Cinema Fancy - Guardians Of The Galaxy (2014)

I've mentioned it here on my blog before, but I was never a comic book kid.  I always thought they were cool, and would sometimes go stand in the magazine aisle at the grocery store and read through X-Men or Superman comics on occasion, to gawk at the artwork, and to see what I was maybe missing by not being a comics devotee.  But as a kid, my energies were focused almost solely into computer & video gaming.  As such, while I was a casual fan of Spiderman, X-Men, Superman, and Batman, I never delved into those universes any further than what I was getting on TV, in movies, and through video games.  The origins of those characters didn't matter as much to me as the idea of them.

Fast forward about 20+ years, and as an adult, my favorite TV show comes to an end.  After 7 seasons, Buffy the Vampire Slayer ends its run on television.  Though saddened by its end on TV, it was a logical place to stop, and I was satisfied with the end.  A couple years later, when I heard that the story-lines would continue via comic books, I became intrigued.  During a business trip about 3 years ago, I purchased a whole stack of comics for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 8 run, and the rest is history.  That started by interest in comic books, and I've been collecting ever since.  However, I've not delved into many of the major characters or mythologies, because some of them have histories so long and complex, it's hard to know where to start.  A friend, and major DC/Batman fan suggested that I start with Batman (another character I have much interest in) by getting the short Venom trade paperback because it is the immediate predecessor to the rather epic Knightfall series, which birthed the whole "Bane breaks Batman's back" mythos.

I have this edition of Batman Venom - creepy!

Despite my lack of comic book knowledge and general story familiarity with much of the known comic book universe, I do have interest in many of the characters.  I watched, and enjoyed the X-Men cartoon from the 90's, I have played numerous comic book character video games (and own a fair number of them as well), and have seen and enjoyed most every Marvel or DC comic character-based movie made in the last 10-15 years.  So, while I don't feel as connected to these universes as some might be, I have an appreciation for the mythologies that have been built over the last 50-60 years or so.  Having said that, I'd not even heard of the Guardians Of The Galaxy characters or comic prior to reading an announcement about the (then) up-coming film.  I was intrigued, so I patiently waited for my opportunity to see the film and judge it on its own merits.  I was careful to not delve into that universe much prior to seeing the movie so I could let it inform me about the cast of characters.

**SPOILER ALERT!!!**

For the uninitiated (much like myself), I'll give a brief synopsis of the film's story.  Young Peter Quill is a boy losing his mother to cancer in 1988.  Unfortunately, he spurns his mother's affections at the time of her death, due to his own fears and sense of loss.  Right after she dies and he freaks out, he is taken out of her hospital room and subsequently runs outside and cries.  Within seconds, he is captured by aliens.  The film immediately jumps 26 years into the future, and Peter Quill is a self-described 'legendary space outlaw' going by the alias Star-Lord.  He is attempting to steal an item of great value (an ancient orb) so he can hock it on the rare antiquities market.  He is briefly taken into custody by a small band of men, but escapes and returns to the planet Xandar to sell the item, only to be turned down by The Broker when he discovers that the item was also being pursued by the Kree zealot Ronin.  After this encounter, he runs into Gamora, who is attempting to get the orb for herself, under the guise of stealing it for Ronin.  As she and Quill trade blows over the orb, Rocket and Groot (a robotic-ally enhanced raccoon, and a walking tree/plant) attempt to capture Quill for the rather large bounty on his head.  As one can imagine, hilarity ensues.

As one can already tell from the movie trailers and previews, these 4 colorful characters get captured by the Nova Corps (GotG's own intergalactic police force), and are sent to a prison colony to serve time for being so doggone disruptive.  There, they meet Drax, who attempts to kill Gamora due to her affiliation with Ronan, a fanatical Kree who killed Drax's wife and daughter.  Quill talks Drax out of it, however, and ultimately, the 5 team up temporarily to attempt a prison break so they can escape and take the Orb to Gamora's buyer for a giant fortune.  As the story progresses, the characters poke at one another verbally, occasionally scrap over minor issues, but ultimately, form a loose bond that strengthens as they go through various situations with one another that require them to rely upon one another, despite any misgivings they have in doing so.  Without spoiling the whole story, the characters eventually decide to team up in a more official capacity to stop Ronan from committing genocide against the Xandarians by using the Infinity Stone that was encased in the Orb that Quill originally stole, which was stolen from him by Gamora's "sister" Nebula (on loan to Ronin from universal overlord Thanos).  If that sounds complicated, it's really not - I'm just boiling it down to keep from revealing the entire plot.

