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.

Comments

  1. It's interesting to see the range of reactions Guardians 2 is getting. I've read numerous comments suggesting a strong positive response to the emotional arcs of the movie, to the extent that some even consider the gags get in the way at times. Also, to give Gunn his due, while I didn't find Russell's character especially compelling, that empathic Mantis is there to "massage" Ego, enabling him to sleep, is nice thematic touch, as much as any of the very literal thematic plays here are.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …