Review: Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.3

Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.3
Cert: 12A / 150 mins / Dir. James Gunn / Trailer

Having watched it back on release-day, this review of the James Gunn's off-again / on-again third Marvel sci-fi smash-up has admittedly taken some time to make it onto the blog, not least because I've been busy updating my relationship status with Guardians of The Galaxy to 'It's Complicated'...

Part of this is down to the current odd malaise with the MCU, whereby "no Infinity Gauntlet" equals "no collective-narrative forward momentum and no individual storyline with legacy characters strong enough to really justify its existence". Another factor is still wincing from the frankly atrocious GotG TV Holiday Special, which we now know was definitely filmed on the same sets as the cinematic threequel but with precisely none of the creative talent that's gone into the movie. But I digress.

POOLING

The very short version of all this is that the 60% of Guardians of The Galaxy Vol.3 which focuses on Rocket Raccoon sustaining serious injuries, the Guardians-family pooling everything to rescue him, Rocket's reflecting on his backstory and how this affects his present and his future, and then properly developing the character into what he needs to be... is absolutely outstanding. It's precisely what Marvel Studios do best; engaging, exciting, affecting (slightly schmaltzy in places, but well-earned) and most importantly funny. Bradley Cooper loses himself in the character once again and everyone benefits. Rocket Raccoon is the beating heart of this film and every minute spent in his company enrichens the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The other 40%, however, is James Gunn throwing as much content at the viewer as he thinks he can get away with. It's a white-noise cacophony of over-written subplots, over-scripted clatter, over-designed sets and over-directed action sequences. Gamora's return feels poorly defined, Adam Warlock's presence (not to mention the fantastic Will Poulter's performance thereof) is wasted, and the sheer volume of returning minor-characters just to really rip into the casting-budget makes the movie feel scattershot and bloated, like emptying all the free vending machines on your final day in the office.

SNOOKERING

Oh, and after two movies with Peter Quill's vintage cassettes accompanying the journey, the tunes come via Rocket's iPod this time around. But the temporal versatility of this as a format means that the soundtrack is an absolute mishmash of anything James Gunn happens to like from whenever. Now I'm always here for a bit of Spacehog but this is basically Danny Boyle's Mixtape Madness all over again.

Guardians of The Galaxy Vol.3 is worth watching for the things it does right. Just about. Like I said, it's complicated...

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Super Mario Bros. Movie

The Super Mario Bros. Movie
Cert: PG / 92 mins / Dir. Aaron Horvath & Michael Jelenic / Trailer

It feels distinctly odd given the perennial popularity of the character that it's taken three decades for Nintendo to go anywhere near another Mario movie, and even moreso that it feels like this has only been accelerated by Sonic's cinematic success. But here we are.

And for the very most part, The Super Mario Bros. Movie works. This time. Steering clear of live-action, this world-establishing animated affair comes from Illumination studios, penned by Matthew Fogel and directed by Aaron Horvath & Michael Jelenic. This might give a tingling impression of overcrowding, but the storyline is - without wishing to damn with faint praise - refreshingly basic. Everything is set up clearly for viewers unfamiliar with the Mario-verse, but not hammered home to the point where veterans will be rolling their eyes.

HISTORY

Setpieces give transparent nods to various iterations of the game history, and while that canon includes far more than can be effectively covered in a 92 minute film, glaring omissions are being saved for the sequel*¹. For obvious reasons, an animated movie retelling established origins does a far better job of showcasing the actual game-mechanics (both as Easter eggs and direct features) than something broader like Dungeons & Dragons. This is one of the rare occasions where a film being like watching someone playing a game is still supremely enjoyable.

On a technical level Illumination have excelled themselves, although you get the impression that Nintendo insisted on this. The texturing, lighting, physics and heavily stylised character models all look gorgeous throughout (even if there are entire sections where the film intentionally feels like a Haribo-induced migraine). The voice-work is largely solid, yet it's notable that Illumination have once again gone for recognisable credits-friendly A-listers over actual dedicated voice actors. Luckily, their enthusiasm papers over the cracks.

THE DAY

While there's plenty in here for a young audience, the judiciously retro jukebox soundtrack lets slip the film's real target audience: 30-40 something parents with disposable income. Brian Tyler's score itself doesn't fare quite so well however, by turn generic and insipid. The orchestral arrangements themselves aren't particularly strong*², and a necessary insistence on including stings and riffs from the games makes this feel more like musical fan fiction. This is the Glowing Nostalgia Market of course, and if it can't be thoroughly wrung-out for a product like Super Mario then there's no point in anything.

