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

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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…

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

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…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.

I’m what you might call a champagne problem.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
(SPOILERS) The idea of teaming the two most engaging characters from the recent Fast & Furious movies for a spin-off seems like a no-brainer for making something better than Fast & Furious at its best (somewhere around 6 & 7), but there’s a flaw to this thinking (even if the actual genesis of the movie wasn’t Dwayne Johnson swearing off being on the same set as Vin again); the key to F&F succeeding is the ensemble element, and the variety of the pick’n’mix of characters. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw – I can’t help thinking the over-announced title itself stresses an intrinsic lack of confidence somewhere at Universal – duly provides too much of a good thing, ensuring none of the various talents employed are fully on top of their game.

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.

... you’re being uncharacteristically non-hyper-verbal.

Movies on My Mind Week Ending 7 May 2016
The Irishman
The Irishman (formerly I Heard You Paint Houses, based on Charles Brandt’s account of mob hitman Frank Sheeran, who was chums with Jimmy Hoffa, whom he professed to have offed) has been gestating for what seems like forever. I’d been wondering about its expiry date, as the names attached throughout have been the ever-longer-in-the-tooth holy trio of De Niro, Pacino and Pesci.
Now it seems there's a tight window (we’ll know by this time next week) for financing coming together. It seems the plan is to using de-aging technology (most recently seen making Downey Jr look less than zero in Civil War) to work its regressing magic on these wise guys. I’m a bit uneasy about that, as no matter how good it is, it’s distracting. Not that I think Scorsese would go there if he didn’t think he could pull it off, but it will still be there in the viewer’s mind.
Hopefully he’ll make going back to the Mob worthwhile; I’d presume so, as if his word…