Movie Review - Guardians of the Galaxy: you'll believe a tree can walk. And a raccoon can be a gun-toting, wisecracking bad-ass..!

For the second time this year, I was lucky enough to win tickets to an advance première screening of a Marvel movie, courtesy of Show Film First.  I’ve been looking forward to seeing ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ since it was announced.  As I’ve previously stated, this film represent quite a gamble for Marvel Studios – it’s a relatively lesser known title, it has some really out-there concepts, and is directed by someone who has only had a couple of films that haven’t broken beyond cult status.

But all of those things have made this a really fascinating prospect in my book.  Let’s start with the Director – James Gunn started as a writer, contributing to the Scooby Doo movies (though we won’t hold that against him), and the surprisingly good and thrilling Dawn of the Dead remake.  He then made two films which have cult status – it seems there aren’t many people that have seen them, but those who have hold them in high regard; firstly, the ‘80’s horror throw-back ‘Slither’, which mixes gross practical effects and a nice line in humour to fun effect.  Then there’s ‘Super’, a no-holds barred satire of Superhero movies (which would have made a far better sequel to ‘Kick-Ass’ than the one we actually got…).  Neither of these show the sort of family-friendly, Disney approved approach that you’d expect Marvel Studios to go for, with their gore, sex, bad language, and black humour.  So straight away the selection of Gunn to direct this is a choice that raised eyebrows.  But it makes sense – despite the elements of his films that won’t have sat right with Marvel’s bank-rollers at Disney, there are things that you can see are needed for a film like ‘Guardians’: when it’s right, there’s heart and earnestness, and also a total commitment to a premise, no matter how out-there.  Because, well, ‘Guardians’ has the most out-there premise of any Marvel Studio’s film so far.  If Gunn couldn’t get his cast, and the audience, to commit to a film that features all manner of strangely coloured aliens, cosmic weapons of annihilation, centred on a team including a talking raccoon and walking tree – then the whole film would have failed.

I am pleased to say that Gunn has succeeded in this first hurdle with aplomb.  The setting is so beautifully and vividly realised, and the characterisation so sharp, that even if you didn’t think you’d care about a talking raccoon and walking tree – let alone the goings on in some imagined far corner of the galaxy – but by the end of the film you will.  It helps that this film is anchored in a relatable way through a fantastic soundtrack of 70’s and 80’s pop and rock songs – these are on a tape belonging to Peter ‘Star Lord’ Quill (Chris Pratt), taken from earth as a child, but treasured by him as a link to his childhood home.  The songs serve to underpin key emotional or comedic moments in the story – helping to keep a balance between something that could have collapsed under the weight of, frankly, its ludicrousness – and keeping the audience invested.  It also reinforces that this movie is a sheer joyous blast of fun.

Meet 'The A-holes', a great cast of anti-heroes if ever there was one!

It’s ironic then that it starts with one of the heaviest opening scenes of any of the Marvel films so far, featuring Peter Quill as a boy; after this we jump forward 25 years to the grown up Quill.  Tonally, this is a jump which almost jars, but again the use of his mix tape helps ease the transition from a pretty heart-breaking scene to a more light-hearted one.  It also helps that, as soon as we join the adult ‘Star Lord’ out in space, the whole film looks absolutely gorgeous.  Visually, this film confidently straddles a line between comic-book style colourful and bright settings, while giving clothing, technology and vehicles a suitably worn and gritty feel.  I hope JJ Abrams watches this film and gets worried, because the new Star Wars film is going to have to do something pretty radical to not be upstaged by ‘Guardians’.

As this is the first outing for this team (as Gunn has said, ‘they’re not the Avengers, they’re the A-holes’), the plot mainly serves to bring the five members together, and also give them a suitable threat to respond to.  Quill has got hold of an artefact simply known as ‘the orb’, which has resulted in him being pursued by the agents of genocidal villain Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) – including his ally Gamora (Zoe Saldana) – and having a price put on his head when he betrays his former mentor Yondu (another bad-ass role for that master of, erm, bad-ass roles, Michael Rooker).  This puts him in the sights of bounty hunter Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) – a genetically and cybernetically enhanced Racoon-like creature – and his bodyguard/associate Groot (who is basically a walking tree, voiced by Vin Diesel).  Thrown in to jail by the ‘space police’ Nova Corps, they encounter the muscular, brooding and scarred (in the physical and emotional sense) Drax (Dave Bautista) – who has vowed vengeance against Ronan and those associated with him.  At first the opportunity to score a big reward for the orb from the enigmatic Collector (played by Benicio Del Toro, in a disappointingly brief cameo) brings them together in an uneasy alliance, but once the true nature of the orb is revealed, they come together to prevent a genocide from taking place.

