Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

Year: 2014
Director: James Gunn
Screenplay: James Gunn, Nicole Perlman
Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Djimon Hounsou, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Benicio del Toro

Synopsis is here

You have to give it to Marvel. They really know to market something. It’s been hard not to turn my head without a webspot, social network status or puff piece about the film flying towards my face. A film in which for many of its audience ($300 Million International box office in counting at the time of writing), had probably never heard of the source material it’s based on before its announcement. The word of mouth from said audience has been solid also. While things are looking good for the Guardians, I’m not sure the crew will be taking me to the Awesome Mix party they're clearly having for their efforts. As while I enjoyed isolated moments of James Gunn’s energetic blockbuster, the film as a whole never quite truly bowled me over.

In the binary, all or nothing age of the internet, this isn’t allowed and of course, the moment those words were read, the geeks have already decided against hearing me out/insulting me. For this viewer, however, Gunn’s film is so tailor made for a group of fans, they would never want to know, nor care, that the seams can be seen.

Many of my reservations stem from the film's narrative, which cleverly avoids milling around with origin stories, but quickly slips into being here before territory. We’re once again witnessing an all-powerful glowing McGuffin which an underwhelming megalomaniac seeks. Our gang of heroes will have to do battle with said megalomaniac and his bunch of near infinite cannon fodder. Preferably climaxing in a third act where most of the action will take place in the skies. Yes, that sounds cynical and yes, I’ve enjoyed this Marvel set up previously, but Gunn’s moments of irrelevance are such a breath of fresh air, I found myself acutely aware of the more familiar and laboured.

Guardians work best when Gunn and the screenwriters meld the silly and the sweet. Gunn, who was probably best known for the twisted cult hit; Super, before this, is particularly adept at taking the slightly outrageous and fusing it with a certain amount of warmth that others wouldn’t be able to coax. This is an ex Troma director with a web series named PG Porn, so it’s no surprise that the film's main strengths stem when the films at its most preposterous.  Did I just see a walking, talking tree grows a flower out his hand for a little girl? My heart melted slightly.

As mentioned before, the film’s quirky subversions illuminate the film well. Take a WWE wrestler who started out as a silent enforcer and give him the grandest vocabulary of the bunch. Have Vin Diesel, who is known for his gravelly voice and get him to produce some of his best work with only three words. Lets have a star as handsome as Bradley Cooper steal scenes, not with his smile, but with a vocal performance as a racoon. These characters shine brighter than our Star Lord (Pratt) whose performance is full of fun, but not the second coming of Solo. This said I still rather Nathan Fillion’s Mal as my go to space rouge.  Once again Zoe Salanda shows her worth in her role as the most serious of the outcasts; Gamora. Despite looking like she should have a similar trajectory to Scarlett Johansson, we still don’t seem to hear enough about her.

Despite this there’s an irritable feeling that Guardians is gaining a high amount of praise despite holding similar issues that other modern blockbusters are reprimanded for. Reason being; look at Chris Pratt rapping to Eminem verses. It seems like the same go here to do this plotting that the Micheal Bays and Brett Ratners will be attacked for is fine in other movies due to brand charisma and PR charm and little else. The memes of Chris Pratt as Indy have already been doing the rounds, yet any of that first trilogy appeared to be more expressive (and economic) with their plots than what we see here.

The more interesting and seemingly less observed aspect of this space opera, however, is that it pushes to the forefront the fine margins that occur with Marvel and it’s more auteur orientated directors. I did wonder how much did Edger Wright and the studio couldn’t meet in the middle with their Ant Man vision. Whereas James Gunn’s amusing asides and reaction shots fitted in to the brand. It reminded me of just how difficult the balance is between filmmakers and the project. How everything is a fine tapestry. Guardians of the Galaxy has frayed edges, but they are more interesting than the body itself.

Review: Pain & Gain

Year: 2013

Director: Michael Bay

Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Rebel Wilson, Tony Shalhoub, Ed Harris

Synopsis is here:

Based loosely on an even more insane true story, Pain & Gain finds Michael Bay at the height of his excesses. The film is homophobic, xenophobic and sleazy in all the ways we expect a Bay film to be. Yet as the film isn't aiming dubious messages at the world’s youth (see Transformers), the blow is softened somewhat. The nastiness of the story the film is based on is in fact perfect for a director like Bay who revels in the delinquency of it all. The film is full of discrepancies (composite characters, altered facts) but it doesn't seem to matter. In his own cartoony way, Bay has crafted a film that at its highest points satirises the desperation that infects some who chase the elusive American Dream. It’s Scarface by the way of The 3 Stooges.

