Guardians of the Galaxy (Matt's Take)

ANTI

Guardians of the Galaxy - Anti

Usually once a year, there is that one movie that you know is a foregone conclusion. I won't dance around it, it's "Guardians of the Galaxy" this year. But before I get into the meat of this review, a brief story; the night before I was all set to watch "Guardians" the next morning, a sense of dread washed over me. I thought, "what if this movie isn't as good as I thought it would be?" "What if I walk out feeling slighted?" "What if everyone else is walking out happy and I'm walking out disappointed?" I would have to really take a look into my soul and see what was wrong with ME? Alas, that wasn't the case, "Guardians" was wonderful, it was great, it was down-right groovy. For me, "Guardians" is the anti-Marvel movie. It plays by it's own rules, and for the first time in Marvel's Phase Two films I wanted more, got more, and wasn't letdown, and before you attack, I also loved "Captain America 2" but "Guardians" has taken that big step forward that Marvel was lacking; it's expanding the universe to places you wouldn't believe.

"Guardians" tells the tale of Peter Quill, aka, Star-Lord, a space pirate working with Yondu, leader of the Ravangers. While exploring the desolate planet of Morag, Quill stumbles upon a mysterious orb and is attacked by Korath the Pursuer, but escapes. Needless to stay an adventure plays out that features Quill teaming up with a living tree named Groot, a sexy, green, ass-kicking assassin with a past, Gamora, a gun-toting, wise-cracking raccoon called Rocket, and Drax, a tattooed convict with nothing left to lose. Together the "Guardians of the Galaxy" have to save the planet of Xander from Kree extremist, Ronan the Accuser. It's typical comic book storytelling with a rebellious and anti-Marvel bite that we haven't seen since "Iron Man."

Since day one, it just seemed that "Guardians" would succeed, but only with those that were willing to give it a chance, and after it's first weekend $160 Million international haul, plenty were willing to give something new a chance. The cast is one of the best, but one of the oddest that you might ever see. Led by Chris Pratt, who so many know as the former Pawnee City Hall shoe shiner Andy Dwyer in "Parks and Recreation", makes it known he's ready for Hollywood in a "star" making performance, and the cast only gets better. From Zoe Saldana, Michael Rooker, and even Glenn Close, the cast is the perfect mix for a film this eccentric.

While the parts played by humans are great, it's the CG characters that really steal things and create an unexplainable emotional connection with the audience. Who would think that a raccoon and a humanoid tree creature would create some of the most emotional scenes in film this year. It's a testament to direction, which I'll get into shortly, script, and performance. You believe that Rocket, voiced by Bradley Cooper, is real, and his implied tragic back-story brings the feels in a major way, and this leads me to his relationship with Groot, his bodyguard/whipping tree, if you will. At heart, their relationship is simple; Rocket is a raccoon, who lives in a tree. The beauty is in the simplicity. The most human emotions out of the entire film are from the film's two non-human characters.

However, nothing would work in "Guardians" if it wasn't for one person; director James Gunn. From humble beginnings working with Lloyd Kaufman at Troma Studios to his first directing gig on the ultra-underrated throwback creature feature "Slither," and now as Marvel's golden child directing what could be the high-grossing film of the year. It's been quite a road. What Gunn brings to Marvel is a rebel mentality. He's never been a guy to conform, but at the same time he knows how to strike the perfect of pleasing the fans, while still creating something that fits his twisted sensibilities. Plus, he cares about the material. While on the media trail, all Gunn would talk about is how everyone is going to love what he called "the raccoon." Normally, directors will build up their biggest stars and the big action set pieces, but all Gunn went on about is how Rocket is going to steal the show.....a raccoon....was going to steal a nearly $200 million dollar space epic produced by Marvel and Disney in the middle of the Summer movie season? Well, Gunn was right, he....was....right.