By this point Illumination know their strengths and weaknesses, and The Super Mario Bros. Movie is - like its central characters - small but perfectly formed. The film doesn't leave the audience with much to ponder, but then it also demands nothing more than the admission fee and an enjoyment of slapstick. I spent far too much time throughout grinning like an idiot to award the film any less than the following...

*¹ Because of course there'll be a sequel, this is a globally established character property with a nailed-on fanbase. Although the sequel won't be quite as good because the film won't have the structure of the introductions, world-building or origins-story conventions to fall back on. cf. Sonic 2. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² And I say this as a fan of Tyler's work, because I know he can certainly achieve a big sound when it's needed. ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Onward

Onward
Cert: U / 107 mins / Dir. Dan Scanlon / Trailer

Odd times, we live in. The new Pixar movie opens with a 5-minutes Simpsons short, an acknowledgement that the former 20th Century Fox is now part of the Disney brand. Essentially a silent film, Playdate With Destiny centres on Maggie as she falls in love with a toddler at the local park. It's a fairly sweet affair but far from the humour and even acerbic warmth that the show is capable of at its best.

Which, it turns out, is a fitting overture.

Set in the present-day of a parallel world inhabited by mythical creatures but which has forgotten magic, Onward follows adolescent elves Ian and Barley Lightfoot (voiced by Tom Holland and Chris Pratt) as they embark on a quest to be reunited for a day with their father who died fifteen years earlier. The spell which can enable this has already been partly cast, meaning the pair are accompanied by the sentient legs and feet of their dear papa, which they bulk out to approximate humanoid form using a stuffed sweatshirt, cap and sunglasses, bumbling around for comic effect. So think of Lord Of The Rings by way of Weekend At Bernie's.

DIRECTION

It's may also be worth noting that this classically structured adventure makes distinct nods in the direction of Indiana Jones, Gremlins, Ghostbusters and even Back To The Future along the way. And while all this is fun, it's also the heart of the film's problem: Onward feels like an affectionate series of homages rather than its own unique story. The vocal performers are well cast*¹, the story is consistently funny and charming, and the animation and music are as perfect as you'd hope, but there are only occasional flashes of the cinematic magic upon which Pixar basically wrote the spell-book.

The film opens efficiently, and sets all its story-markers and callbacks in plain sight. It's more than a little 'Hero's Journey 101', yet in a U-rated adventure that's no bad thing. But while this movie regularly ticks the right boxes, they feel like boxes in someone else's list. From an emotional point of view, this is Pixar's b-game, even though that's still more than many animation studios manage with their best efforts.

FLEWOVERTHECUCKOO'SNEST

All told, the fantasy setting perhaps feels a little too on-the-nose (although I love the idea that Warhammer-type games exist in a world already populated by elves, centaurs and dragons), so the high-concept magical elements of the story feel more expected than exceptional. And when you factor in the weird release strategy in the UK, a Disney animation with an A-list voice cast which lands for previews in the week after half-term (ensuring that the general release will miss that window completely), it suggests a worrying lack of enthusiasm on Disney's part.

If it sounds like I'm being unduly harsh on what is a more-than-decent adventure movie, it's only because the creators have set their own bar higher than this. Then, like all the best quests, the treasure wasn't the macguffin after all. That's not to say the rewards mean any less, but the feeling persists that maybe you've travelled way further than you needed to.

Because now that animation has advanced to the point where Pixar can make anything, why isn't Anything as exciting as we'd hoped*²?



I think we've covered that...



Just about, as it'll probably lose no small amount of its magic on the small screen.



This will be a good rainy-afternoon DVD.



Let's not go mad.



Unlikely as I have no really strong feelings on the film either way.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: The voice of Major Bren Derlin is in this.





*¹ You've got to hand it to Chris Pratt though, he effortlessly manages to play his one recurring character again even when we can't see his actual face. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although I'm just going to come out and say it: Ian Lightfoot with his coiffured hair, sticky-out ears and plaid shirt, unsure who he's supposed to be and learning how to create magic while fighting through the emotional conflict of daddy-issues? That's young George Lucas.