What do you mean, you don't dance?

The common thread between all the recent Marvel universe movies is that they've all had heart.  Even the entries in the series that have taken some flack (particularly Iron Man 2 and 3) are still fun affairs, in part because they continue the story and character development of the hero(s) and surrounding cast, but also because they have all had a certain amount of heart.  They have all been made with the understanding that they can't compile months worth of comic book story arcs into a single 2+ hour film, and simplify things enough so that those of us who haven't followed those plot lines can still get in on the action.  As well, they've all been done in such a way that they don't take themselves entirely seriously, so there's a playful feel to them as well.  That has helped to elevate the films from the schlock of the early-mid 90's comic book movie flops like Captain America or The Punisher, but also saved them from the imbalance that caused franchises like Batman to go from great heights (the first Tim Burton-directed film) to utter tripe (Batman and Robin, an utter disaster of a movie).  It has been a smart move through the entire canon of recent Marvel movies to inject them with enough humor to undercut the seriousness of the events unfolding to a point where each "episode" doesn't feel overwrought like a SyFy Original Movie often does.

In particular, Guardians of the Galaxy uses humor more than the previous films, but it does so to its advantage.  It's not a big stretch to think of Captain America getting buff due to a super serum, or even the Hulk getting his powers in a similar fashion through science.  It's a far greater stretch to think of a team of aliens and a human being the baddest dudes in the galaxy and taking on an enemy far more menacing than what a group of misfits should be able to.  Anyone watching the film should know that while the individual members of the team have skills and training to prepare them for many things, the obstacle before them is so large that it seems insurmountable.  The film's humor helps to diffuse some of the feelings that the task at hand may be too large, without ignoring that fact.  The scene where Quill talks his fellow shipmates into taking on Ronan with him, even though there was little hope of them succeeding, and maximum probability of death, is a prime example of this balance.  Those few moments are serious with an underpinning of humor, and despite the finality of what they're resigning themselves to, Rocket ends the scene with humor to level the mood out.  Save for the movie's opening scenes, the entire movie strikes a good balance between moderate doom & gloom, and humorous dialogue and situations to help temper the movie's overall feel.

Ronan is a lot like the Power Glove....he's so bad.

As for the acting in the film, I felt everyone did a good job.  I'm already a fan of the 2 "primary" characters' actors, in Peter Quill's Chris Pratt (of Parks & Recreation fame), and Gamora, portrayed by the current queen of science fiction, Zoe Saldana.  Pratt is his usual comical self, and transitions into an action role well enough, especially in this context.  Saldana continues to show her range, from the emotional, warrior-like Neytiri (Avatar) to the stalwart, strong Uhura in the recent Star Trek reboot films, to Gamora, who is somewhere in between.  Bradley Cooper shines as Rocket, and Vin Diesel is surprisingly effective as Groot, despite limited vocabulary and few opportunities to actually speak, he brings a warmth to the character one wouldn't expect.  Dave Bautista works well as Drax the Destroyer also, because he doesn't have to show a large amount of range - the fact that, as Rocket says, his race is completely literal and incapable of understanding the nuance of metaphor.  This works in Bautista's favor, because he can simply play it straight.  He does, however, use that to comedic effect in a few instances, and his large presence on screen does give the character additional weight.  Lee Pace is convincing as Ronan, Benicio del Toro is good as The Collector, Michael Rooker is good as always, and the list goes on.  Some performances were understated, most likely due to the nature of the character and/or the small amount of lines or screen time, but I wasn't disappointed with anyone's performances overall.

As with all the Marvel movies thus far, the animation and special effects are outstanding here.  The space locales are believable and varied, from the rock planet where Quill finds the Orb, to the Knowhere outpost and its almost post-apocalyptic feel and lush nebula-like appearance from the outside.  I have a soft spot for practical effects and make-up, so I'm glad to see that at least the costumes and make-up weren't totally CGI-based, but had some basis in actual construction and implementation.  Ronan's ship was an ominous, impressive craft, and was a good fit for the character.  By contrast, Quill's ship, the Milano, is a stylish and elegant craft, appearing much more nimble and maneuverable.  The Nova Corps craft was an interesting design as well, one which shows true later in the film.  All the sets were interesting, and the variety of humanoid-based alien species was reasonable for a film this size and scope.