So many things could have gone wrong with this film too. One, not many people know about the "Guardians" outside of hardcore comic fans. For the normal reader I'm sure the idea of talking trees and other misfits might be a little "alien." Two, this was a huge gamble for Marvel/Disney. Taking a chance on Gunn as a director and trusting in Pratt as the lead wasn't something on anyone's radar, except for Kevin Feige. Three, creating another comic book team up, but only doing it in two hours as opposed to three movies (I would count "The Incredible Hulk" but for some reason people don't see that as canon now). Comparing "Guardians" to "The Avengers" is natural; their both team-based films fighting a big bad, oh, and they argue a lot. What sets "Guardians" apart however is the heart it has. I'm not saying that Joss Whedon doesn't have heart, hell, he's one of the biggest fanboys working in film today and Marvel wouldn't be where they are without him, but Gunn not only created something out of what could have been considered nothing, and surpassed "Avengers" in my opinion. And yes, "Guardians" has become a huge comic commodity recently but only if you are a true die-hard comic reader could you say with a straight face that you've been a "Guardian" fan from the jump. That, or you're almost 50 years old at the time of this reading.

This might sound sacrilegious, but "Guardians" is better than the "Avengers." Yes, it is. On first viewing I still had "Avengers" in the lead by a little bit, but sitting down the second time, this time with the wife, I felt so much more emotion watching it again. First, I could relax a little more and simply enjoy the film this time and not worry about the overall story. I had the chance to focus on the little things that made the film special. Gunn has a habit of including little tid-bits for fans of his older films, including the always entertaining cameo by his mentor Kaufman. The other thing was watching this with my wife. At heart, we're both nerds; however, we butt heads when it comes to things like Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings, but this is one of the films that we were both looking forward to this year. Not only is "Guardians" great fun, but it also brings my wife and I closer together. We cried in the same parts, we cheered when our heroes finally came out victorious, and most importantly when we walked out of the film we both looked at each other said, "let's see that again!" That's a win in my book, and something I'm sure a lot of people are doing around the world.

Finally, and this is for the cynics. I understand your stance on comic films. They are campy, fairly vapid, and maybe worst of all, don't add much to the film landscape in terms of increasing awareness of women's rights, the plight of those overseas, or contain some sort of message that is supposed to make us better people. Well, maybe it does, at least with the last point. When a person walks out of a film and wants to see it again, or that little kid falls in love with a gun-toting raccoon, maybe that's their way of changing the world. It's making it a better place to live when we can all be together in a darkened theater and enjoy what is happening on the screen and feel like we are one community sharing a goal; to have fun. Look, I enjoy art-house film as much as the next person, but in a world that is this shitty, and hard to live in, why not have some fun with a wise-cracking rogue, a walking thesaurus covered in tattoos, a genetically engineered killer looking for redemption, a tree that gives flowers to little girls, and of course the raccoon. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is everything it was meant to be; a fun, balls-to-the-wall space adventure that gives cynics the finger and allows someone who I consider the "anti-Michael Bay" to show the world what he can do on the grandest of all stages, and its worthy of your love, admiration, and at times, tears.

Fun Fact: After you put the kids to bed, make sure you check out James Gunn's "PG Porn." It's arousing.

Read More

Guardians Of The Galaxy (DJ's Take)

REWARDING

The road to Guardians Of The Galaxy has a been a strange one if you think about it.  When Marvel's cinematic universe potentate Kevin Feige announced at 2012's San Diego Comic-Con that the next big film coming down the pipeline was going to be Guardians, many were floored.  It was supposed to be a victory lap for Marvel after The Avengers changed the comic book movie genre forever...but they decided to come out with Guardians Of The Galaxy next?

Most didn't even know who the hell the Guardians Of The Galaxy were.  I, being a comic book reader since I was seven, knew who they were and still was confused.  The balls on Marvel.  The balls indeed.  This WAS their victory lap.  The Avengers success allowed them to take a chance on a property that no one knew, and have it fly under the radar pressure free.  And it did.  Until that trailer came out.  A trailer that played up the film's unfamiliarity with audience for a laugh.  A trailer that showed us why Feige was so confident in the property to begin with.  Guardians Of The Galaxy looked like it was going to capitalize greatly on one of the strengths of Marvel.  That strength being their films are fun.  It also looked as though Guardians was going to take advantage of the growing desire for a lighthearted sci-fi space adventure before even their Disney brother Star Wars Episode VII could.  I mean look at this poster

If Only Serenity Came Out Now

Trailer after trailer came out, each looking better than the last.  Excitement grew.  Critics fawned.  DC pouted.  Then about two weeks before release...rumblings of worry began about Guardians Of The Galaxy possibly not living up to the hype.  A film about characters no one knew four years ago was now being thought of as too good to be true.  The whole thing reminds me of another risky venture that Marvel took back in 2008.  And we remember how that turned out don't we?

