AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

teshavill The question I would like to ask, is how is it that the comic book version of G.I. Joe dating back to the 80's inspired so much depth and character loyalty, yet was discarded for such a weak and unoriginal replacement? Based on the comic book this could have been parked out into many equals/prequels. The Snake Eyes/Storm Shadow story, Snake Eyes alone; the story behind his disfigurement, his romantic involvement with Scarlett leading up to it... it's gold, but instead was replaced with explosions, CGI and the plot of an after school special. Five out of ten, solely by the grace of production quality alone.

gstefhome Just a remark: I was programming and had this film running in the background on TV when at the very end I suddenly noticed that "The Rock" took a pistol out of a box by grabbing it from its trigger.Come on!!!I do love (some) US action movies, but especially for stuff targeted towards kids (as in this case) I do expect the actors to feel at least a little bit responsible for what they do/show, meaning that they should at least take some firearms training before showing others how to deal with them.

varnium This is the most disappointing sequel of the GI Joe series. The first film was fantastic. Lots of high-tech gadgets, uniquely diversified combat scene, and full blown action cuts. After all, the initial GI Joe film was popular due to those traits.But somehow someone in the studio made some stupid decision to eliminate all of those traits. And removed every favorable characters with "The Rock". I wonder what were they thinking when they made that decision.The desert scene, where the Joes are annihilated, are an example of the terrible decision. Where are all of those cool techs that the Joes used in the first movie? They would have survived it if the techs are there. But unfortunately, the story maker had too much alcohol and forgot about that part.In short, it's a major disappointment for all GI Joe fans.

Daniel Natzke GI Joe: Retaliation is more commendable than most think.Its pace is perfect, just like its prequel; you can't go wrong with both The Rock and awesome Ninjas being in back-to-back scenes, all the action is fun and not overcut, the CGI is great, when you look closely, and the dialogue between the Cobra characters isn't all that villain-clichéd and boring. Everyone (except for perhaps Catrona) has fine acting, that shouldn't bore, and an addition of Bruce Willis into the cast was clever, even though he doesn't play a Frank Moses or Joe McClane. The high point of the cinematic aspect of the movie, the dojo-and-cliffside fights between the ninjas, is particularly well done and, when seeing it for the first time, thrilling.The only major flaw of the movie is its escape from the other prime GI Joe characters: Ripcord and Duke's wife are not hinted at all, nor is General Hawke (Dennis Quaid), which would make complete sense if he was given that in this film the Joe's are being "disavowed" so to speak, or undone. The fact that Tatum's character dies within the first 15 minutes of the film is not a flaw of the movie; it provides a realistic and not cheap push for the three survivor protagonists - That he appears as the main figure on of the movie's promo posters, however, is misleading.