One example of breathtaking scenery in the film.

I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy enough to go see it twice in the space of 2 or 3 weeks, and I may go see it again at a 2nd run theater if I get the opportunity.  It reminded me a lot of the other Marvel films, but not to the point where it felt like a retread.  Being that this is a motley crew of bandits and ne'er-do-well types, it was good that we weren't asked to believe that this band of 5 twits was supposed to take on Ronan, his entire security force on his ship, AND the entire fleet of attack vessels that spawned from his giant warship in the same manner that the Avengers took on the whole Chitauri fleet in their film debut.  The fact that the Guardians had the help of the Ravagers and also the entire Nova Corps fleet is a sign that perhaps future GotG plot lines will potentially see them teaming up with either or both camps, or perhaps other allies is a good thing.  The audience would be hard-pressed to buy that this small contingent is taking on Thanos or some other other-worldly menace all by themselves.  It did feel slightly rushed that the 5 characters go from practically wanting to kill one another to being friends in such a short time, but such is the nature of film.

Perhaps the highest praise I can give the film is that, like The LEGO Movie, it gave me a child-like sense of fun watching it, and has made me want to go back and revisit many of my childhood and early adulthood favorites.  Movies like the original Star Wars trilogy, Tron, Krull, Dune, Karate Kid and its sequel, The Last Starfighter, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the original live-action film, not the Michael Bay train wreck), and even The Fifth Element.  These are movies that I've watched countless times, and practically know by heart.  Guardians of the Galaxy, like The Avengers, is a movie I can see myself coming back to multiple times and enjoying thoroughly each time.  Regardless as to whether it offers more each time I see it, it's a feel-good scifi romp that has interesting characters, relatable story elements, and good pacing, not to mention a fun and memorable soundtrack.  All of those elements will keep me coming back to the film, and it will be at the top of my "to buy" list when it's released on Blu Ray.  If you are at all a fan of Marvel movies, science fiction/fantasy, action movies, or just really well done ensemble cast films, you should go see Guardians of the Galaxy at least once, because it's a rollicking good time.  Highly recommended.

80/100

**NOTE TO PARENTS**
I would NOT recommend parents take their small children to this film.  I saw some small kids at the theater both times I went, and cringed both times.  Sure, it's more light-hearted and less intense/serious than other films of its type, and these are comic book characters that kids can read about, but there's a difference between what is illustrated on the page and that illustration "coming to life" on screen.  There's enough colorful language in the film to justify not taking small kids, but the amount of violence (stylized and sterilized, though it is) in the film makes it more intense and pronounced even than the original Star Wars films.  Add Quill's "Jackson Pollock painting" bit and some of the other innuendo, and there's enough adult content here for me to say safely that young kids shouldn't probably be seeing this film.  Yes, the MPAA is sometimes very arbitrary in their ratings, and the validity of the PG-13 rating has been debated hotly for some time, but this is a prime example where I think it fits and is correctly applied.  As long as your child understands that what they're seeing is fake and aren't prone to acting out what they see on screen, I'd say 10-12 and up should not be a major problem for most families.

"I am Groot....again!"

Cinema Fancy - Man of Steel

***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT***

The first time I saw a teaser for Man of Steel was during the previews for seeing Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises in the theater.  I knew the teaser was coming, because I'd heard rumblings about it and had seen something on the Internet prior to going to see it, but otherwise I had little to go on, other than Nolan was involved.  For those that saw the teaser, you know that it wasn't very enlightening, and indeed, had barely any information in it that gave the viewer any real clue as to what the movie was going to be about, or be like, other than hinting via imagery that it would be a re-imagining of the Superman character in a sense.  This would not tie into the previous Superman movie franchise, but would be a new take on the property, and would likely be an origin story.  That much fans were relatively certain of.

This short teaser sparked quite the conversation between myself and my friend Aaron, who I went with to see The Dark Knight Rises that day.  He had previously gone with me to see The Avengers, and we had both loved that, after all the build-up of the characters via several previous Marvel movies featuring the cast of characters.  Being that Aaron has been somewhat of a DC aficionado over the years, his interest in this forthcoming Man of Steel movie was palpable, even then.  We talked about how we felt Nolan and Snyder should do things, given the dark tone of all 3 Nolan-directed Batman films, and how Superman as a character is a much more balanced, and emotionally "even keel" type of guy.  We also discussed the possibility of how great it would be for Nolan and/or other directors involved in recent DC properties to collaborate on a future Justice League type of project.  Regardless of whether that's a real possibility or not, at least they have a good place to start with this Man of Steel.