THE TANK = COMIC BOOK FANBOYS' MINDS

Guardians Of The Galaxy is merely another risky venture by Feige and the boys at Marvel.  The verdict?  Not only does it live up to the recent hype you've been hearing, it is possibly the most REWARDING experience you'll have in the theater all year. 

So, what is Guardians about?  It's about a group of emotionally scarred kindred spirits coming together to become a family.  What?  It is.  The kindred spirits just happen to be raccoon, a tree, an earthling, a deadly alien chic, and a crazed warrior.   Sure there is a plot revolving around the retrieval of a mysterious macguffin (A Favorite Trope For Marvel) and various quests for revenge.  However, this is really about the unity of these characters amidst their differences and obstacles.

You may think that I am crapping on the plot of Guardians, but I'm not.  I merely want to bring attention to the real accomplishment of this film.  That accomplishment is the quality of these characters themselves.  Each one of them are so rich and fleshed out, the story almost feels inconsequential.  You'll fall in love with them equally and so deeply that you'd be willing to watch them regardless of their journey.  The Guardians are as uniquely lovable as Han, Luke, Leia, Lando, Chewie, 3PO and R2 or Mal, Zoe, Jayne, Wash, River, Book, Kaylee, Simon, and Inara.  And that is just on paper.  You still gotta cast the thing.  Thankfully Gunn and Feige knocked that out of the park as well.

Matthew McConaughey is an actor that has taken a meteoric rise over the past few years.  However, his McConaugh-sance has smoke screened most from the arrival of Chris Pratt.  This guy has been in projects ranging from Parks and Rec, Moneyball, Zero Dark Thirty, Her, Lego Movie and has crushed his performance each time.  Peter Quill now might very well be Pratt's Han Solo role, while his part in the new Jurassic Park might be his Indiana Jones.  Pratt is that magnetic and the magnetically charming throughline for this entire film.  Quill could soon become a Marvel favorite after audiences get a glimpse of Star-Lord, even with Robert Downey Jr. still walking the earth as Tony Stark.  It is nearly impossible not to fall in love with this character from his very first frame on screen, much like how we did with Downey Jr. in Iron Man.

Zoe Saldana's Gamora is not as entertainingly devilish as Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow.  However, she has the tough task of being the film's straight man or woman as it were.  Saldana is solid in the role and has undeniable chemistry with Pratt.  Whenever she is given a scene to carry, she delivers.  Dave Bautista was the one character that I was worried about.  He essentially plays the Thor role of the team, which could be bad if done poorly.  However, Gunn plays into any stilt and stiffness that Bautista could of have had and uses it as a character trait.  A decision that makes Drax possibly the most humorous characters in the film.  A stroke of genius if you think about.  Bautista's acting, which is still quite good in this, is now nearly immune from criticism.

Diesel and Cooper make icons of their two CGI characters.  Cooper especially lends something to Rocket that I never expected.  He is the fan favorite master of wisecracking, of course.  However, there is a very terrific and subtle thread of emotional trauma that Cooper brings to Rocket.  Just one of the many examples of the detail and time that went into creating these characters.  A feat completed through the writing and directing of James Gunn.

I think Gunn might be Marvel's new golden boy.  I understand why there were rumors of him taking over Avengers after Joss Whedon.  Gunn and Whedon's thematic voices are different, but they seem to approach the material in a similar way.  They both never forget to service their characters first.  They both embrace fun without letting it get too silly.  And they both seem to love the material they are working with.  (Trust me...that is not always a guarantee...ahem...Marc Webb...ahem...Michael Bay)  Gunn brings so much life to this world, I'm amazed the budget was as low as it was. ($170 million)
With the freedom Marvel seemed to have given Gunn with Guardians and the success that I think it will be, I can only imagine what we will be in store for in the sequel.

