Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.

Review #2006: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.

Cast: 

Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket Raccoon), Will Poulter (Adam Warlock), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Chukwudi Iwuji (the High Evolutionary), Linda Cardellini (Lylla), Nathan Fillion (Master Karja), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Maria Bakalova (Cosmo) Written and Directed by James Gunn (#626 - Guardians of the Galaxy and #932 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2)

Review: 

"In the end, my love for Rocket, Groot, Gamora, Star-Lord, Yondu, Mantis, Drax, and Nebula—and some of the other forthcoming heroes—goes deeper than you guys can possibly imagine, and I feel they have more adventures to go on and things to learn about themselves and the wonderful and sometimes terrifying universe we all inhabit."

Admittedly, the first Guardians of the Galaxy (as adapted from the second incarnation of the comic series of the same name, which was created by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning) was a nice surprise when it came out in theaters in 2014. Sure, the Marvel push for a cinematic universe was already nine films in when it came out, but it wasn't hard for me to be surprised that a director I had not heard of managed to make a really neat adventure. Who wouldn't want something that sounds like a space epic ensemble? Of course, it's hard to not respect a director who also writes their own stuff, as was the case with James Gunn's prior two films with Slither (2006) and Super (2010). It set up other possible ideas for, well, other things, but the important thing that I remember most is that it had a sense of effervescent fun to it that was interesting without running into a joke just for the sake of it, with Gunn having an evident appreciation for these characters. The second film, released in 2017, was probably a sidestep direction in quality, but it did exactly what was required from a sequel in consistency (besides, as a resident Kurt Russell spokesman, I enjoyed him playing a villainous planet - such is life). Six years and appearances in varying quality and quantity (Avengers: Infinity War (2018), Avengers: Endgame (2019), Thor: Love and Thunder (2022), and The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special (2022) - look I can't watch everything), here we are with a third and final film with this dynamic of Gunn and company. Oh, and it is one of the films in Phase F-Oh hell, if you care about cinematic universes (or making fun of streaming like I do), go ahead, I'm just here for the fun.

I suppose the quality of the film depends on just how much imagination one has in comparison to the director when it comes to seeing the culmination of various stories that have come with these characters over the past nine years. As the longest of the three films at 150 minutes, it tries to cover as many bases as it feels it needs to do in the idea of finding new horizons without turning into the longest group hug ever, complete with stakes that are more emotional than grand. In short: it is a clever way to tie things around when it comes to the stories of these characters without making it a goodbye show or just a vehicle of over-spectacle. It does have a few moments that could be considered disturbing, but one will likely be ready for anything if they have seen enough films with the middle-ground rating of "PG-13", you might say (personally, I fall on the side of not criticizing movies that dare to push a bit when it comes to that rating that lets the audience decide rather than go trying to recommend coddling, but whatever). Besides, if you can handle the influx of staged sequences of action where people are getting beaten a bit, I think you can handle animals in a cage. When it comes to performances, each get their own respective moments to shine besides the influx of scenes spent with talking animals (these scenes of Rocket are voiced threefold, incidentally, with Cooper doing adolescence, S. Gunn doing the young version, and Noah Raskin doing him as a baby) that loops right in to one last ride for a number of folks. Of course, the fact that Gillan has had an arc that saw her go from a second-tier adversary in the first film to an actual fledged member of the team with worthwhile time to follow along with in levity that fits quite well. Bautista, to the surprise of nobody, still provides the warmth required to balance the ensemble in timing and physicality in what makes for a worthy endnote (who among us would want to put on so much makeup forever, I suppose), which naturally makes for amusing banter with Klementieff and her useful timing again. Cooper carries the film along with pathos that makes it more than just a voice on motion-captured animation, one that makes it clear just how integral he has been to the series. The flashback sequences build that climax to where it has to go, and Cooper helps that make sense. Saldana does fine in essentially playing the straight one among the folks (while reminding of the middling idea of resurrecting her character from the dead in the first place), while Pratt holds his own with self-interest and charm, one that reminds me that just knows how to time things with general presence. Poulter makes for an amusing adversary when it comes to the mannerisms that come from a flying gold painted, uh, doof. 

