MovieChat Forums > G.I. Jane (1997) Discussion > Surprisingly good film

Surprisingly good film

posted 5 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8707)
6 replies | jump to latest

After many years of ignoring it I finally got around to watching this film last night. I admit that it was much better than I expected it to be.

Scott and Moore bring to life a surprisingly sympathetic character in Jordan O'Neill. She's not about girl power; she just wants her opportunity to succeed.

i enjoyed Moore's performance so much, in fact, that I was quite shocked to read this on Wiki:

"It opened to mixed reviews with Moore's performance receiving criticism and winning her the Razzie Award for Worst Actress. Although it made moderate profits earning $97.1 million against its $50 million budget, it was considered a box office disappointment. Following the debacle of Striptease the year previously, the failure of G.I. Jane marked the end of Moore's career as a leading actress in Hollywood."

That's a shame for Demi. She didn't deserve that.

I remember when the movie was first released all those years ago that I intentionally avoided it because I thought the whole idea was just dumb. It's actually weird how the idea of a woman in combat was very subversive at the time and the film made waves for it, but today this would be just another action(ish) movie with a female lead.

It turns out the movie is pretty enjoyable though. It may not quite be A-level Ridley Scott, but at worst it's a solid B-level offering. Demi Moore is great in it and Viggo Mortensen also has a leading role (which I didn't even know until I started the film).

I'd give it a 7.5/10.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Too bad the end mission was kinda...maGOO.

A weak, necessary plot device to move the film along.

Seriously...they couldn’t just send a Black Hawk to pick up the lost Rangers?

It’s not like a convoy of technicals can chase down a helicopter.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 5 years ago

I didn't mind it. And I can't say exactly what the military would do in a situation like that.

In any case, what struck me most sharply about the mission is that, if you look closely, you'll actually see that Ridley is borrowing from/stealing from/paying homage to his brother's film, Top Gun.

At the end of Top Gun, after a long period of training, a surprise crisis situation arises and the newly-trained recruits have to go off and complete a real mission. In G.I. Jane the exact same scenario plays out. In Top Gun, the recent graduates have to go and rescue a ship that has drifted into enemy territory; in G.I. Jane, they have to recover a lost satellite.

I really thought this was interesting, especially since it was Tony Scott who directed TG.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yeah...which makes me queasy for Top Gun: Maverick and its director Kosinski who stunk up “Tron: Legacy”.

The one thing my friends and I joked about this film was the absence of Michael Biehn who portrayed a Navy Seal in “The Rock”, “The Abyss” and “Navy Seals”. And he also played Kyle Reese in “The Terminator” and Space Marine Corporal Hicks in “Aliens”.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 5 years ago

Man, I liked Tron: Legacy. . .

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Just the first half.

It fizzled out and just...died.

But I like the face transplant technology.

Maybe they can bring back a young Sean Connery forever for the Bond franchise.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8707) 5 years ago

I'll agree that the first half of the film is better than the second half.

I don't think it's a perfect film by any means, or even a great one. But I do think it's a good one and I enjoy it. Where it fails is not on the directing side, in my opinion, but on the story end of things. I have always said that, for as much I enjoy the film, it could've been better if they'd have given the script one more pass.

I also thought Kosinski's movies Oblivion and Only the Brave were both pretty good as well, so having him behind the camera on Top Gun doesn't strike me as a terrible idea.