Skip to main content

I'm Mary Poppins, y'all.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Most of the time, we’ll settle for a solid, satisfying sequel, even if we’re naturally going to be rooting for a superlative one. Filmmakers are currently so used to invoking the impossible standard of The Empire Strikes Back/The Wrath of Khan, of advancing character and situation, going darker and encountering sacrifice, that expectations are inevitably tempered. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is indebted to at least some of those sequel tropes, although it’s arguably no darker than its predecessor, if more invested in character development. Indeed, for a series far more rooted (grooted?) in gags than any other in the Marvel wheelhouse, it’s ironic that its characterisations thus far have been consistently more satisfyingly realised than in any of their other properties.


Perhaps the most significant aspect writer-director James Gunn is clearly struggling with here is how to keep things fresh knowing he’s developed an instantly satisfying, hugely winning formula. What he arrives at, rather than simply giving his characters another galaxy-saving adventure against impossibly powerful supervillains (although both come up tangentially) is to dive into another staple: the origins story.


Amusingly, and perhaps antithetically to the standard action formula, this is by way of something resembling a talky TOS Star Trek plot: crew land on a planet ruled by a godlike being offering rewards/powers that seems too good to be true, which is because, inevitably, they are too good to be true. There’s nothing very wrong with this, and Chris Pratt and Kurt Russell establish a convincing rapport, but neither is it something that feels essential or, so early in a general audience’s introduction to the character(s), truly earned.


Gunn’s keen visual palette for Ego the living planet is as wild and whacky as ever, and very much the better for it, but for all the coup of casting Kurt – and, as per usual, there’s de-aging tech, although why Ego would need to age is anyone’s guess; ‘80s Kurt looks pretty spot-on, at least – there’s no point where he’s really enabled to have that much fun with the part, because it isn’t that much of a fun part (his Fast & Furious role is more so); Ego isn’t a fun villain the way Rooker’s rehabilitated Yondu is. For that matter, Stallone’s glorified cameo is a starchy as it gets; neither is allowed to have Tango and Cash repartee or japery, and they don’t even share a scene.


Maybe that’s for the best; it can’t all be fun, and the rest of the cast are having enough of it. The through line here, though, as with Vin Diesel’s other franchise hit, is another “f”: family. The saving grace of this is that Gunn, for all that he indulges sentiment, is too self-aware to get mawkish in a detracting way. Besides Quill, there are family issues for Gamora and Nebula and ruminations on loneliness and loss for Rocket and Yondu, and most of them stay the right side of indulgent. Even if they occasionally tip over, Gunn has too much else going on to linger to the point of distraction.


If the god planet feels OST Trek, Yondu’s sacrifice is Wrath of Khan Trek, albeit again, it isn’t something that necessarily feels earned (especially so in respect of the funeral trappings of the end – I kept expecting it to be revealed as another gag) in such a compressed space of time; the bad dad being revealed as a good dad and vice versa. Rooker absolutely rules with the role, but his, and the movie’s, best plot strand come in his pairing with Rocket and the more action-packed, split-the-crew decision as Rocket, Groot and Nebula first get caught by Yondu and his Ravagers, leading to various betrayals at the instigation of Nebula and Taserface (a running gag the stupidity of the latter’s name is possibly carried a little bit beyond the point where it can sustain itself. That, and almost any gag is better when delivered by Rocket).


This firing-on-all-cylinders subplot exposes the issue with the main thread, that of momentum. Gunn as a director has only improved since the first movie, and when he hits his stride he maintains a perfect synthesis of elements, but the flipside is that you notice the lulls all the more. The structure of Vol. 2 is slightly awkward, in that it moves from prologue to a kind of medley of first and second acts that only really settles when Ego’s motivations are revealed, and the third act itself, while a significant improvement on the first movie’s, which stuck to the standard Marvel template and so reduced to sameyness at the final hurdle, is still a little too reliant on bigger-bigger-bigger CGI spectacle. There’s even a world-destroying menace depicted by gloop/Ego seedlings oozing across (destroying) whole cities. Fortunately, Gunn also knows how to mix these things up, so notable distractions such as Groot and the bomb are there to sustain what might otherwise have become mindless pixels (and even where it does, Quill using his god powers to conjure a Pacman is very funny, given he says he’ll do exactly that earlier, along with Skeletor, which he doesn’t).