Do I regard the movie as the best of the three? Well, that is an interesting point of discussion, because it probably has the best villain of the three films, that is for sure. Iwuji plays it exceedingly well in the art of irredeemable villainy that is compelling to see in all of his brilliant decadence without any ploy of sympathy or false note, which is necessary when it comes being more than just a villain who likes to pick on animals. His pursuit of perfection in the face of reality and the things around him is far more interesting when it feels in sync with no pretenses (so yes, sometimes you can have villains who might seem sympathetic, but this is not one of those days, thank heavens). It is a movie with worthwhile staging when it comes to action (such as one longshot scene) along with dialogue that works in tandem with the music choices to make a vibrant film that is more a resolution to new things rather than just a definitive be-all end-all film, which leaves the folks in a comfortable spot without playing it too safe (aside from maybe one post-credits scene). In the end, the movie is pretty good in the ways you would expect from a third film in a series that closes the loop on what had started in 2014 that will make most of the folks happy (or sad if you really get into it) with what they've seen over the years, whether that is warm enjoyment in the characters or in general.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spectre.

Review #1891: Spectre.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Ben Whishaw (Q), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Dave Bautista (Mr Hinx), Andrew Scott (Max Denbigh [C]), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), Jesper Christensen (Mr White), Monica Bellucci (Lucia Sciarra), Ralph Fiennes (M), Stephanie Sigman (Estrella), and Alessandro Cremona (Marco Sciarra) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall and #1585 - 1917)

Review: 

Go figure that this ended up being split into multiple paragraphs. Actually, this is the first Bond film I saw after deciding to start getting into the James Bond novels, you know, the ones that inspired the movies. So yes, Casino Royale was a pretty neat book, and I am curious for the other books done by Fleming and maybe I will look at the movies a bit differently by the time I finish them.

It is interesting to consider how people try to spin the wheel of continuing the James Bond franchise (as produced by Eon Productions) into another decade. The Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale, probably the best Bond film since either Goldeneye (1995) or Licence to Kill (1989), depending on your tastes. It did so with its attempt to inject a bit grittier realism into the series while keeping the entertainment level high. One never knows what to expect from a series created out of a character intended to be boring, as devised by Ian Fleming. Quantum of Solace (2008) was so much of a nonentity that I can barely remember watching it, but Skyfall (2012) certainly resounded better for all of its strange little quirks that came with attempts at emotional depth. The beauty of covering a film I took a pass on doing because it seemed too mild to watch in a theater seven years ago is that there isn't exactly much to spoil for those who do films. Of course, if you like surprises, go ahead with whatever you want to do. Besides, the Bond series would continue with Craig for No Time to Die (2021) after a number of years in development that retained certain actors from before. There were four writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth. Mendes and Logan apparently came up with the main concept of the plot together before lingering dissatisfaction in script from key groups led to asking Purvis and Wade to step in for re-writes (Butterworth ended up stepping in for the screenplay), and you may remember that Logan & Purvis had served as writer on these films since The World Is Not Enough while Logan helped to write Skyfall. So, three years later, with the same director in Sam Mendes from the previous film, who decided to do the film after initially saying no (Nicolas Winding Refn had said no in the meantime), here is another one of these Bond movies. Oh, but it's not any kind of mild follow-ups, no, it's the kind of sequel that tries to go all out in all the narrative and epic pulls you might see in a franchise blockbuster of the 2010s. 

