Guardians of the Galaxy - The Marvel Revival?

It was a summer blockbuster from last year, but it has taken me quite a long time to get around to seeing Guardians of the Galaxy, the Marvel action adventure that pits a disparate band of ne'er-do-wells against some sort of pan-galactic terrorist intent on using the Maguffin of Doom to enslave / destroy the universe.  Classic.  The film combines action, a simple and effective story, good special effects, witty asides and most importantly of all - a sense of fun.  It does this very well, making use of an entertaining ensemble cast to provide 2 hours of entertainment that - though hardly genre-defining or boundary-breaking - is seldom seen these days in superhero action genre that's packed with far too much pain, anger and portents of doom.

The plot for Guardians of the Galaxy is simplicity itself.  Chris Pratt plays Peter Quill, literally the most 'everyman' of all men as a human abducted from Earth as a child who has now grown up to be a small-time space adventurer / good-hearted pirate in a galaxy full of no two creatures that seem to be of the same species (erm - Star Wars universe?).  When he comes into the possession of an "orb of power" that's wanted by arch-villain Ronan, he finds himself pursued by one of Ronan's reformed minions and a cartoon rat version of Han Solo with his very own Chewbacca Ent.  Eventually they decide that the fate of the galaxy is more important then the monetary value of this orb, and decide to band together to defeat Ronan before he can unleash its power.  Cue badass kung-fu moves, weird space ships, even weirder weapons, bad 80s music and a tone that from the opening credits has its tongue wedged into its cheek.

Now this isn't exactly the rocket science of story-telling, but it's effective and showcases what is possible with the superhero action genre when it remembers that it's possible to enjoy yourself watching a film.  It's a film that gets very close to ripping Star Wars off completely, but Star Wars itself was a product of a coming together of a variety of old stories, tropes and action adventure serials that George Lucas commonly cites when talking about his inspirations  So I think we can let Guardians of the Galaxy off there.  And what's wrong with something fresh and new that channels the sense of adventure and simple story-telling of the original Star Wars?  It makes you remember why you loved Star Wars in the first place!

I may offer up a small criticism?  Obviously this is not a film that's meant to be taken seriously but I do get annoyed by the stereotypical use of genders in the film.  Our heroes are all meant to be rogues, but it is constantly Zoe Saldana's character Gamora who provides the heart of the gang, reminding us that people need to be saved and "wont someone please think of the children?!" (she never says this - but you get the point).  She is introduced to us as a rebel who say her family killed at Ronan's hands, so it would have been nice for her to have a slightly harder exterior - maybe a bit like Anne Hathaway's Catwoman in the recent Batman series.  Also the film currently scores over 8 on IMDB, which is way too high.  Yes Guardians of the Galaxy might be a lot of fun, but it definitely isn't Casablanca.

If Marvel can make films like this then why do they need to persist with reboots, rehashes and repeats of stories, characters and mythologies that have been rinsed to death and thousand times before?  The answer is of course money, and the fact that yet another reboot of the Spiderman franchise generates more buzz and ultimately more cash than taking a chance on something new and interesting.  The commercial success of Guardians of the Galaxy is beyond question though, and so I expect to now see an entire Guardians of the Galaxy franchise that balloons out of control. With a bit of luck though it will encourage Marvel to take a chance on more stuff like this in the future.

Ex Machina - why so much hype?

Only back in the UK for a couple of days last week and I went to see a new Science Fiction film that had been heavily trailed and well-reviewed while I was away.  Ex Machina is a film that presents a view of the near future, a future in which true AI is beginning to dawn, and a billionaire entrepreneur (Nathan - played by Oscar Isaac) has created a female robot AI (Ava - Alicia Vikander) that he believes can be the next step in evolution.  To test his creation, Nathan brings in Caleb (a programmer played by Domhnall Gleeson) to carry out a series of Turing tests on the robot, and determine if she has consciousness.

This is a film that looks great, has a simple aesthetic and even simpler setting - the entire film (save for a few moments at the start and end) is set inside the underground bunker where Nathan has carried out his research.  The film consists of a series of interactions between characters.  Firstly Nathan and Caleb get to know each other and Caleb comes to realise what Nathan has created, then Caleb and Ava get to know each other as part of a series of tests, finally Caleb comes to realise the true nature of the relationship between Ava and Nathan, and must work out what is real and who to trust.