Guardians Of The Galaxy was a high risk, but ended up becoming a high REWARD.  We should all go out and claim this REWARD, and by doing so, prove that strange and different is not automatically box office poison.  Hop aboard the Milano...grab a prosthetic leg...never call Drax a thesaurus...Watch it...then tell me I'm wrong.  And if you don't...Peter Quill has a message for you.

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Run

The bane of the horror genre for the past decade has been the remake.  Hollywood has gotten so lazy and they've treated the horror genre like a dumping ground for bad updates on generally good horror fare.  I understand the point; horror is cheap for a studio to produce, they can introduce fresh new actors (namely females that will bring in the male audience) and generally, they will at least break even no matter how bad the film.  Not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule, and 2004's "Dawn of the Dead" remake is an example of a horror remake gone right.

Before I go into the actually movie I'm going to say this:  I do not like Zack Snyder.  I'm not really impressed by his body of work, and I think he bites off too much, thus, his work suffers.  That is the problem with "visionary" directors like Snyder.  Take "Dawn of the Dead" and compare it to something like "Sucker Punch."  "Dawn" is great because the concept is simple, effective, and done very well (while I may not agree with everything in it, but I'll get to that later).  "Punch" was for prepubescent boys, and it included girls in cosplay costumes, a paper-thin plot, and a severe case of style over substance.  I understand this is his style, but when big ideas are only half-realized its hard to take him serious as a director when I'm taking him as a one trick pony.

While I don't really enjoy Snyder's other films (see above), I did enjoy "Dawn of the Dead."  While on the surface it's a remake, there are things that are done well, and other things that tweak me.

The premise is the same as the George A Romero's original; The zombie apocalypse is in full swing and a small group of survivors head to the mall to buy some Dockers and make their stand.  While the mall provides the group with everything they need, from food to recreation, they begin feeling trapped by the zombies outside the mall hungry for their flesh.  As its been told over and over, ad nauseam, the film's setting, a mall, along with the zombie invasion, is an allegory for consumerism and how we, the "zombified" public, feel the need to endlessly consume and spend.  While Snyder's remake does have a mall where survivors are holed up, the meaning behind the film is lost and is essentially a zombie action film.

What Snyder does right is pay homage, in part, to some of the original actors.  Both Ken Foree and Tom Savini have fun cameos as a preacher and a sheriff, respectively.  He also, as opposed to his other films, keeps the slow-motion to a minimum and tries to flesh out his characters with somewhat of a back story.  The actors look like they are having a good time, and while cheesy at times, the acting is solid for a horror film.  As a Troma fan, I also appreciate the fact that James Gunn wrote the original script of "Dead."  An independent dude makes good.  Now, let me explain why run is the word of the day.

What I can't get behind, and the problem I've always had was this......the running zombie.  Oy vey!  I'm a purist first of all, zombies are shamblers, walkers, they might have a little giddy-up, but they are not sprinters.  When you die you develop rigor mortis brain/body decay, which would have a major effect on the way that you move and react. 

I'll also say this; I love "28 Days Later."  There is an explanation why those "zombies" run.  They aren't zombies!  They don't die, re-animate, and come looking to eat your brains, this is because they are infected with a virus (a rage virus to be exact).  If you're going to be the "living dead" you shouldn't be able to run, its physiologically impossible.

For as much of a problem that I have with the running zombies, I enjoy "Dead" very much, it's just the little quirks that stop me from saying this remake is better than the original.  It appeals to the ADD crowd with running zombies, slow-motion, quick cuts, and isolates the purists a bit, but overall, Snyder creates a neo-zombie film that gives the audiences everything they want; hardcore zombie gore, boobs (a little), and intense action.  Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" is worthy of your time.

Fun Fact:  While the original "Dead" took place in the greater Philadelphia/Pittsburgh area, the remake takes place in Milwaukee, WI.

Read More