Now I must first come clean and say that I'm not a Superman fanboy.  I've always loved the Christopher Reeve films, and felt like Superman Returns was better than most give it credit for.  But as I've stated elsewhere on this blog, I've only become a comic book person in the last few years, never truly having the money as a child to spend on comics, and concentrating more on video games and then music.  Be that as it may, I have some familiarity with the character of Superman, including the meat and potatoes of Superman's origin on Earth.  I'm not sure what level of liberties Nolan and Snyder took with this particular origin story, but I suspect the reason some have labeled the film "meh" or have been unhappy with it is the way in which Superman's origins were handled.  Personally, I don't find this to be a problem, and actually appreciate the increase in back story and how it was fleshed out to give viewers a real sense of where Kal-El came from.  I also like how Krypton was shown as an incredibly advanced society, despite being a society fully in collapse.

One thing I felt about the film as a whole is that it was well cast.  Henry Cavill was a good fit as Superman and Clark Kent because he has that chiseled look that echoes the many years of comic book interpretations, as well as recalling Christopher Reeve qualities like the cleft chin, muscular appearance, and generally unassuming good looks.  With only a brief appearance of Cavill in the "Clark Kent, news reporter" capacity, only time will tell whether or not he is as convincing in that role as Reeve was, but the dynamic set forth between him and Amy Adams (Lois Lane) takes the narrative a different direction than previous efforts - namely, that Lois knows Clark is Superman this time around.  I thought Lawrence Fishburne was an interesting choice for Perry White, and as good an actor as he is, I hope we get to see more of him in future Man of Steel movies.  I enjoyed Diane Lane as Martha Kent, and I felt as though Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent was appropriate and didn't feel like he had been "shoehorned" into that part.  His performance was understated, but fit the scope of his character in relation to the origin story being told.

Russel Crowe brought his usual quality to the role of Jor-El, and look forward to the possibility of seeing more of him in future Man of Steel films, assuming that some Kryptonian technology survived for Kal to use.  If not, at least we saw more of him in this one film than we did of Marlon Brando during the entire run of Reeve films.  I also felt like Michael Shannon was well cast as General Zod, a stark contrast against Terrence Stamp's 1980 version.  Shannon's Zod was not bent on revenge, but was fulfilling his destiny as the savior of Krypton by attempting to seize Earth and rebuild Krypton in his image.  This is much different than Stamp's Zod, who was primarily bent on conquest and destruction, as well as revenge against Kal-El for the imprisonment that was inflicted upon he and his cohorts.  And unlike Ursa in Superman II, Antje Traue as female counterpart (and Zod's wife) Faora-Ul is the same kind of single-minded, purpose-driven warrior that husband Zod is in the film.  I suspect that, despite her few lines in the movie, her stoic performance and iconic "A good death is its own reward" line will become iconic over time.

The big topic that I've seen a lot of chatter about is all the mindless destruction, and I guess the way I address that is to examine the film against other superhero action films in context.  Superman is all about saving people, right?  So when a lady is falling out of a 30-story window, he's the guy who flies up and catches her, gently bringing her back to earth.  So why is Kal busting up half of Metropolis to defeat Zod and company?  Don't forget Nolan's Batman films, willing to flip a few police cars and cause general mayhem and destruction from time to time when it meant a cleaner getaway.  And while The Avengers made an effort to reduce the amount of collateral damage during the Chitauri attack, there was certainly some mayhem caused, particularly by the Hulk.  And let's not forget that some damage occurred during the Reeve-era Superman films as well, including during the fight with Zod.  I agree that perhaps a "less is more" approach might have made the film breathe a bit more, I still think it works and the amount of property destruction is commensurate with what one might expect in a situation involving beings wielding super-human strength and superior weaponry.

