I went hoping that it would be a good GI Joe movie, I mean I grew up on the stuff. And it did not disappoint. Lived up to it. Want an intelligent movie, don’t see a blockbuster.
Wouldn’t the force of the explosion force the ice downward? Or did it not look that way in the movie?
There is a website called Rotten Tomatoes which consolidates the reviews of film critics and film bloggers from all over the country to provide the public with a guide for choosing what movies they may want to see.
Currently “G.I. Joe” has a 39% rating (which is well “Rotten” by RT standards), with 95 reviews collected - 37 positive and 58 negative. To me, that pretty much insures a miserable viewing experience.
So, next time, before wasting your money and supporting the making of more crappy movies, check out Rotten Tomatoes before automatically heading out to the movie that was the most heavily advertised in the preceding week. You can avoid seeing a rotten movie and you will see other highly rated movies listed that may not have had large advertising budgets that will be better choices.
it would have to be one hell of an explosion, to force very non aerodynamic ice down through very compressible water.
Art is the expression of the observations of the world by the artist, filtered through his or her intellect and sensitivity. I don’t know what you’d call something created by someone who can’t even observe his water glass.
I’m too old for the cartoons, and I didn’t play with dolls as a kid. 
I’m not planning on going. I’m not planning on renting it. And, if they show it on a plane, I’ll ask for a parachute.
Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t work well when (a) the movie isn’t screened for critics other than the ones (b) the studio hand picks ones that they think will be predisposed to positive reviews.
True, which is why it’s better to wait until there is a broader consensus of opinions before going like lambs to the slaughter. Unless, as I suggested in that thread, you don’t care about whether the movie you are paying to see is good or bad and you are going for social reasons, by which I mean everybody is going to see it opening weekend so you* have* to go too.
And as you should know, if the movie wasn’t screened for critics, it’s rotten stench should be apparent even before you hit the theater lobby.
Regarding the sinking ice criticism:
I think the dialogue explained the explosion caused ice and rock to rain down on the base. So, there was a canopy of icy rock and when it blew up, the ice-covered rocks sank.
Anyone else remember that line, or did I mis-hear it?
eta: I liked the movie, thought it was good fun, lots of action, fairly decent script. Didn’t seem like a rush-job to me.
As for the criticism about the nanites not doing a full healing job, maybe they only save your life, but aren’t sophisticated enough to do magical heals that make injuries disappear completely.
Rocks from what? Isn’t the arctic just one massive ice floe?
Ok, now that I think about it more, maybe it was ice and metal. The entry to the base had a hangar for the super jet that Ripcord took. And the giant elevator they took down has got to have some heavy equipment associated with it. Like a giant motor, pulley wheel, and cables.
That’s what my brother and I decided.
Well, here’s another thing I can’t get over with. You have the money to build a massive underwater base, with attack submarines, came up with mind-controlling nano-probes, a hovercraft technology and for gosh’s sake, holograms.
And you don’t have the money to build 4 warheads?
Well, if they include a sub-plot, “We are going to dry up their money so that they won’t have enough to put together a defense force” then it made sense, or else all this circular plotting looks to me for an excuse to get some fanciful battle scenes on the silver screen. Too many roll-eyes.
My theory is that they used nanomites to make the ice heavy. 'Cause apparently, they can do anything.
Then how did they do what they did to Zartan?
Hmm, that is a wonderful question, which I hadn’t thought of. Zartan had some wild color-changing skin abilities (which was negated in sunlight) in the source TV series, so maybe he has special powers in the movie, too?
They didn’t mention that in the movie…he was just supposed to be a master of disguise before the nanites did their stuff. I think it’s a plot hole in a movie full of plot holes.
But as I said, I could forgive that IF it had been good eye candy. But the CGI effects were horrible.
About the ice dropping the actual line was “There’s a million tons of steel and ice”. Which was a good line till the last two words. But yes the heavy steel could have been covered with ice but on the screen there was some blocks of just ice falling. Also to escape the underwater lair the heroes get into the main lift to take them back up to the ice cap, back up to the ice cap which had recently blown up and was sinking fast.
Other problems I noticed included a plane that could seemingly flip head over tail to turn back on itself with a turning circle of the length of the plane. At supersonic speeds (the Joe’s didn’t have anything that could go faster than Mach 5). Also a bike that seemed to be able to slid sideways whilst travelling at some high speed.
That all said I didn’t go for a brainy movie, I chose to see G.I. Joe and I was entertained for 2 hours even with the messed up physics.
Then I’m glad that I don’t read Rotten Tomatoes. I would have missed a GREAT movie.
Really? Which one?
You’ll probably have a lot of room to spread out. My neighbor took his son and my daughter to see a stinker called Mario Brothers (?) some years ago and they were the only ones in the whole theater!
For perspective, what, in your opinion, are the top 10 greatest movies?