Now all of this is fine.  But I cannot understand how this film is sporting a 8.0 rating on IMDB at the moment.  Ex Machina is nothing more than a reasonably good episode of the Twilight Zone.  It's 45 minutes of television padded out into 2 hours through the use of moody shots of scenery and endless scenes of flat conversations that rarely build character, tension or plot.  The plot isn't rocket science.  At it's best it's a rehash of 2001 with a bit of misogyny thrown in and without the awe-inspiring vision of space and exploring the unknown.

Put simply; I just don't get the hype.  It's nothing new, and although the effects used to create Ava are clearly impressive, they're hardly a paradigm shift in film SFX - the are no Jurassic Park dinosaurs here.  Watch Ex Machina if you must, but please don't believe the hype.

22 Jump Street - Funnier than you would think

Having been pleasantly surprised by the amount that I enjoyed 21 Jump Street, it wasn't too difficult to decide upon the second film that I would watch on the long haul to Buenos Aires.  22 Jump Street is obviously the sequel to the reboot of the TV series, again starring Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as a pair of douchebag cops who are drafted in to investigate a dodgy ring of drug dealers - this time on a college campus (last time it was in a school).

The running gag in the film is one that has carried over from the previous, and to be fair to the writers they've done a pretty good job of making something that could have been tedious into something funny.  The joke is that everything is the same as last time; playing on the idea that the sequel needs to be as similar to the first to appeal to the same audience.  In 21 Jump Street the gag was that everything happening was exactly the same as the TV series.  And it really is the same as last time, but somehow the postmodern acknowledgement of that isn't tedious, it's pretty funny.

I guess the thing that makes the film work is a combination of smart writing and excellent comic performances from Tatum and Hill - aided by Ice Cube ably bringing his performance as the archetypical 1980s style angry black police chief.  It's crude and not subtle in the slightest, but it's undeniably funny with its penis jokes, weird trips, lampooning of the buddy cop genre and general refusal to take itself seriously.  The film ends with a montage predicting future iterations of the xx Jump Street genre, with Hill and Tatum going to all sorts of schools and academies solving exactly the same crimes as they age and pretend to still be in their early 20s.  It's surprisingly funny as end-credit sequences go.

As this kind of stuff goes, it's no Bridesmaids, but it's definitely better than most.

Edge of Tomorrow - not edge of my seat though

The first film I watched on my flight to Buenos Aires a few weekends ago was Edge of Tomorrow, the recent science fiction / time travel / action adventure starring Tom Cruise playing off against a potential love interest who is literally young enough to be his daughter (Cruise is 21 years older than Emily Blunt).  Would this ever happen the other way around without the age difference being a plot point in the movie?  If anyone can think of any examples then I would love to hear about them.

The premise of Edge of Tomorrow is that in the nearish future there is some kind of alien invasion of Earth in progress.  The aliens have no apparent agenda, they're simply evil-looking blobs with tentacles and claws waiting to be dispatched in a variety of ways before they dispatch you.  Tom Cruise's character is press-ganged into joining the marines after insulting his commanding officer Brendan Gleeson.  Cruise protests but ultimately joins the human invasion forces on the beaches of Northern France - which are horribly defeated.  Cruise himself is killed, but he immediately awakens back on the previous day, ready to live the day again and repeat his death in a Groundhog Day style.

And this is the plot for the rest of the film.  Cruise must work out how to try and survive the day.  Not only that, but he soon discovers the reason for his time travel is intrinsically linked with the aliens' victory over Humanity.

Let's be honest, Edge of Tomorrow sounds like a fun idea, but in the end it's science fiction filler.  There are plenty of nice effects, different types and styles of guns and body armour and aliens, plus some cool arse-kicking action, but that's all.  The story is incredibly simple when it's all boiled down, and by its very nature pretty repetitive and full of CGI.  It's fun to look at if you're a fan of the science fiction action genre, but I think that even the most hardened of fanboys will be unable to give it more than average marks.  This is a film very few people will be watching in 5 years time.

Been away - here's some Goodfellas

Been away for a bit, some reviews of films watched on the plan are coming up soon.  In the meantime here's a classic scene from a classic film, Martin Scorsese's epic steadicam shot from Goodfellas:

Frozen - That's right, I watched Frozen

It will not come as a surprise to people who know me that I didn't really know anything about the animated Disney film Frozen until just the other day.  Apparently many of the songs from the film (it is a musical) have permeated into the current zeitgeist and are widely recognised by even those who don't have small daughters badgering them to watch it again and again.  For me - being the pop culture waste land that I am - all of this was new.  My Mum insisted on lending me her DVD of Frozen when I visited Ilford in November, I was rightly skeptical.  But, you know me, Friday evening is DVD night - and so it was that last Friday evening as the cold permeated around Crowthorne, my DVD player got Frozen.