You read it here first. ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Lego Movie 2

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2D / thematic spoilers)
Cert: U / 107 mins / Dir. Trisha Gum & Mike Mitchell / Trailer



Has it really been five years since the first Lego movie? I supposed it must have, since the script for The Lego Movie 2 plainly sets this follow-up half a decade later, and when I check my previous review it is indeed dated 2014. The passage of time can be cruel and baffling for those of us who've refused to grow up completely*¹…

So. In the intervening years, the Lego town of Bricksburg has slowly morphed into the wasteland of Apocalypseburg. While Emmet (Chris Pratt) continues to bimble along optimistically, his friend Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) has become a hardened, cynical warrior - still living in the town, but ready to fight whatever dangers life throws their way, in a bid to protect what little order is left. When an extra-terrestrial warrior, General Mayhem (Stephanie Beatriz), arrives one day announcing that Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) of the Systar System intends to wed Batman (Will Arnett), the resulting refusal, kidnap and voyage across the galaxy will be an adventure to test Emmet to his limits. Luckily, he's got a new friend to stand by his side…

SMART

First things first, The Lego Movie 2 is fun. It very much relies on you having seen the first entry (although the "2" is in the title so there can be few complaints) and it's still prone to wholesome over-sentimentality. But the sequel is as inventive as its plastic namesake, consistently funny and deceptively smart. If you enjoyed The Lego Movie, you'll get a lot out of this. If you didn't, well…

Whereas the divide between 'collector' play and open-ended adventuring previously fell with Will Ferell's 'Dad' character and his son Finn (Jadon Sand), this second entry shifts that generationally (as hinted at the end of the first movie) featuring his younger sister Bianca (Brooklynn Prince), happy to mix-the-bricks while Finn moves up to advanced sets and more concentrated world-building. To properly facilitate this and illustrate that Lego™ can be enjoyed on a number of commitment-levels (because let's not forget that this is an unashamed two hour pay-to-view advert), the sprawling in-film, in-universe playscape now features pieces and characters from Duplo™ and Lego Friends™. Purists will squirm, and that's very much the point.

OUT

Ferrell takes a back seat for this adventure, still voicing President Business in the animated story and the 'in another room' voice of Dad in the live-action. But Maya Rudolph capably takes the wheel as the squabbling siblings' embattled mother, deadpanning her role perfectly (even if the film's U-certificate means Maya's character can't give a screen-accurate rendition of the outburst in which stepping on a Lego brick in bare feet actually results).

The live-action sections of the first movie were something of a third-act reveal, here they're dealt with head-on, interspersing the animated action throughout. The Lego characters don't (can't?) know the full extent of their real-world status as toys, but they're aware that their home has changed and there are larger, inexplicable forces at play. Rather than trying to iron out the differences between these two versions of reality, the script just carries on playing with them. By the end, the audience is no longer sure which events are the result of kids acting out a story and which are the in-universe characters themselves, continuing the narrative in their own time.

On a meta-level, The Lego Movie 2 feels like the natural - if knowingly post-modern - thematic successor to Toy Story. It's never as up-front as Pixar's flagship series and almost seems more believable (if that's the right word) as a result.

SHORTY

As per this film's predecessor (and continuing the theme cemented by Lego Batman between), there are no Marvel characters to be found here. This, despite the Marvel-half of Lego's Super Heroes line being a mainstay of their licensing model. Instead we get appearances by the Justice League in full comic effect, with Warner Bros going so far as to rope in Jason Momoa*² for light voicework.

Indeed, Marvel are written out of the proceedings early doors with one cheeky line of dialogue. But not content to leave that where it lies, shortly after we have our hero (voiced by Chris Pratt, remember), blasting off into space for an adventure aboard his new ship, and talking to his plant as a co-pilot. Well, quite.

CARTER

And the playfulness with the leading man's back-catalogue doesn't stop there. A fairly telegraphed but still eminently satisfying sub-plot sees his character introducing a rapid succession of character-cards, each boldly proclaiming skills in a CV of previous adventures. Most of these appear to be nods to the actor's work in other movies (most notably the velociraptors, of course).

It's a testament to the sold writing that there's plenty here for a young audience, their associated grown-ups and the happy-go-lucky film geeks who've rocked up anyway. The Lego Movie 2 is absolutely packed with Easter eggs and is all the better for it.

FRESH AT THE WEEKEND

We're living through a golden age of animation of course, and we should stop for a moment to fully appreciate the craft of the Lego movies. Whereas the multitude of the corporation's TV-based features feature expressive, 'bendy' character models with working knees and elbows, the cinematic strand has used elements far closer to the relatively rigid toys themselves (with some artistic license).

Along with photorealistic plastic texturing, their blocky structure and appropriately restricted movement is a faultless CGI simulation of traditional stop-animation, and I don't think that gets enough credit. The animators have deliberately placed this obstacle in their own path, making them work harder to achieve the same fluid level of visual storytelling, while also achieving an end result which looks closer to the actual store-bought Lego toys (did I mention that this beautiful film is also a two hour advert?)*³.

But let's not dig too deeply into the toy box. Irrespective of your chronological-age, if you like Lego™, you'll get a lot out of The Lego Movie 2. If you don't, well…

Well, The Lego Movie.



It is.



It is.



It certainly earns a place near the top of everyone's list.