I guess one of the flaws this film has (of which there aren’t many) is that this plot is kind of secondary, in a way.  It throws the team together and gives them a reason to rise above being ‘A-holes’.  But that journey is the joy of this film, as the portrayal of each character is where this film completely excels.  Quill is very much the likeable, charming rogue, and is the perfect foil for the audience to gain a foothold in to this sometimes crazy galaxy.  He’s great with his guns, his fists (when he needs to be), and also with the one-liners (it’s a particular joy to hear him using references from ‘80’s pop culture to try and describe things to his associates!).  This would easily be a one-note performance, no matter how funny he is, but there are also moments that suggest underneath is still the boy who is hurting for what he lost when he left Earth as a Child.  But it never gets mawkish, as whenever an emotional moment feels like it might have overstayed its welcome, a cracking line brings back the humour.  Saldana as Gamora does a good job portraying an assassin who is trying to turn from an evil path and start making things right, and she has some great ‘will they-won’t they’ scenes with Quill.  Bautista as Drax is perfectly cast as the hulking, brooding, revenge driven ‘maniac’ Drax – although his character could potentially get lost when the on-liners start flying (one of his traits is based on the fact his race take everything literally), he gets some great moments which showcase not only his physicality but some skill at comedy – after all, for most comedy to work, you need an effective straight guy.

Pulling off these characters was the film's biggest challenge.  It succeeds emphatically!

But let’s face it, this film lives and dies on Rocket and Groot.  To be honest, I was probably an easier sell when it comes to these characters, as the mere concept of them just ignite this childlike glee (I mean, how can you NOT get excited about a gun toting, wise-cracking racoon?).  But I think there are very few people who, by the end of the film, won’t have been won over by them.  Not only are these CGI creations impressively realised, thanks to the script and performances, they feel like fully fleshed out, living characters.  The casting of two well-known actors to voice them could have easily been stunt casting, but they truly own these roles, to the extent you almost forget who is voicing them.  Not only is Rocket as bad-ass and funny as you’d expect, getting his fair share of great lines, there are moments that indicate some of the pain and torment behind the character, giving him a depth which might surprise a lot of people.  Similarly, although Groot only says three words (‘I am Groot’), he is utterly charming – and he gets the most crowd-pleasing moment in the whole movie, one which is probably on a par with the Hulk v Loki moment in ‘Avengers Assemble’; it utterly raised the roof at the screening I attended, and I expect it will go down well at each screening!

When it comes to other characters, it’s a mixed bag.  John C Reilly and Peter Serafinowicz as Nova Corp officers are perhaps a little underdeveloped, but Glenn Close as Nova Prime brings the authority you’d need from her brief role (by the way, I still can’t get over Glenn Close being in a Marvel movie – a crazy intergalactic adventure on, at that!).  With regards to the villains, Ronan makes an effective antagonist, driven by genocidal hatred, arrogant and heartless to the suffering he leaves behind – and pretty damn powerful to boot.  Nebula (Karen Gillen) – the ‘adopted’ sister of Gamora - looks fantastic, but isn’t quite given enough to do; the trailers teased a bruising confrontation between her and her ‘sister’, but isn’t given enough time to make a great impact.  Djimon Honsou’s Korath the Pursuer is probably the weakest of the villains in terms of time and development – he barely registers beyond a couple of scenes, which is a shame as he also looks good in the role and could have brought more presence.

If this film has a great weakness, it is that it does feel to force the plot through to bring the Guardians together, and as a result characters like those mentioned above don’t feel developed enough; also, for some people the threat might not be fully developed or explained enough to account for these rogues putting their differences aside to band together and stand against it.  However, the film moves at such a pace, throwing so many fantastic visuals, impressive action scenes, and superbly humorous lines, that you can overlook this and just go with it.  There might be a couple of wobbly moments in the first act where things get a bit exposition-y and portentous, threatening that it may in fact collapse under the ridiculousness of it all, but thanks to the excellent characterisation of the Guardians themselves, the viewer will be swept up by it all.

Amongst the amazing visuals in this film are this superb battle sequence - a space ship battle that doesn't actually take place in space!