Bay mines all the techniques that make many hate him, but his excessiveness only seems to aid the film. The forever roaming camera captures these exasperated characters in heavily saturated colours. The extreme close ups capture every ounce of sweat drenched anxiety that befouls these despicable creatures. The canted angles and hectic cross cutting only seem to serve the skewed views of these criminals.  Even the multiple voice over narration from nearly every character in the film, plays into the mania of it all. Like soulless vultures; the various voices (full of juxtaposition as opposed to what we’re seeing) highlight the hollowness of these people.

It’s easy to hate Pain & Gain because it captures the vapid nature of its characters acutely. Delving head first into the griminess of its story, the characters talk in infomercial platitudes. They take work out breaks when the grisly shit hits the fan. Bay throws this amped up aggression right in our faces and doesn't let, but I never found myself aligning myself with the characters. I felt there was more than enough distance for me to pity their ignorance and laugh at them then with them.

The films humour is often hit and miss, yet when the lurid nature of the piece hits the right spot, there is an amusement about it that will tickle a few. Bay still really needs to reign in his bizarre issues with homosexuals (there was no elements of this in the actual story), while his attitudes to race and females are still as crude as ever. However, I must maintain that some of this works towards the characters we are observing. To sanitize the nastiness of this story would be a disservice. Fact is, as grim as the tone of this movie may be; it’s still not as nasty as what actually happened.  That Bay manages to mine something “enjoyable” out of this, says more about me than anything, but there’s something in the blackness of it all that entertained me. I've said it before; you gotta laugh, or else you’ll cry.

Pain & Gain looks to attack the worse aspects of American materialism in plain sight. From the garish colours, and over indulgent direction (although Bay has eased up on his editing), to the arrogant, dunderhead performances (Johnson’s relapsed, meatheaded addict is a highlight) of the main cast. Everything plays into the sordid mentality of culture that’s able to cultivate sociopaths and all of this is wrapped within a high octane package that only Bay could deliver. I have to admit that after the 447 minutes of robot smashing that Bay gave us, Pain & Gain seems much more toned down and focused in its action. Again, nothing hits the peaks of some his earlier works, however compared to the fallen revenges of the dark of the moon, everything is little bit more engaging. I guess one of the reasons is that Bay isn't shilling this to adolescents.

Review: The Expendables 2

Year: 2012
Director: Simon West
Screenplay: Richard Wenk and Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Liam Hemsworth, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nan Yu

Synopsis is here

NOTE: I go into some spoiler territory here, but if you turn up to this for the plot, you surprise even me.

In a brave new post modern world; where action heroes are now more likely to be character actors (Bale, Damon, Downley Jr et all), The Expendables came across as a distressing plea for relevance at the hands of it's director and lead, Sylvester Stallone. Rambo himself may have jogged audience members memories to remember heap of near forgotten action stars. However, the misty eyed nostalgia of seeing these screen heroes was quickly obscured by the real reason for the films existence: ego fuel.

Sly's film was less about showing the young pretenders how it's done and more about exclaiming that he was till around. Drunk of the response of Rocky Balboa and Rambo, The Expendables' constant extreme close ups of an elderly Stallone mumbling naff gags was unfortunately more memorable than the hastily hacked action.

Empire writer Helen O'Hara rightfully lambasted the net nerds and lugheads on twitter by quoting the following:

"It's ironic, a movie that wears masculinity like a badge has fans who read 1 bad review & cry like little girls"

I couldn't agree more. The Expendables is less about delivering a decent action feature as opposed to stroking the egos of those who star in it. Stallone, Arnie and Willis have all make their mark in action films that were way more effective in story and set pieces. High pitched screeches of how "old school" it is, can ring from here to Albuquerque. The whining falls on deaf ears when the likes of films like The Raid are only a rental away. That film also has issues, but when it comes to action, the scenes put forth could be watched over and over.

