I went to see this movie and like the other 60-70% thought it was alright. if you are looking for a movie that is seamless, no problems or issues with reality or credibility - I have never watched one. If you are looking for great acting - to be honest, again, I do not think very few films have great acting.
Let's consider the top 25 films to date:
Transformers: Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.
UP: Not realistic - it is a cartoon and certainly no great acting.
Harry Potter - Problems with story line, not great acting by all characters, not realistic
The Hangover - Not realistic - be serious. While we might like to think it was realistic - a tiger in the bathroom, mattress on a steeple, and no one would have gone to the roof to inspect the mattress, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.
Star trek - Oh well, very realistic, we all know that huge star ships sit around all over Idaho. Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting. Although Spock did look like the old Spock.
Monsters v Aliens - Not realistic - cartoon, and certainly no great acting.
Ice Age - Cartoons, no acting.
X-Men: Wolverine - as if this could be real, problems with storyline, acting was ok but no great performance, nothing stellar.
Night at the Museum - Yes, I suppose some might call this realistic, but I think not. Not realistic, acting was tolerable, storyline/plot thin.
The Proposal - Haven't seen.
Fast and Furious - cars driven really fast. Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.
Mall Cop - Not realistic, problems with story line, and most certainly not great acting.
Taken - this one is questionable. A little over acted by 2-3 characters, several cliches. I did like this one maybe best of all. But still - come on, within 24 or 70 hours he goes from Los Angeles to Paris, takes down a major human trafficking organization, exposes corruption, and saves his daughter. Me thinks it is not very realistic for one man to accomplish.
Angles and demons - We should be clear - while the acting was good, there were some problems with storyline / credibility, and it certainly is not realistic - not in this world at least.
Terminator - What more can be said. Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no stellar acting.
Watchmen - Not realistic, problems with story line, and certainly no great acting.
Ok, so I stopped after 16 films.
Now, go back to GI Joe.
Acting - not great.
realistic - not.
Problems with storyline - yes.
It will be at home within the top 16.
What the movies do have in common is - THEY ENTERTAIN, and that is the purpose of films.
Does the movie entertain?
If yes, it is worth seeing.
The next question - good acting, good story -- that determines whether you pay the outrageous fees to go to the movies or wait until the film is on DVD.
In any case - whether it entertains is whether you should see it - not whether it is realistic.
Of the top 16, only 1 would qualify as realistic enough to be considered - realistic.
Number 17 on the list, which I stopped at before - Public Enemies. That film was probably quasi realistic (we don't know because no one is old enough to have been alive and cognizant of those events), good acting ... so that film might work, but I didn't use it in my example!
We do not need social drama to make a film good or bad - if you want social drama - examine your life. Look at your neighbors or family, friends - you have plenty of drama.
We go to films to be entertained.
If you want a realistic war movie - why would you? if you have served, you don't need any more realism. If you haven't served - why do you want to know what a hell war is - for a political use? War is bad, it dehumanizes, it reduces life to survival and kill - it is not good and films cannot depict it realistically. They can approximate, but I return to why do you want to approximate how horrible war is? And my guess will be - political. And that is unfortunate.
films
Posts