Some people are saying this might be Marvel Studio’s best film yet – I don’t know if I’d go that far (it’s going to take a lot to knock the sheer, awesome, geek-gasmic joy of ‘Avengers Assemble’s spectacle from that position), but it is yet another example of Marvel being the best at what they do.  This film can be enjoyed if you’ve not seen any other Marvel Studio film, as it feels the most stand alone; although there are threads that could be picked up by a sequel, they don’t feel like annoying gaping plot holes.  On the other hand, if you have been following the Marvel Studios films, or are a big Marvel Comics fan, there is enough here to make you geek-out; we get to see Thanos in the full (and hear him speak, courtesy of Josh Brolin) for the first time, and ifyou know anything about this character’s history in the comics you will find his presence enough to make you grin like a mad titan..!  Sadly, I didn’t see the post-credits scene as it wasn’t added to the preview of the film – but hey, I get to look forward to seeing it next weekend when I take my kids to see the film!

So what has been Marvel Studio’s biggest gamble – in terms of premise, setting, and choice of Director – has paid off with an emphatic blast of fun, humour and action.  This is a triumph for all involved, and delivers one of the most flat-out entertaining movie experiences this summer.  Marvel Studios are going from strength to strength with each release, and cinema goers are reaping the (entertainment based) benefits.  Next up is the not-so-small matter of ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’, and you’d have to be a brave (or foolish) person to bet against this run of success continuing…

Is it even possible to improve the ‘Transformers‘ movies?

I'll start off this article with a confession: when I saw them at the cinema, I actually enjoyed the two Transformers movies 'Revenge of the Fallen' and 'Dark of the Moon' - despite the fact that, well, they're pretty widely disliked by critics (especially 'Revenge').  With regards to the former of these, when I saw it at the cinema it was during a very stressful time in my life, due to my family and my in-laws moving house at the same time, and all sorts of stuff around it.  So I guess I was in the state of mind where some escapist nonsense and brash, explosive action was what I needed.  Similarly, with 'Moon', the day I went to see that I'd just learnt I was getting a promotion at work with a pay-rise (yes!), so was feeling pretty jubilant - so being in such a good mood I was probably quite forgiving, and ready for some escapist entertainment.  And, yes, I was entertained.  However, was I bothered to watch either of these films again?  To be perfectly honest: no, not at all.  Although I've recently had to sit through 'Moon' again, now my 7-year-old son has discovered Transformers (more on that later), but I knew that if I had to then the flaws of those films would no doubt sour my experience.

Let's be straight here - I'm fully aware of the flaws of these films.  Although the first Transformers was a fun movie, with some spectacular action scenes and some humorous characterisation, it had one or two characters that really didn't need to be in it, and did sag in places under the weight of plot lines; and that's before getting on to some pretty crass, almost toilet-humour.  Look even closer, there was some questionable editing - an entire character disappears and is almost entirely forgotten about before the end.  Well, 'Revenge' and 'Moon' did the usual sequel thing - they sought to amplify the stakes, the intensity and the action - but also did the same to those flaws.  Many critics took umbrage with the crassness (and borderline racism) of some characterisation, not to mention some sexist clichés in how certain female characters are portrayed.  Having said that, when it comes to 'Revenge' all those involved hold up their hands to its flaws; arguably, it didn't help any that the film when in to production during the 2007/8 writer's strike - there's little doubt this had a negative effect.  However, a lot of the problems seem to stem from the 'Michael Bay' aesthetic - multiple (and pretty convoluted) plot lines, and ever-escalating and overly drawn-out action sequences.  By the time 'Moon' came along, the whole franchise had embraced the craziness of the Bay aesthetic, and if you can accept that - yes - it is ENTIRELY nonsensical, it is possible to have some fun with this film.  At the time of its release I was impressed with how Bay had embraced 3D and made it fit nicely to the action (this was at the time when a lot of studios had were still jumping on the bandwagon with post-converted 3D films) - especially one sequence where Bay strapped a 3D camera on to the helmet of a Skydiver in a wingsuit, before throwing them out of a plane.  There's a rashness about that which still makes me smile!

When you need action, you can always count on the Transformers to unleash utter 'Bay'-hem!  (...sorry..!)

But as I said, I enjoyed it at the time, yet wouldn't have been bothered to watch it again.  Although I have had to recently - I sat with my son and re-viewed it, and yes, the flaws were obvious.  The action sequences that had entertained me so much at the cinema, in a big screen in 3D, became increasingly drawn-out and, well, a bit tedious - especially in the final act.  It seems that these films are made purely for that initially 'wow!' when you see the action on the big screen - aside from that they are, well, disposable entertainment.  They're bubblegum.