The film does have a few flaws, which are worth noting.  The scene(s) involving Perry, Lombard, and Jenny (Olsen, perhaps?) trying to escape the impending doom of the destruction caused by the "World Engine" were somewhat unnecessary, other than to set up the characters for future films.  They didn't add much to the movie, and with its extended length of two and a half hours, those few minutes could probably have been left on the cutting room floor.  Again, though I explained the mass destruction away before, I do agree that perhaps it could have been tempered just a bit.  A friend described it to me after seeing it as, "once it gets going, you don't breathe until the end", and that's a good way to put it.  Pacing is perhaps a bit too frenzied at times, and you just go from one action sequence to another with no time to ruminate on any of it.  Granted, this is probably the first time anyone has done a Superman movie with the kind of major action in it that the comic books have only been able to show in still images, and animated depictions have only been able to hint at.  That doesn't mean we need to have so much non-stop action in this film that it either sets up the sequel for failure if it can't match it, or feels like a letdown because it has to focus more on story, since Lex Luthor (who nearly all Superman fans would presume to be in the works as the next major villain focus) is a far more studied foe than the destructive Zod.  I think everyone needs to prepare for a more cerebral sequel, because I can't think of any way to to the amount of wanton destruction as is present in this film.

Something I also want to touch on is all the messianic imagery and references in Man of Steel.  With the success of recent Christian-themed films like "Courageous", "Fireproof", and the intense "Passion of the Christ", it's no secret that people want that kind of content, despite what the liberal media might have us believe.  As such, it's interesting the parallels that exist in Man of Steel that echo many Christian and messianic touchstones.  Clark was 33 years old when he came forward to protect humanity from the impending threat of General Zod, in the same way Jesus was 33 when He began His ministry.  Up to that point, Clark mostly laid low, keeping a low profile, much like Jesus working with his father doing carpentry.  Jor-El specifically says to his wife in reference to Kal that "He will be a god to them."  Kal-El was sent to Earth by his father, much like Jesus was born a human to a human family at the behest of God the Father.  Indeed, Jor-El also acts in some ways as a reference to the Holy Spirit, a non-corporeal entity offering guidance in situations when hope is seemingly lost.  The US government and military distrusts Kal, and don't understand him, trying to shackle and control him, much like the Pharisees and Sadducees tried to reign in Jesus during his ministry, and arresting him for no real crime.  Superman's role in stopping the Kryptonian invasion was to become the savior of the human race, if in a far lesser capacity than Jesus' being the savior of humanity from an eternity separated from God.

These references are not lost on the populace, as much ado has been made of these similarities.  I wasn't aware of this until researching this after the fact, but apparently Warner Bros has been marketing the film to Christians in particular.  I no longer have cable or satellite TV, so other than the teaser trailer and one or two trailers on YouTube, I didn't see the kind of aggressive marketing that was done for the film.  They even employed a company called Grace Hill Media in these efforts, and have even set up a website for Pastors to go and get info on the film so they can preach on the subject.  It's an interesting approach, that I think will ultimately split the evangelical community, drawing ire from those suspicious of any kind of pop culture involvement in spirituality, and uplifting those that embrace modern culture and wish to communicate messages of Christian spiritual truth via modern methods.  I'm not sure if the messianic parallels were an integral part of the original script, or if they were added later to garner the Christian audience, but both times I saw the film I didn't think these references were a contrivance, and felt that they made sense in context of the character of Superman, as well as in the context of this particular reboot.

There has been some resistance to the reboot from the fan community, specifically in the way the introduction of the character was handled, and in some of the choices made as to how things progressed.  Liberties were taken from the usual Superman origin story, such as the death of Johnathan Kent in the tornado as opposed to him having a heart attack.  Some disagree with how Krypton was depicted, and all the time spent there and with General Zod's handling.  Some people probably disagree with the messianic references, though one could say those elements were present in some form in the original Superman mythos.  Some people feel like the rampant destruction in the film goes against what the character of Superman is about, and while I see that point of view, I think there is room for multiple interpretations of a character.  Ultimately, fans will have to decide if this iteration of Superman is worthy of their time and energy, and I think the response to the film has been strong enough that we will be seeing more of Cavill as the Man of Steel.  Indeed, there is already talk of a sequel to include the character of Batman.  I'm not sure how that will shake out, given Christopher Nolan's strong Dark Knight trilogy, or who they might tap to play the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman, but it will be interesting to see how that develops, and if it's successful enough a pairing to continue to develop toward a Justice League type of scenario.  Whatever the case is, I thoroughly enjoyed this film for what it is and what it accomplishes with the character, but would caution the filmmakers to perhaps tone down the wanton destruction aspect a bit in the sequel so we can have a slightly more cerebral Superman film next time.  As it stands, though, this is a solid first outing.