Skip to main content

Guardians 2 is Heavy on Humour, Low on Story


          There’s an episode of Futurama where Leela believes she’s found her mysterious homeworld, but the reality is revealed to be far less idyllic than it appeared. This was an old story trope when Futurama did it seventeen years ago, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 plays with the same outline, but in a more serious manner. Only slightly more serious.
          The Guardians of the Galaxy are still roaming the cosmos as protectors-for-hire when they run into a powerful alien being called Ego (Kurt Russell) who claims to be the father of Peter “Star-Lord” Quill (Chris Pratt). He takes Peter, Gamora (Zoe Saldana), and Drax (Dave Bautista) to his home planet, but while Peter gradually becomes transfixed by its lush richness and the secrets of his own identity, the others wonder if it’s too good to be true. Meanwhile, Gamora’s sister Nebula (Karen Gillan)still seeks revenge, and the ravager Yondu (Michael Rooker) is drawn into the fray due to his history with Peter.
          As you can tell, this movie’s attempting to balance multiple character arcs within one overarching storyline. And in doing that, it falls apart in some places. It’s clear the film wants to focus on character building: the issue of Peter’s parentage raised at the end of the last film, but also a continuation of the arc of Gamora and Nebula, which was never entirely fleshed out in the original, and for some reason, add a completely new thread for Yondu of all characters. But though a noble effort, neither of the secondary storylines have much substance to them, at least not given the time they’re allotted. There are some really poor editing choices. Scenes cut between characters in the middle of intense moments and don’t cut back for fifteen minutes or so, as Peter learns more about his dad, or Drax “bonds” with Ego’s empath Mantis (Pom Klementieff). This makes the character developments feel rushed. Gamora and Nebula’s arc unfolds pretty anti-climatically, and both Nebula and Yondu are given expanded backgrounds that factor little into anything else. Yondu in particular, though awesome, is baffling. Despite not sharing a scene before the action-climax kicks in, we’re supposed to be really invested in the relationship between him and Peter, but it’s just not there, making for a very unwarranted shift in focus late in the film. There’s just a general tendency to tell rather than show and it hurts your ability to be invested. The primary focus on Peter and the ultimate galaxy-threatening conflict works best, but still isn’t a very good narrative on its own. There are some unique details that go with this world, but it is still a story we’ve seen before.
          The movie’s saving grace is its coulourful cast of characters. Chris Pratt is very charismatic and still a lot of fun. Zoe Saldana is in the unfortunate position of having to play the straight-man to a bunch of wise-crackers, but she plays it okay. Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) is still really cool, the genuine highlight of the movie. There are two characters the film’s really trying to push though: Drax is given a lot more screen-time and Dave Bautista is better than in the first film, but his character’s just being milked for jokes. Having no filter and an inability to understand metaphor is funny for a while, but it does wear thin. And Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) is shamelessly exploited for his cuteness. His best moment comes in the mid-credits, so stick around for those. Klementieff is good in her subtle physical performance, and Russell is fine, though you can read his character pretty easily not long into his revelations. Rooker and Gillan both are more impressive than in the first movie, and give solid performances despite their awkward character journeys. And Rooker easily gets the funniest one-liner in a Marvel movie in years.
          That banter and sense of humour is still really good, which goes a long way to keeping you entertained through sub-par pacing. We get some more great 80s references and a handful of thoroughly funny, memorable bits. That being said, a few jokes go on too long and others try too hard to stick. The soundtrack is once again pretty awesome, boasting songs of Fleetwood Mac, George Harrison, and Cat Stevens, though a couple could have been better integrated. 
          As for the visual effects, Rocket is still one of the best-looking CGI characters I’ve ever seen on film. But at the same time, this movie utilizes that youth effect on Kurt Russell, and the uncanny valley on that’s a little too disturbing. But perhaps that’s the intention considering he’s an alien.
          Though the stakes are ultimately greater in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, the scale is much smaller than Guardians of the Galaxy and not as enrapturing. But I think another factor is that Guardians of the Galaxy was kind of a lightning-in-a-bottle movie: a very weird idea that just delivered exactly what it needed to be, making for a refreshingly wry and stylish sci-fi flick that everyone could gravitate towards. We knew more what to expect with the sequel, so it had an extra obstacle to overcome. Still, it’s pretty disappointing that James Gunn didn’t tell a stronger story with these terrific characters, blending the disparate arcs more cohesively. But it’s just fun enough in its comedy, characters and charm to stay entertaining. After all, I can’t fault a movie too hard that got in multiple references to Cheers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...