That said, The Expendables 2 will probably quench the thirst of those who lust for the wrinkly muscle of it's meat headed cast. The film starts out with a set piece that could have easily been the climax of any other action movie. As oddly composited the sequence is (considering the film, and the money put in place, it doesn't look great) this sequel clearly wishes to expand on what came before. Bullets fire, bones crack and faceless soldiers of a far away country are set on fire. Director Simon West sorts out some of the geography of the on screen action although still it feels like characters drop in and out with no real sense of place or time.

It is good that a director like West has taken over directing duties from Stallone. The film is a little more assured of itself this time round. The film trundles along at a decent enough pace and hits it's action beats better than it's predecessor. Most of the dialogue and gags are still pretty awful, but Stallone and his band of writers at least feel a bit more accurate with the ironic aspect of the franchise. I've got to believe that the confusing and cliched monologue that Liam Hemsworth spouts is for the "lolz" because his character goes so far past tongue in cheek that it skips past sad and ends up right back where it came from. Honestly, the moment Hemsworth utters his first line of dialogue, his trajectory becomes more than a little predictable.

But then that's what films like this are about. Stating the obvious and things that go boom. Things don't have to make sense as long as a famous action start pops up from nowhere, makes a pop culture reference to themselves and shoots a gun. There is little to no reason for Chuck Norris within this movie, other than to mention a Chuck Norris joke from the internet and distract you from the fact that Jet Li was only in the first 10 mins of the the movie.

It's not completely tragic. I really enjoyed the casting of Jean Claude Van Damme, who milks his villainous character for as much as he can get, while there's no denying that there's a certain chemistry between Stallone and chums, although it still feels like him Bruce and Arnie didn't shoot their scenes together. The inclusion of Nan Yu as an intelligent (for this kind of movie) female character also means well. Unlike a Micheal Bay movie, Yu doesn't feel as sexualised as so many Hollywood startlets, and yet remains attractive in her own right.

For all it's obviousness, The Expendables 2 does at times strive for something earnest. One "dramatic" moment has Sly's Barney Ross lament at why some are chosen to die, while others do not. The scene is badly played out (almost laughable) and yet touches on something I wished both this and the original film leaned on more. However, it's not meant to be. The Expendabless 2 stayed in my memories longer than the first film, but still faded quicker than watery mist on a hot July day. That negative response may have more grown men weeping and raging, but at least they'll have the large arms of The Expendables to keep them safe.

Rosemary's Baby is reborn...

..and already I wish for an abortion. Micheal Bays Platinum Dunes seems to be hellbent on re-making horror film that don't really need to be touched.

Rosemary's Baby
I usually don't mind about most remakes. As long as the makers can take the original idea and rearrange it into an interesting way I'm game. The new Hills have eyes had an intensity that I found missing in the original, while The U.S. Grudge had it's moments (definitely better than the remake of Ringu).

However Hollywood is constantly churning out remakes that many are considering sub-par. Hell, I'm sure the two remakes I used as examples are disliked by many.
What many people hate about these remakes is simply the lack of understand on what made the original movies so creepy to them. Those tiny little nuances that have kept films into peoples minds and/or nightmares will be lost.

Which leads me to the article about Rosemary's Baby. Considered a classic to many and well revered in horror circles. While melodramatic and dated by today's standards, Rosemary's Baby is still a great 70's tale of paranoia and fear. It's not like most horror films and its main theme is something that will scare soon to be parents until we are long gone; "Is there something wrong with my child?".

A film like Rosemary's Baby deals with it's characters and their story more than anything else. It's back story whispering cultural dealings of the day (Is god dead?) while telling a disturbing story about a young mother whose moved to a place where she knows hardly anybody and fears not only for her child but her own well being.

It's a grown up horror movie. Something we do see less of in these days of so called "torture porn" and self referential "satire". It is also something I don't think Micheal "maker of that toy movie" Bay's production company is up for. After watching how The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was slickly "re-imagined" I can't see Rosemary's Remake being a subtle re-working of anything at all.

Remakes, Re-imaging, Rip offs, Whatever. Like I said before I don't think there's anything wrong with a good re-vamp of something. Without Hidden Fortress there's be no Star Wars etc. But I don't feel that Platinum Dunes current style of glossy, MTV edited re-makes, filled with dirtied up beautiful people are the right to go for a film made by a director whose well know for his intelligent psychological movies.