But they are hugely expensive pieces of bubblegum, which in turn have been tremendously profitable.  'Fallen' took almost a Billion internationally, and the latest release, 'Age of Extinction', is currently the biggest film in China of all time.  It's amusing to see people getting the knives out regarding this film's performance at the US box office: yes, over the equivalent length of time from release, 'Extinction' has earned $75 million less than 'Moon' in the US - but given as it's the only film so far this year to open over $100 there, I don't think the makers will be losing any sleep.  'Extinction' will most likely be the year's biggest film internationally.  Despite the critic's opinions, and the patchy quality of the films, people still go to see 'Tranformers' movies in their droves.

And then there's the other angle: these films sell toys.  They are, at the end of the day, a feature-length advert for one of Hasbro's most popular toy-lines.  And it works - since he discovered Transformers, my son has been desperate to get the new Optimus Prime and Bumblebee.  Kids (especially boys) love Transformers - they've got something that appeals to a wide demographic: they're Robots, which a lot of kids find cool, that turn in to Sports Cars (another tick for a lot of kids), and they've got an epic story of good vs evil - that's 3 things that give them a huge appeal.  I should know - I'm part of the generation of kids who grew up in the 1980's and was won-over by the Transformers the first time.

So, is it the marketing aspect of these films which make critics so hateful towards them?  Or is it Michael Bay's style?  There are plenty of big, brash and slightly dumb action-movie franchises out there - but not all of them draw the opprobrium that the Transformers movies do.  Take, for example, the 'Fast & Furious' franchise, which gets more over-the-top with each film - but even critics by and large accept that they are just meant to be fun escapism, even if they have completely implausible elements (and they reached this consensus before the untimely death of Paul Walker).  Perhaps the flaws of the Transformers films just completely detract from any chance of enjoying them for most critics.

Because, well, if you want to be objective, there are things about these films which you have to look at and say, yes, they've done that effectively.  Take, for example, the realisation of the Transformers themselves.  Here, the effects team from ILM excel themselves, making intricately designed (one character, Ironhide, has about 10,000 moving parts just in ONE PART OF HIS BODY!) and animated photo-realistic characters.  It goes without saying too that Bay can stage an action sequence with aplomb (even if he often makes them go on, well, too long frankly); I think the final battle-scene in the first film is one of the last decade's best continuous action sequences.  Also, even though there is a lack of restraint for the most part, Bay is capable of putting small, character based touches in his film which are easy to overlook.  For example, a moment in the first film that made me smile, and which I guess few people would have noticed, is when two characters have been arrested and are being interrogated over computer hacking.  In one shot one of the characters finishes off a plate of do-nuts left by the interrogating officers, stating that if he didn't eat any he'd look guilty, so he ate the whole plate.  When we go back to these characters in this interrogation cell a little later, there is a packet of indigestion relief tablets on the table near the character that ate the do-nuts.  Perhaps if Bay could dial back the length of the action sequences, tidy up the number of plots, and allow for smaller moments like these, then perhaps the critical response to these films would improve?

There‘s no denying that the Transformers themselves are superbly realised...

Of course, the films themselves need to improve a lot in general.  The latest movie is no exception - although it was originally mooted as a 'reboot' for the franchise - moving on to new characters and new ideas - all of the flaws of the previous films are present, and dialled up even further.  I'd have been quite happy to avoid this film, but now my son is a Transformers fan, well I had little choice but to see this one!  I actually found this one mind-numbing in parts.  The new human characters feel mostly inconsequential, especially Mark Wahlberg's family; at least there was a point to Shia LaBoeuf's Sam Witwicky in the first film, because the 'boy and his first car' was a smart angle to base the nascent franchise on - but there's nothing like that to these new characters.  Ironically, only the villains feel to have some substance to them - Kelsey Grammer's CIA Black-Ops leader making an effective villain.  Even the presence of a great character actor like Stanley Tucci isn't enough; he goes from sneering, arrogant, scheming, corporate-scientist-type at his introduction, to screaming, prat-falling comedy relief in the film's final act - it just didn't make sense to me.

But then again, I don't think these films are meant to make sense, are they?  They are nonsense, and the people making them know it - and they're happy to do so, because they dominate the box-office and sell the toys.  And this is a shame, because - again, trying to be objective, and not as scathing or negative as most critics have been - there is still the potential that this series of films could have been a tremendously entertaining action saga; perhaps almost on a par with the Marvel Studios films.  This might seem like a bold, even ill-considered statement to make - but the reason I make it is because of what is supposed to be the main focus of these films: the Transformers themselves.