Guess what? It isn't particularly good. It reminds me of a goldfish in a fishbowl: the fish seems to be happy in the bowl, and it gets to look something nice outside the bowl, but its memory span will prove forgettable despite all the food (spectacle in this case) you give it. In short, it manages to show not the strengths of spectacle in locations and budget but rather the weaknesses of trying to use it to hide a limp story that runs at 148 minutes for reasons I can't really comprehend. You may or may not remember that the character of Blofeld had been featured in physical form as the primary villain in four movies (one being a non-EON feature), but none since the 1980s. Of course, you would hope in that time spent away dealing with litigation with Kevin McClory that EON found folks that could make a quality adversary that would make the best portrayal (Telly Savalas) proud. Nope! Being overshadowed by Bautista playing a heavy with one word to say is bad, being nondescript and being brought down by narrative choices is just as bad. He manages to be like a shadow, non-descript in menace because of the choice of time given to Waltz (because hey, time to visit another country on the plot that is totally not familiar). And yes, there is a twist to help connect these previous films together: Quantum is basically a subsidiary to the real power behind the throne of secret doom: Spectre (no, not SPECTRE), complete with being linked together because someone found a ring that had everyone's fingerprints all over it (get it?). Spectre and the master plan involves surveillance that seems cribbed from both a 1984 ripoff and the "Cain and Abel" narrative. Maybe I wouldn't have seen the twist coming if I never saw the villain having a connection to the spy in "family"...in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002). The idea of one adoptive brother wreaking havoc on the other adoptive brother is hysterical in its ridiculous contrivances - remember that after Blofeld reveals his whole "daddy liked you better" spiel to Bond and mildly tortures him (tied to a chair, but thank goodness for watches), his next brilliant plan is to go to an abandoned building and taunt Bond to find him with arrows pointing where he is while trying to do the "save yourself or save the girl and die"...totally not a parody to guess how that goes. Exploding watches are one thing, but somewhere you have to draw the line (that line probably gave up when it heard about smart blood). It almost clouds the fact that the "surveillance angle" the film tries to play is the bare minimum of an angle, which would not be a problem if you have a striking villain or actual conviction to do something beyond "Is James Bond still relevant?" again. Simply having an adventure while tinkering with the tiniest things of the formula is too much, nah, you have to play it really safe or throw as much spectacle in digital effects to distract from this being a neutered average movie (unless you count not shooting someone as innovative). Having the illusion of an opening sequence done in one take is probably the best trick the film plays in a movie that seems to have no idea where the third act is going to go besides just throwing things up in the air and "leaving it to God" (which is probably how they decided on Sam Smith being the title singer for the film rather than Radiohead). 

You know you might be in trouble when you have not one but two Bond romances to go around, and one of them is basically a glorified cameo that really is there for info-dumps than actual passion (Bellucci, in a role I imagine had a nice paycheck, because "oldest Bond girl" means diddly squat). Seydoux reminds me of a broomstick in that things are meant to happen, but you completely forgot why you had it there because you fell asleep. The chemistry of Seydoux and Craig is amusingly dry (the age difference has never been more apparent, going from 10-11 in the previous three to...seventeen), inflicting only the bare minimum of what you might expect from a Bond romance arc...but of all the ones where you see the two do a walk off into the sunset, this is not even in the top half of being convincing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the parts that work to the usual Bond formula (a Q, a M, and a Moneypenny) do pretty well when it comes to seeing Fiennes try to make his first mark as M or the small moments of Harris and Whishaw when paired with Craig, whether that involves seeing how James Bond lives for the first time in a while or hijinks with tech. Bautista does make a useful adversary in the art of quick-skilled brutality (mostly in his first scene) that contributes to an involving chase scene or two that works best among the rest of the muddy foundation points, which goes with Scott and his "totally not a bad guy" presence and Christensen...uh, I will be honest in forgetting who he was supposed to be (Casino Royale had him get shot in the leg and that's all I remember). Of course, Craig still seems like the stellar man to play the lead role, one who has the confidence required to pull the film away from being the total disaster it might have been with someone who can't have a little bit of fun with some of these lines. In other words, he still seems likes the kind of person who can pull off being an odd man that big things happen around him (while not reminding one of late 1980s Roger Moore). As a whole, I really did want to like the film. I wanted to like the idea of a James Bond feature that continued the thrill of where the previous venture left off and see where one can go further in spy adventure as the series goes past its 50th anniversary. And yet, somehow, I found it to be probably the most mind-boggling misfire since Die Another Day (2002). In trying to dazzle the audience with new tricks, all they managed to do is show an empty hand. It may be a nice film in parts, but it is a dull stinker in all the other ways that make it a muddle to sit through. It isn't the worst Bond film, but it is probably the most confounding, and I imagine whenever I see the next one I can only have the slightest of expectations that they found a way to just, you know, do a Bond movie that isn't a big muddle when everything else is fine.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blade Runner 2049.