As ever, Gunn’s choice of soundtrack is eclectic and attuned to the eccentric demands of a scene. Mr Blue Sky has been horribly overused in TV and movies since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind reinvigorated it, but it fits like a glove here, with Groot dancing along while a massive inter-dimensional beast is fought in the background over the opening credits. Nevertheless, as with Hooked on a Feeling in the first film having previously been iconic to Reservoir Dogs, there’s a feeling that Gunn should be pulling out surprising vinyl choices; the use of Fleetwood Mac’s The Chain works perfectly, for example.


It’s in the humour that Gunn really excels, of course, particularly in idiot humour (especially for characters who can be cool and clever one moment and moronic or clueless the next, which particularly applies to Quill and Rocket). He fires off more gags per minute than most out-and-out comedies, and a dizzyingly high number hit their target. Occasionally, he’s in danger of getting a little too meta for his own good (Quill comparing his relationship with Gamora to a TV show where resolving the sexual tension kills what was so good about it – I’m guessing Moonlighting is the ‘80s reference, rather than the later The X-Files), but you can’t beat the actual appearance of the Hoff, or Yondu being compared to Mary Poppins.


As per the original, Dave Bautista walks off with all the best lines thanks to Drax’s entirely deadpan lack of self-awareness, be it deciding to fight a beast from the inside out, telling Mantis how hideous she is (“But that’s a good thing”), acknowledging his famously large turds, shouting warnings after the fact, “Die, spaceship!”, making reference to Scotch Tape he doesn’t have, or finding it hilarious how Peter’s inner feelings for Gamora have just been outed (“You must be so embarrassed!”)


Indeed, the biggest downside to the more “serious” Peter storyline is that he isn’t the butt of as many “idiot” jokes as he might be, which is really Pratt in his comedic element. Everyone’s given good material, but Bautista and the truly hideous Pom Klementieff are probably the most consistently serviced. The Nebula-Gamora friction veers a little too close to rote sibling rivalry, perhaps, but Baby Groot, who I had my qualms about given how relentlessly cute he is, is actually made a genuinely funny hit. The references to his adorability (the Ravagers won’t kill him for that very reason), complete with a suction cup plush toy allusion, is made the most of as a comedic element, as is his penchant for misunderstanding (particularly during a protracted prison breakout). He also has easily the best of the end-credits scenes, as a surly teenager unimpressed with Peter bossing him about.


Rocket’s as effortlessly genius a character as ever – the Jack Sparrow of the franchise, really –  and Bradley Cooper’s perfect delivery is something else. The “trash panda” is given something of an arc (wilfully getting them into trouble as a defence mechanism), but it’s at his most unfiltered that he’s most effective, not dwelling on the pathos of his plight, from laying multiple traps for Yondu’s men to pushing through a succession of space hopping feats that was surely inspired by Ren and Stimpy’s worst nightmares.


Elizabeth Debicki’s also golden and glorious as plot B villain Ayesha, and there are cameos from Tommy Flanagan, Michelle Yeoh and Ving Rhames. And from Stan Lee (one of his better ones, although the longer he’s allowed on screen the more transparent his absence of acting chops are). You can even spot Jeff Goldblum in there.


I’d hesitate to suggest Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is superior to the first. Conceptually more developed, certainly, not as fresh, for sure, still enormous fun, undoubtedly. What might potentially be the series undoing is that Gunn has upped the wrong ante. Focussing on character/family makes the sequel seem more similar, not more different. What he ought, maybe, to have concentrated on was upping the anarchy. Maybe he’ll get to that in Vol. 3.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.