"They‘ve done WHAT to the Dinobots‘ back story??? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

As Den of Geek recently wrote, one of the biggest flaws of these films is that in a lot of ways, the Transformers feel like bit players in their own movies.  They have a point - with a lot of the human characters feeling increasingly pointless and underdeveloped (charisma-free Irish Rally driver, I'm looking at you), and the plots becoming increasingly contrived, it does point the central conceit to the side somewhat.  Which is a shame, because the backstory of the Transformers is pretty damn epic, and could make for some really spectacular and dramatic sci-fi action.  But, as Den of Geek also point out, the handling of these characters is quite hit and miss.  At this point I should acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is how the long-term fans have reacted to these films; there is a lot of ire that, well, these films haven't attempted to base themselves exclusively upon the 1985 animated Transformers movie, as well as how the portrayal of certain characters has changed.  Like I said, I was 7 when the Transformers toys and cartoons originally came out in 1984, and I remember them well - I had a bunch of them, and I can remember being really disappointed one Christmas when I didn't get Optimus Prime, who was my favourite character.  However, it has to be said that a straight-up, live action attempt at something along the lines of that animated movie wouldn't really work; you have to acknowledge that for the majority of the cinema-going public, without human character as a lead-in to the Transformers world, there's nothing to make them relatable.  Also, it makes me laugh when people suggest that the Bay films are cynical marketing compared to this cartoon from their childhood - bear in mind the 1985 film killed off almost every single one of the established characters because the toy makers wanted kids to buy a new line of characters!

Epic story-telling?  Or just cynical marketing..?

Having said that, it‘s hard to deny that the potential of these characters and their mythology is, by and large, being wasted.  Even though Optimus Prime is every bit the great leader he was in the cartoons of my childhood (even though by ‘Moon‘ they‘d pretty much made him an indestructible, all-conquering warrior); and Bumblebee the faithful protector of his human friends, the rest of the characters just aren‘t given enough to shine as they have in the various cartoon and comics they‘ve featured in.  For example, when fan-favourite Shockwave appeared in ‘Moon‘, casual viewers would wonder what the fuss was about - he turns up, has a giant robot worm destroy stuff, then gets taken out by some human soldiers.  However, in the 1980‘s cartoon and comics he was such an evil, unhinged character that even the main villain of the series Megatron was afraid of him!  And don‘t get me started on the way some of the classic characters have died in this series...

Even ‘Extinction‘ continues this trend - despite efforts to take the series in a new direction, by having the Autobots hunted by Human Black Ops teams and an Alien Bounty Hunter, the film seems like it‘s not sure whether to trust in the universe it is trying to establish; when fan favourites the Dinobots appear, they are almost indistinguishable from how they were originally intended to be - instead there‘s talk about ‘Knights‘ and some ‘Legend‘, which isn‘t explored any further.  Because of the way the Transformers story was set up originally (the warring robots crashed on Earth millions of years ago and laid dormant, apart from the Dinobots who tried to hide amongst dinosaurs (!)), the inclusion of the Dinobots was going to make even less sense than the plots of the previous films in the franchise...

I think you could legitimately say that the people making these films only ever warmed to the concept of warring alien robots, disguising themselves as vehicles, fighting on earth - but they‘ve never truly embraced the source material as much as they should have done.  While Bay clearly puts a lot of craft in to pulling of the action and mayhem, and in integrating the excellent CGI creations in to it, you never feel that he has a particularly great love for these characters or their story.  Contrast this with, say, Guillermo Del Toro's 'Pacific Rim'; while that does have issues with the script, plot and acting, Del Toro's clear love and passion for the giant robots and giant monsters he's putting on screen is clear in every single frame of that movie.  Sometimes I have to wonder how the Transformers movies would have turned out if they'd have been made by someone with the same passion and love Del Toro brought to his film...

By completely embracing the mythology, dropping unnecessary characters and plots-lines, and trimming back the action sequences so they're more focused and coherent, the Transformers series could become a much better franchise.  However, the continued financial success of these films seems to pretty much ensure they‘ll carry on in the manner they have been over these four films.  Regardless, children like my son will continue to watch them - just as he has been doing, everyday, since he properly discovered Transformers.  I can‘t be too down on him about it - ironically, he only became interested in Transformers because at his school they watched an episode of the 1980‘s cartoon as part of a history project about that decade.  How surreal to think that my child-hood is now someone‘s history project..!  I still can‘t convince him that the 1980‘s Optimus Prime looks far cooler than the Bay movie version, though... 

No, son... The Original is STILL the best..!