Review #997: Blade Runner 2049.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (K), Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Ana de Armas (Joi), Sylvia Hoeks (Luv), Robin Wright (Lt. Joshi), Mackenzie Davis (Mariette), Carla Juri (Dr. Ana Stelline), Lennie James (Mister Cotton), Dave Bautista (Sapper Morton), Jared Leto (Niander Wallace), Edward James Olmos (Gaff) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario)

Review: 
It has been over five years since I reviewed Blade Runner (#100, The Final Cut edition), and I will admit that I never actually thought a sequel would happen. Well, here we are with a sequel 35 years later (and 897 reviews after I did the original, which seems fitting). I even watched the original film hours later I saw this, mainly so I could process my thoughts for this film a bit better. In any case, that film still manages to hold up quite well, but I still never dreamed that there would ever be a follow up, because of how the film built itself, owing to its direction but also its screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples; I mention this due to Fancher returning to write the screenplay for this film (with Michael Green serving as co-writer).

Honestly, this was a pretty great movie. For fans of the original, I would say that it was worth the wait, and its shining achievement is in how it is not a retread of the first film, managing to utilize elements from it that make for a capably clever narrative. Like the original, it is a bleak, shocking kind of science fiction film, and it certainly is a movie made to tell a story with numerous threads to it, owing to the 163 minute run-time (which is probably the longest for a film I've seen in quite some time), but it never bored me as it earns every minute of its time, although it admittedly could take a while to really kick in. Roger Deakins, who had done the cinematography for Skyfall (#572), Sicario (#753), and Fargo (#765) (along with several other films) does a tremendous job in this film, utilizing light and shadow all throughout the movie with a wonderful touch. Gosling does a fine job, carrying the film with the right kind of tone and feel that you would expect. It isn't too much of a spoiler to say that it takes quite a while for Ford to show up but when he does it certainly seems like the best time for him to appear, with the film having built itself enough tension already. Ford also does a fine job, being quite useful for the narrative while also showing some emotional prowess; likely the best scene with him in it involves him and Leto, mainly because of the exchange that they have. de Armas does a fine job in a role that certainly is unique while also being fitting for a film all about it means to be human. Hoeks steals the show, being quite chilling and incredibly stealthy in her role. Wright also does a fine job in the time she has on screen, as does Davis and Juri. Leto has a few scenes that certainly come off as a bit strange...so of course it makes sense in the context of the film, which he pulls off pretty well. Even if I wanted to, it is hard to really talk much about the film's plot because of how it builds itself with imagination that certainly will leave the viewer with some sort of emotional response (and some questions) by the time the film gets to its end.

Watching this film is not so much an endurance as it is an experience (which I hope does not come off as sounding pretentious), and it is one that I would recommend for someone looking for a film that challenges you to follow every step it ventures to take with its tone and characters. Whether there is a sequel to this film or not, this is a movie that stands on its own as a fine piece of entertaining science fiction, doing what it sets out to do without any kind of restrictions or bounds. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely an exceptional one at least.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 -  Guardians of the Galaxy)

Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Guardians of the Galaxy.

Review #626: Guardians of the Galaxy.

Cast
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill/Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), John C. Reilly (Corpsman Rhomann Dey), Glenn Close (Nova Prime), and Benicio del Toro (The Collector) Directed by James Gunn.

Review
When it comes to having a good time at the movie theater, picking a Marvel movie is usually a safe bet. And that rings true once again with this film, which is a real treat. Does it feel like a pastiche of other films? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't care, this...is just a fun movie to watch. The main heroes all work so well because they're not just a team of heroes, they're a team of rouges who are all different, weird, and yet so fun to watch. It surprised that of all the heroes in this film, it's Groot that is just so delightful to watch. Even if he's in the background he still manages to leave an impression. And Vin Diesel has just a few lines to convey his character in voice...and it works. Diesel manages to convey emotion with those lines, though the effects on Groot also help that, and Groot smiling is just fun to watch. The villain is alright, Pace at least does manage to do a good job under all that makeup, and I liked seeing Karen Gillian, she did a pretty good job in a minor role. The effects are really impressive, for both the characters and the action, it's a movie that is amusing but also thrilling as well. The ending credit scene is pretty amusing, movies don't usually end on Howard the Duck, but it sums how zany this movie is, and how enjoyable it is, from it's retro music (that has a purpose) to its characters to its willingness to just have fun. Go see it, you'll most definitely have a good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.