Why Snake Eyes Reviews Are So Mixed

Snake Eyes: GI Joe Origins has arrived and is already getting pretty mixed reviews. Here’s why the reviews are ripped on the film.

Snake Eyes: GI Joe Origins is here, and reviews have been pretty mixed so far, skewing negatively. The film currently holds a 40 percent Tomatometer rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of writing, and although many call it the best. GI Joe movie yet, that’s not necessarily a high bar in terms of critical success. But why the reviews for Snake-eyes so mixed?

the GI Joe The franchise’s past record with live-action blockbusters isn’t exactly stellar. 2009 GI Joe: The Rise of the Cobra holds a dismal 34 percent over Rotten Tomatoes, and 2013 GI Joe: Retaliation even worse holds 29 percent. The previous two films were criticized for their poor writing, overly silly storylines, and lackluster special effects, all of which overshadowed the fun and cartoonish adventures at the core. The promise of a more deeply rooted and personal story in Snake-eyes Looked promising ahead of release, but the critical consensus seems to be that that doesn’t do enough to make the film great.

Related: How Much Did Snake Eyes Cost Compared To Previous GI Joe Movies?

In all fairness, Snake-eyes has received critical acclaim for a number of things. The fight choreography is a highlight commonly cited in reviews, as are the performances of many supporting cast members, such as Haruka Abe and Iko Uwais. However, these good qualities are most often repelled by a number of issues, critics say, such as an overreliance on the shaky camera during otherwise thrilling action sequences, and a base storyline that has been called predictable, cliché and dull. The main problem with Snake-eyes seems to be that the personal journey that was supposed to make him great falls woefully short of that goal. Find out what the critics have to say below.

New York Times:

For a conspicuous action hero, Henry Golding in the title role does an awful lot on his feet and seems tense. The chaos is frenzied but forgettable, and the perhaps inadvertently awkwardness extends from dialogues like “For 600 years our ninjas brought peace and stability to Japan” to a central cast villain who seems to have a secondary role. as a dominatrix.

The envelope:

Since the early days of the cartoon series (and particularly fleshed out in Larry Hama’s run in the Marvel comics GI Joe), Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow have been trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of jealousy, betrayal, murder, mistaken identity and revenge. Their story is the closest GI Joe has probably ever come to Shakespeare – meaning not particularly close, but damn good for a franchise specially created to sell toys to children. So it is frustrating to watch Schwentke’s Snake Eyes film turn this saga into an impartial and mediocre action flick. The drama is confusing, the action is murky, and the storyline can’t help but get more and more awkward until, in the end, this film’s every attempt to anchor the GI Joe series blows up. It’s not the worst movie in the GI Joe series, but it’s definitely the least interesting.

The Hollywood reporter:

That’s a lot to put in a movie that should have been leaner and meaner, not to mention more blatantly violent. (Despite the hundreds of swords slicing through the air in this PG-13 adventure, the only blood we see is extracted peacefully, for DNA testing.) Then again, wishing for stronger dramatic development and more impactful action may be naive when you’re watching a movie from the Transformers series producer, another throwback to the days when TV cartoons were basically just cheap infomercials for new toys.

Chicago Sun-Times:

Henry Golding is a lovely, likable guy who gave a true movie star performance in Crazy Rich Asians and did an awesome villainous turn in Guy Ritchie’s The Gentlemen, but he’s just too sweet and non-threatening to play Snake Eyes. , who has spent his entire adult life searching for the man who killed his father when he was just a little Snake Eyes. We are told this man is filled with bitterness and a thirst for revenge, but he never SEEMS like he is filled with bitterness and a thirst for revenge.

Snake Eyes GI Joe Origins Movie Review

Of course, there are a number of critics who dispute these claims. Some have praised lead actors Henry Golding and Andrew Koji, saying their chemistry is enough to deserve a good GI Joe film franchise. The range of sockets on Snake-eyes is vast and deeply varied, with some touting it as one of the best summer blockbusters in recent memory, and others criticizing it for being completely forgettable.

Screen review:

Perhaps the greatest strength of Snake Eyes are the action scenes, which are frantic and energetic – although Schwentke’s overabundant use of a shaky camera is frustrating at times as it turns fight scenes into flashes of lightning. confusing movement with little meaning. When the choreography of the fight is allowed to shine, this is where the action of Snake Eyes really flourishes. And the action scenes happen often enough to keep the story of the film moving forward. There are a lot of ideas in Snake Eyes that have potential, but few actually live up to expectations.

Variety:

Snake Eyes, directed by Robert Schwentke (The Divergent Series: Insurgent), has style and verve, with an evil family storyline that creates a reasonable quota of actual drama. The movie is also a synthetic but extremely skillful mishmash of major studios of ninja movies, wuxia movies, yakuza movies, and international revenge movies. The fight scenes are staged with razor-sharp precision, and the entire film, as shot by cinematographer Bojan Bazelli, has an enveloping appearance of nocturnal bloom. For a children’s franchise film that’s pretty good, but the main title is this: Henry Golding has to be seriously considered for the role of James Bond. Snake Eyes makes it clear that he has the beauty, the cool, the glamor, the danger, the magnetism, and that essential Bond quality – the ability to telegraph the deadliest thoughts to an audience without saying a word.

Chronicle of San Francisco:

“Snake Eyes” has the makings of a good movie – a director with flair and a cast of lively and interesting actors. But he gets entangled in his story, with one too many twists, and loses all propulsion. In the end, it’s no better than a mediocre superhero effort, except it’s even worse, as there was potential there for more.

United States today:

The action sequences don’t disappoint either, from nightly bullet-riddled car chases to sword fights in the rain over neon-lit Japanese rooftops. Even when Snake Eyes’ personal story gets lost in bigger world issues a bit, the film has a relentless sense of style with a few hints of over-the-top absurdity that act as a throwback to the film’s Reagan era, Material Saturday. morning cartoon spring.

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 one that relies too much on franchise setup and genre tropes to become really awesome. It’s still better than the last two GI Joe movies. Will be Snake-eyes finally generate the GI Joe the cinematic universe that Paramount hoped to build? Only time will tell.

Next: Who is Snake Eyes? GI Joe History and History Explained

of a second timothee chalamet trailer

Dune Movie Trailer: Timothée Chalamet has blue eyes and wears gold armor


About the Author

Source link

About Victoria Rothstein

Check Also

What is Aaron Paul’s net worth?

Actor Aaron Paul definitely saw a pivotal role with his performance in breaking Bad. While …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *