No surprise.

Rating: 2/10 (25 June 2000)

Ridley Scott is cinema's biggest puzzle since Brian DePalma. When he makes a bad film critics all voice their disappointment - but what were they expecting? ALL his films (although I've yet to see "Gladiator") are bad. They ALL suggest that his best work lies elsewhere, which doesn't make any sense. Perhaps there's a secret cache of Scott films which only Freemasons know about.
So "G.I. Jane" is precisely what one would expect from the director of the criminally over-rated "Alien", the tediously worthy "Blade Runner", the pretty but hollow "Legend", the lifeless "Black Rain", the exploitative "Thelma and Louise" ... I could go on. There is one difference. As another viewer has commented all of his other films have some sort of visual sense; "Legend", for instance, looks spectacular; and even when the cinematography and art direction yield nothing of interest (as in "Blade Runner"), there's a strong indication that someone was at least TRYING. The only such indication we get in "G.I. Jane" is the confused, confusing, positively DEMENTED, editing and camerawork in the final battle.
It's a little hard to pick on "G.I. Jane" for its fascist sentimentality. With but a few exceptions, EVERY American film dealing with the military is like this. Still, that's no reason to let Scott off the hook; and anyway, his film is worse than most. The new recruits are so pointlessly tortured, the drill sergeant bellows such complete rubbish, there are so many yes SIR!s, that we might think it's a comedy ... but no, we can tell that Scott's eyes are moist, and he has a catch in his voice. If the film had been called "Triumph of the Will", who would have noticed the irony? There is none.