This is my first dual-movie review in this format.  I had not seen the first G. I. Joe film, which was made in 2009, because I thought its preview looked ridiculous. But once I decided to see its sequel this week, which looked less ridiculous, it made sense to see the first one on DVD, which I did last night.  I’m glad I did, because they are strongly linked together by story and character — if you can call the rather plastic action-oriented protagonists characters.  Let’s start with the first movie.

G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) introduces a super secret branch of American armed forces which comes to the rescue when they others falter.  I’m sure that the other branches appreciate being portrayed like this.  New weapons with “nanomite” technology are developed that can dissolve targets without messy explosions, and these weapons are intercepted by people with nefarious intent.  The Joes are sent to retrieve the errant weapons, which leads to all sorts of mayhem — and the toppling of the Eiffel Tower!  But justice eventually prevails, thanks to the incredible battle technology and bravery of the men and women of the G. I. Joe force.

Stephen Sommers of Mummy movie and Van Helsing fame directed this cartoonish attempt to personify the famous Hasbro plastic fighting men (and later, women).  The movie plays much like kids playing with the toys would, with lots and lots of action, cool gadgets (Sommers has said this is his homage to James Bond-type films), and a bare modicum of characterization, with muscle-bound soldiers named Duke, Ripcord, Heavy Duty, Snake Eyes, Scarlett and General Hawk.  As a fantasy adventure it’s kind of cool in a pre-adolescent way with unrealistic special effects, poor computer animation and a pace that never slows, except for the high body count.  Like a video game, this movie is just an excuse for shooting, maiming, exploding, drowning, and otherwise eliminating as many opposing soldiers as possible while reveling in the PG-13 carnage.  It’s violence without consequence, although the story pretends to aspire to a higher level of profundity involving political power.  This junk is hard to take seriously on any level.  ☆ 1/2.  11 April 2013.

That was yesterday.  Today I saw the sequel, G. I. Joe: Retaliation, which continues the story and ups the ante as far as global ramifications.  Surprisingly, the Joes are no longer a secret organization; when the president (Jonathan Pryce) has them blasted into kingdom come he holds a press conference and brags about it.  But three survive (new to the scenario) and seek revenge on those who would destroy all that is good about America.

Jon M. Cho’s film is more realistic than its predecessor in terms of its computer graphics, special effects and the scope of the story.  The way that the president calls for nuclear disarmament is outrageous but actually kind of sensible once the process gets started.  But it, like its predecessor, is rife with illogical points, big and little, that distract from its potential to entertain.  The cast is better, with Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis in key roles, though D. J. Cotrona is absolutely bereft of charisma.

Retaliation has the same issue with violence for violence’s sake, but of course toned down so that young or sensitive viewers won’t be traumatized.  Nevertheless, scores of soldiers are wiped out in battles both big and personal.  In one scene Bruce Willis machine guns several secret service guys protecting the area where the president is being kept.  Are they villains?  Maybe, but maybe not.  They may just be honest guys doing their presidential protection jobs.  Not any more.  It’s this type of mindless massacre that epitomizes how Hollywood producers view violence.  When it doubt, mow ’em down, then make a joke.  It’s one of the main reasons why films like this have such low value and worth.

Moral considerations aside, the movie is fairly entertaining when it isn’t being stupid. Dwayne Johnson is carving himself a nice movie career and seems perfectly at home brandishing such large weaponry.  Bruce Willis could do this stuff in his sleep — it’s about time he find himself some interesting character roles and try to re-establish his acting credibility.  But maybe I’m asking for too much from a movie like this.  It isn’t Shakespeare — but it also isn’t Olympus Has Fallen, which is action combined with dramatic integrity.  It’s a shame Hollywood can’t, or won’t, try to raise their action standards more frequently, even in movies based on little plastic play toys and games that were popular when we were kids.  ☆ ☆.  11 April 2013.