shadow (Byung-Hun Lee) and Snake-Eyes (Ray Park) are explored far too much as the director decided that they needed an epic flashback backstory to explain to the audience why they hate each other so much. Park is the kind of performer Hollywood calls on when they need a physical actor who says little to nothing in dialogue and must express himself in his actions, and Park does more of that here. Lee talks more, but for all the interest we invest in his character it doesn't come out to much, and by the end we're sick to death of their feud. Quaid actually has a pretty small role as General Hawk, he just appears every few minutes, for a few minutes, until the end of the movie.Anyone else is either passable or not worth mentioning.

A few other Joes make appearances: This is Cover Girl... COVER GIRL???

All of this might have been forgivable if the film had at least top-notch special effects, but it seems like even that was out of reach for a $150 million film. Though six special effects studios worked on the film, none were especially good, with the worst resulting in obvious CGI outdoor scenes involving futuristic airships or other paraphernalia. Though the scene of the missile attack on the Eiffel Tower is gorgeously-rendered, this example is the exception, not the rule. Fight scenes are also sub-par, with only an early Scarlet-Baroness fight resembling anything remotely entertaining, and anything involving Storm Shadow and Snake-Eyes droning on more of the same. Far too much of the action is shot so close that you can't tell what's happening on the screen. And when you add all this on to the fact that the film has very little in the realm of original thought (inventive character origins don't count), there just simply isn't anything to recommend this film to anyone besides die hard Joe fans, and even many of THEM would be upset by the fact that many of their favorite heroes didn't make the shortlist for the team's roster.

Storm Shadow or the Baroness: Who will get voted off the island?

Okay, I made a mistake. GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is fun for about as long as it takes you to realize that the film has bad special effects, bad directing (Stephen Sommers' previous projects included The Mummy and Van Helsing, hsssssss), poor acting and lousy character development, with mediocre special effects and an ending that both tidys up things too much AND leaves too much leeway for a sequel (explain THAT one), one expected in the next year or so. I won't see that one in the theater either, though the fact that the screenwriters from Zombieland (which I loved) have been brought in to pen the next chapter makes me at least slightly hopeful. I may not be a GI Joe fan, but I am a movie fan, and when movies this bad are made it hurts, especially when I feel I could have spent that time watching something infinitely more worthwhile.