It is times like this when you have to throw your preconceptions of film out of the window.  Though I call myself a film junkie, I maintain a distinct taste for the horror and science fiction genres.  One might think that Frozen - an animated Disney adventure in which a princess has to save her newly-crowned elder sister queen from her own hidden magical powers, aided only by a handsome woodsman, a talking snowman and goofy elk - would be the type of film I wouldn't get along with.  Not so.  In fact, who am I kidding, not just 'not so', but emphatically 'not so'.  Frozen was bloody brilliant.

The plot is thus: Elsa is the heir to the throne of the magical medieval land of Arendelle, where all the sassy characters we're meant to like are Americans and all the weirdo locals we're meant to laugh at are some sort of generic Nordic breed.  Elsa and her sister Anna have magical powers that allow them to control the elements.  When Anna is involved in an accident that nearly kills her, to save her life her magical powers are removed and all memory of magic is purged from her (don't ask why - it just is).  The snag is that Elsa's powers will grow as she ages, as will Elsa's guilt at what her powers did to her sister.  Fast-forward several years and the sisters are grown up, Elsa is an isolated queen avoiding contact with anyone and closely guarding her magical secret.  On the other hand, Anna is carefree and furious of her sister's aloofness.  It can only be so long before Elsa's secrets are revealed and all sorts of icy shit hits the fan...

This is a film that's classic Broadway.  The story is told through a series of pretty catchy songs, all leading up the extremely chirpy 'Let it go' - in which Elsa throws off her self-imposed shackles and embraces her magical powers / womanliness, building a castle of ice around her as she makes a statement about herself / girl power / liberation.  The graphic design in this scene is amazing, and the production of the song spot-on.  It's a great example of how to make something that appeals to everyone at the cinema - something Disney has always excelled at.

The film's about family, love and respect; with an ending about the meaning of love that should probably bring a tear to the eye.  It has excellent comic asides and the music is great (though I could have done without the song that Olaf the Snowman sings - complete filler that one). However, does Anna really need to punch the 'bad guy' out at the end?  Do we want to teach young girls that it's OK to punch men in the face if they're naughty?  C'mon Disney, you can do better than that.

So it might be riddled with cliché and the story might not make that much sense, but it's a film that has an unbridled sense of fun with visuals that look amazing.  I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't enjoy themselves watching it.  So to anyone out there sticking their heels in the tundra and refusing to give Frozen a go, put your preconceptions aside and let the magic of Disney wash over you like it hasn't done since you were a kid.  Just let it go.

Films of the Year - 2014

Got a couple of films in right at the end of 2014 last week, but they weren't good enough to make it into my top 5.  Once again I'm taking some liberties with my definition of 2014 - after all I'm not a proper film critic, so I don't have to do it properly!

5 - The Grand Budapest Hotel

The best thing Ralph Fiennes has been in for ages.  It's funny, anarchic and makes just enough sense to keep you paying attention even for people who might get frustrated by Wes Anderson's method of story-telling.

4 - 12 Years a Slave

Deservedly walked away with a bunch of Oscars in the 2014 awards season, this film is a landmark in telling the story of industrialised slavery in the USA.  The film deserved its Best Picture Oscar, and Michael Fassbender should have got one too for his role as the sadistic slave-owner Edwin Epps.

3 - The Babadook

Mark Kermode's film of the year is third on my list.  Didn't see many horror films this year, but this was clearly a long way ahead of a pack consisting more and more these days of bland shock-horror.  It's part psychological thriller and part horror, but it's tense, edgy, looks dark and intimidating and tells a simple story extremely well.

2 - The Imitation Game

It's an anti-establishment film about maths.  How could I not love it?

1 - Her

Technically from 2013, but I'm putting it in my 2014 list because it was up for Oscars in 2014 (and won for Best Original Screenplay).  Her is a classic science fiction story, a brilliantly told story in a world that is brilliantly created and realised.  In my review I described it as Solaris for the modern age, and I think that as time passes more people will come to agree with me.  Film of the year - easily.