1.It's a dated film
2.It plays likes blockbuster but its supposed to be a character drama.
3.It's doesn't ask deeper questions. The themes of gender inequality, sexism, morality, and feminism are not explored very well.
I do have to agree with the rating based on these three points. Taking your three points and applying them to the film, you do see where the film could have really soured where it failed to 'impress', so to speak. Granted, I think 5.6 is low, but not too far off from a more appropriate rating--never-the-less, I do enjoy this movie a great deal and do enjoy watching it again from time to time.
Boingo
Because all the apes who think Man Boss and Woman Make Babies learned how to use a computer?
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Because the film is bloody awful.
5.6 is way too low. The movie was well done (it's ridley scott for crying out loud!).... I remember a stupid, heavy handed, utter banal, devoid of writers, directors, actors, premise.... just a horrible movie, from the same time period as gi jane. The movie was called POWDER. It did gang busters at the box office, still not sure why. No one has seen the movie since. It was c grade schlock. THAT movie, got a 6.3 ...I DARE you to watch Powder (1995) and then this movie, and say that GI JANE deserves a worse rating.
I gave GI JANE a 10 to help correct this gross deficiency. GI JANE should be the 6.3 (it wasn't great by any means), and powder (which sucked by every means) should be the 5.6 . Hudson Hawk 1991, a ridiculous movie that was fun none the less, 5.5 . Michael 1995, a lame movie that makes you think they just gave Travolta a pair of angel wings and no script and just followed him around while he was drunk... got 5.5 . The Jackal (1997) 6.2... even though I can't watch richard gere without imagining a gerbil up his butt the whole time and that bruce willis looks like a flamer. To say GI JANE was as awful as THOSE? Come on.
Don't give it a 10, unless you thought it was FANTASTIC
Give it your true honest rating. Help IMDB be more real
The movie is not well done at all. It's a technical nightmare. Nothing they do is right. They call people who just began the course "SEALs, Army DELTA (a term they'd never use) and Recon". No one there is already a SEAL. No one there is a Delta operator. That's pathetic to show Delta and NSW as if they've never been though SERE. Retarded, not well done at all unless you know absolutely nothing about the military.
Now if you mean the lesbo scene or the over the top Texas senator, or the cookie cutter commanding officer and Viggo's pathetic "command master chief" stereotype, then sure, it was well done.
I'm not really sure I gave it a 9.
share