Why Snake Eyes' Reviews Are So Mixed | Screen Rant
Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins is here, and the reviews are pretty mixed so far, skewing negative. The film currently holds a 40 percent Tomatometer rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of this article’s writing, and while many are calling it the best G.I. Joe movie yet, that isn’t necessarily a high bar in terms of critical success. But why are the reviews for Snake Eyes so mixed?
The G.I. Joe franchise’s past record with live-action blockbusters isn’t exactly stellar. 2009’s G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra holds a dismal 34 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and 2013’s G.I. Joe: Retaliation holds an even worse 29 percent. Both prior films were criticized for poor writing, overly silly storylines, and lackluster special effects, all of which overshadowed the fun, cartoonish adventures at their cores. The promise of a more grounded and personal story in Snake Eyes sounded promising leading up to release, but the critical consensus seems to be that it doesn’t do enough to make the film great.
In fairness, Snake Eyes has received critical praise for a number of things. The fight choreography is a commonly cited high point in reviews, as are the performances from many members of the supporting cast, such as Haruka Abe and Iko Uwais. However, those good qualities are more often than not beaten back by a number of issues, per critics, such as an overreliance on shaky cam during the otherwise exciting action sequences, and a core storyline that has been called predictable, clichéd, and lackluster. The main issue with Snake Eyes seems to be that the personal journey that was supposed to make it great falls woefully short of that goal. Check out what the critics have to say below.
For an ostensible action hero, Henry Golding in the title role does an awful lot of standing around and looking tense. The mayhem is frantic yet forgettable, and the possibly inadvertent goofiness extends from dialogue humdingers like “For 600 years, our ninjas have brought peace and stability to Japan” to a central-casting villainess who looks like she has a side gig as a dominatrix.
Since the early days of the cartoon series (and fleshed out particularly well in Larry Hama’s run in the Marvel G.I. Joe comic books), Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow have been trapped in a seemingly never-ending cycle of jealousy, betrayal, murder, mistaken identity, and revenge. Their backstory is the closest that G.I. Joe has probably ever come to Shakespeare — which is to say not especially close, but pretty darned good for a franchise that was specifically created to sell toys to children. So it’s frustrating to watch Schwentke’s film Snake Eyes transform that saga into a dispassionate and mediocre action movie. The drama is muddled, the action is murky, and the storyline can’t help but get goofier and goofier until, by the end, every attempt this movie makes to ground the G.I. Joe series gets blown up. It’s hardly the worst film the G.I. Joe series has delivered, but it’s certainly the least interesting.
It’s all a lot to stuff into a movie that should’ve been leaner and meaner, not to mention more palpably violent. (Despite the hundreds of swords slashing through the air in this PG-13 adventure, the only blood we see is extracted peacefully, for a DNA test.) Then again, wishing for stronger dramatic development and punchier action may be naive when you’re watching a movie from the producer of the Transformers series, another throwback to the age when TV cartoons were essentially just cheap infomercials for new toys.
Henry Golding is a charming and likable fellow who gave a true movie-star performance in Crazy Rich Asians and did an impressive villainous turn in Guy Ritchie’s The Gentlemen, but he’s just too soft and non-threatening a presence to play Snake Eyes, who has spent his entire adult life looking for the man who killed his father when he was just a little Snake Eyes. We’re told this man is filled with bitterness and a thirst for vengeance, but it never FEELS as if he’s filled with bitterness and a thirst for vengeance.
Of course, there are a number of critics who dispute thos claims. Some have praised lead actors Henry Golding and Andrew Koji, claiming that their chemistry is enough to merit a proper G.I. Joe cinematic franchise. The range of takes on Snake Eyes is large and deeply varied, with some heralding it as one of the better summer blockbusters in recent memory, and others taking it to task for being completely forgettable.
Perhaps the biggest strength of Snake Eyes are the action scenes, which are frenetic and energetic - though Schwentke's overabundant use of shaky cam is at times frustrating as it turns the fight scenes into confusing flashes of movement with little sense. When the fight choreography is allowed to shine, though, that's where Snake Eyes' action really flourishes. And the action scenes arrive often enough to keep the film's less than compelling story moving forward. There are plenty of ideas in Snake Eyes that have potential, but few actually meet expectations.
Snake Eyes, as directed by Robert Schwentke (The Divergent Series: Insurgent), has style and verve, with a diabolical family plot that creates a reasonable quota of actual drama. The movie is also a synthetic but exuberantly skillful big-studio hodgepodge of ninja films, wuxia films, yakuza films, and international revenge films. The fight scenes are staged with a slashing precision, and the whole movie, as shot by the cinematographer Bojan Bazelli, has an enveloping night-bloom look to it. For a kids’ franchise movie, it’s pretty good, but the main headline is this: Henry Golding has to be seriously considered for the role of James Bond. Snake Eyes makes it clear that he’s got the beauty, the cool, the glamour, the danger, the magnetism, and that essential Bond quality — the ability to telegraph the most lethal thoughts to an audience without saying a word.
“Snake Eyes” has the ingredients of a good movie — a director with flair and a cast of vivid and interesting actors. But it gets tangled up in its story, with one twist too many, and loses all propulsion. By the end, it’s no better than a mediocre superhero effort, except it’s even worse, because there was potential there for more.
The action sequences also don’t disappoint, from bullet-riddled nighttime car chases to sword fights in the rain on neon-lit Japanese rooftops. Even when Snake Eyes’ core personal story gets lost a little in the larger global stakes, the film has an unrelenting sense of style with a few hints of over-the-top absurdity that act as a throwback to the film’s Reagan-era, Saturday morning cartoon source material.
Ultimately, the critical consensus seems to be that Snake Eyes is about what most people expected – a relatively unspectacular summer blockbuster with solid action and a compelling cast, but which relies too much on franchise setup and genre tropes to become truly great. Still, that’s better than the last two G.I. Joe movies. Will Snake Eyes finally spawn the G.I. Joe cinematic universe Paramount has been hoping to build? Only time will tell.
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/3BCC78D
via Whole story
Post a Comment