A trio of National Review writers would like the Committee on Un-American Activities to please investigate G.I. Joe, the bombastic new film adaptation of the children's cartoon show. John J. Miller explains:
I keep wondering: Is G.I. Joe still an American? He used to be, back in the day. Maybe the movie will make clear that the 21st-century version is also a "real American hero," as the tagline once put it. But this is far from obvious. The old logo was red, white, and blue. Now the dominant image is black. Nobody wears green Army uniforms. Instead, the good guys appear to put on silver-plated robocop armor. Joe and his friends look like celluloid heroes without a country.

He is joined by colleagues Jonah Goldberg ("movies where you actually cheer the heroism of Americans fighting for America still do well, Hollywood just doesn't like making them for the most part") and Stephen Spruiell (who laments a film based on a video game, Street Fighter, that changed a character from an Air Force captain into a U.N. soldier).

Truly, is nothing sacred? Spencer Ackerman rolls his eyes, "You've really run out of things to complain about if you're worried that the new G.I. Joe movie will portray G.I. Joe as insufficiently American." On MSNBC, a host lectured Miller in person:
There's one reason they didn't put 'em in red, white and blue. It's because they want to sell this movie internationally. It's a business. [...] It's not that it's un-American, it's a business decision.

"If I was a movie investor," Miller resplied, "what I would not do is make anti-war movies that have flopped time after time after time as we have seen Hollywood do. I would make a movie about American heroes fighting in Falluja."

Video above, via Wonkette.