POSITIVES<\/span><\/p>\n– Stylishly sleek. There’s proof of the ambitious budget included in the film’s production that is practically plastered all over the abundance of landscapes and immersive color correction decorating this dangerously seductive underworld of terrorism. In setting the majority of the film in Tokyo, we are not only treated to Japanese architecture in the form of the various temples that the story weaves in and out of, but also the neon nourishment of the business districts of downtown, that give the story a futuristic underlining to its contemporary setting. It illustrates my favorite Earthly setting in cinema accordingly, stitching together an intoxicating contrast to the grounded imagery that we’ve unfortunately received from the previous two films, allowing “Snake Eyes” its own unique identity in the form of the pivotal measures that it refuses to underscore in illustrating a big screen presence.<\/p>\n
– Fresh faces. Obviously, no one from the previous films appear in this prequel that picks back up the ball of creativity eight years later, but there are some pleasant casting choices that do make the most of the iconic characters they undertake. The obvious is of course Golding, who once again exudes personality with the kind of endless charm that enhanced the characterization in films like “Crazy Rich Asians” and “Last Christmas”, and instills no shortage of heart to the titular character here. What’s most surprising, however, is the layer of typecasting that Henry sheds as a believable action star presence, emoting through a majority of his own stunts and hand to hand combat that bottle as much speed and intensity as fans can desire. In addition to Henry, I was equally transfixed with my first experience with Andrew Koji, who as Tommy illustrates Snake Eyes’ closest bond to family since the untimely loss of his father. Tommy’s evolution feels more satisfying to me than that of his co-star, mainly for the versatility in emotions flexed from the talented Koji that allow him no shortage of scene-stealing instances, as well as an inevitable future in the industry showcasing his wide range of talents.<\/p>\n
– Action intensity. There’s much to be desired about the documentation of the abundance of action and fighting sequences, but the material and choreography itself is full of innovation and consistent energy that helps to keep the captivation of the audience firmly at hand. The movements of the characters involved in the physicality of the conflict exude a crisp, rapid fire series of blows that make the engagement as believable as one can expect in fictional cinema, and the ranges in various styles between characters keeps each of them from feeling dull or repetitive in ways that convey a fight choreographer constructing each of them. As for the set pieces themselves, the story collides through land and air in a way that fleshes out a wide range of vulnerability and stakes for the dynamic of the characters, all the while appearing every 20-30 minutes, so as not to overstay their welcome or stunt the surrounding story because of their abundance.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NEGATIVES<\/span><\/p>\n– Visual incoherence. Remember earlier when I said that the action in the movie was stimulating enough, but that its depiction left more to be desired? Not only is the use of outdated shaking camera effects compromising to the integrity of what’s being depicted, but it alienates audiences forcefully in their investment to each scene, making these sequences stand out as a series of headache-inducing exercises rather than an immersive element of carefully articulated production. What’s even stranger is that this aspect is only present in the first half of the film. During the second half, it clears up almost completely without error, minus the still shotgun editing scheme that emits far too many cuts to something simplistic. It’s almost as if two different cinematographers shot the respective halves during this film, giving it an often disjointed direction that feels like the studio couldn’t agree on one, so they went with both.<\/p>\n
– Diminishing links. As an installment to the legendary G.I Joe property of films, comics, and TV shows, “Snake Eyes” fails to justify the grasp needed to properly stitch these characters origins to where they should be with its obvious sequel-baiting that it pitches in the closing ten minutes. None are more faulty that the title character himself, who is not even close to a hero by film’s end, and only attains the measures of familiarity, like costume, as an afterthought lacking of anything compelling for audiences who grew up loving this character. He’s very much a terrible person who makes selfish moves at nearly every step along the way, presenting himself as a villain of sorts for who is otherwise known as one of the most noble of G.I Joe protagonists. In addition to this, Samara Weaving’s Scarlett feels like an additional write-on to the late stages of the screenwriting, as her character not only defines any purpose what so ever to this particular narrative, but also stands out for all of the wrong reasons in a story without one other Joe among its ensemble. The essence of a movie in the Joe universe goes practically unnoticed throughout, making this feel like a generic action film that stamped on a recognizable name and a couple of rewrites to generate some money.<\/p>\n
– Blandly generic. When this film isn’t grasping onto the straws of establishing itself as a G.I Joe chapter, it’s sticking to a familiar formula in its origin story that bares more than a few similarities to other prestigious properties. Elements like a murdered parent and underground armies lend themselves to “Batman”, as to where the toeing of the moral line lends themselves to literally every other origin story that you’ve ever seen. It reduces “Snake Eyes” to a predictably flat series of motions that further diminished my interests with each passing second, and made so much of what resolved this conflict easily detectable from an hour outside of its resonance. Nothing about it diverts from obvious expectations, and even worse it commits itself to a contemporary trope in cinema where a villain is redeemable in his origin story. When did it become a sin for characters to just be evil, and us not needing the pointless answers to their backstories to hinder their mystique?<\/p>\n
– Cluttered script. In nearly reaching the two hour mark, this film has no shortage of pacing issues or stacking subplots to exert the audience, and make this film feel like an endless exercise in cinematic futility. For my money, a lot of these unnecessary arc’s could be trimmed for the integrity of the experience, mainly in a powerful covenant that we only find out about with forty-five minutes left in the film, and one whose science is as inconsistent as the link between the films in this universe. Because of such, it feels like there’s a passably endearing 100 minute movie in between its clutches of mediocrity, but the necessity to include so much while catering to a sequel that everyone knows we will never see is most compromising to what is conjured, and makes so much of the aspects surrounding the solid action underwhelming to say the least.<\/p>\n
– Cheap effects. Unnecessity once again rears its ugly head, as a combination of computer generated reptiles and lifeless green-screen backdrops take away from the essence of the environment, and point to obvious problems with the direction that make them all the more evident. With the former, there’s an interaction with Henry Golding that is passable enough from a wide angle proximity, but when articulated in close-ups that lack even minimal detail, you start to see its lack of influence to the live action setting surrounding it, especially that of Golding, who is often facing in the wrong direction from where these reptiles resonate. Besides that, the backdrop artificialities are few and far between to truly condemn, but the sum of these parts do point to various instances where excess budget was rendered inefficient, giving us brief moments of the movie we initially feared that became such a problem in the previous two films set in this universe.<\/p>\n
– Ratings hinderance. As an obvious desire to include as many adolescents to the access of the film, the PG-13 rating is one that unfortunately steers clear of the brutality and permanence in a series of dangerous weapons, and undercutting the tension in these action sequences because of it. During the film, there were not only several instances where I thought the various cuts would’ve presented something daring and provacative in the form of the color that springs from their arrival, but also issues with the dialogue where emotional releases by the protagonist feel restrained in the heat of the moment. As I initially stated, I understand that this is a kids property articulated for the silver screen, but I feel like it’s one of those various aspects where a better film is itching to break free of the clutches subdued by such a decision, making “Snake Eyes” the daring, care-free property resonant of its legendary protagonist.<\/p>\n
My Grade: 4\/10 or D<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Directed By Robert Schwentke Starring – Henry Golding, Andrew Koji, Ursula Corbero The Plot – Stars Golding as Snake Eyes, a tenacious loner who is welcomed into an ancient Japanese clan called the Arashikage after saving the life of their heir apparent (Corbero). Upon arrival in Japan, the Arashikage teach Snake Eyes the ways of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6465,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,4,22],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6464"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6464"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6464\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6466,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6464\/revisions\/6466"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6465"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6464"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6464"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}