It's possible I suppose, although you'd have to be a hardened cynic to really get nothing out of this.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: Well, the film was written by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, formerly of the Solo parish, but since they left that production under something of a cloud, I suppose we'll have to go with this movie starring that uncredited Stormtrooper from The Force Awakens.





*¹ Anyway, I navigate my life by the release of Star Wars movies (as those of you who've met me will attest), so all 2014 means to me is "before The Force Awakens". Although I suppose I could meet them half-way and call it "before The Force Awakens Lego". ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Interestingly (or predictably, depending on how you look at it), the powers-that-be have opted for the new bearded, shirtless version of Aquaman, rather than the more traditional model they're still happy to use elsewhere. No judgement in that, just an observation. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Although like some of the Transformers movies, it's an advert which doesn't hold its own audience in absolute, unvarnished contempt. ^{[ BACK ]}



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Jurassic World - Fallen Kingdom

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 128 mins / Dir. J. A. Bayona / Trailer

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should..."

~ Dr Ian Malcolm, in one of the few notable moments from the first Jurassic Park film which isn't the subject of a direct callback in the fifth, but really should be.

One of the things I found amazing about Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was that a movie with this budget, creative crew and a limitless digital palette has so little imagination. Think how far through the ideas-book you'd have to be when the fifth movie in a series spends its first hour retooling Kong: Skull Island instead. That's not to say there aren't a plethora of hamfisted references to earlier Jurassic Park entries of course, but still.

The film does feature some nicely executed set-pieces as you'd expect, but they're all very on-the-nose. If anyone watching genuinely believes that the heroes are in danger of not waving behind the end-credits, they've clearly got some catching up to do. And while I freely admit that applies to the vast, vast majority of action-cinema, the protagonists' safety is underlined here with a fat red screenwriter's marker.

It's not that I particularly disliked JW:FK or even that it bored me, necessarily. I just found myself thoroughly uninterested in what was going to happen to the more-cardboard-than-ever characters (although the four raptor 'puppies' in the flashback scenes were adorable).

Nature = good, corporate = bad. It's a message which certainly wasn't invented with 1993's Jurassic Park, but now feels as old as the DNA lying in the veins of a fossilised mosquito, as Universal hammer it mercilessly home - apparently without irony - to the viewers sitting in dark, air-conditioned chain cinemas around the globe.

Speaking of morality: we all know, yeah, that Maisie Lockwood is singly and directly responsible for every death which occurs (on the land, admittedly) after she hits the Big Red Button™ in the compound? Good guys, bad guys, bystanders, pets, the lot. And that includes every evil businessman, cackling mercenary and nameless extra who carks it in the next movie, too.

"...but they're alive!" she tearfully emotes as the surviving dinosaurs thunder out into the night. Well sweetheart, tell that to the families and loved ones of every corpse that racks up because of your moment of humility.

So in order for Jurassic World 3 to create a Hollywood-friendly narrative balance, either Maisie's character has to be held accountable for her actions (ie, suffer the ending of Toby Jones, Rafe Spall etc), or the story will need to fall back on the idea that Maisie doesn't really have a conscience because she doesn't really have a soul because she's just a clone. In which case: so were the dinosaurs, so what does it matter if the they were saved or not? Good luck with that one, Amblin…

Biggest disappointment: that our heroes escape the island on a ship named Arcadia, then the film *doesn't* turn into a Resident Evil crossover.

Rather fittingly, Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom is the perfect theme-park ride. Methodical, mechanical, precision-engineered thrills designed to entertain a summer audience for the duration.

Right before they leave, then immediately start queueing for something else...

Oh, and I'm also taking a point off (no, seriously) for that "nasty woman!" line in the script, the most cloyingly cackhanded bit of zeitgeist camera-winking since Linda Cardellini was made to say 'snowflake' in Daddy's Home 2. Appalling…



Jurassic World.



Well…



Oh, if you like.



Hahahahahahahaha.



We very well might.



Not that I heard, but there is a section in the middle with about five minutes' worth of screaming, and there could well be one layered in there.



Level 1: That engineer out of Rogue One is in this. You know the one.



(did you think I was joking about knocking that point off?)




DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Avengers - Infinity War (third-pass)

Avengers: Infinity War (2D / third-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 149 mins / Dir. Joe Russo & Anthony Russo / Trailer



Well, I didn't think I'd be making comparative references against the third Avengers get-together until at least this time next year, but a conversation at the weekend raised the point that for the more, ahem, civilian viewer, there are two superhero movies out at the moment. Inevitably, some casual cinema-goers are going to be standing in the foyer deciding which one they want to watch*¹.

Because for a lot of people, the choice will be between a pair of Marvel flicks starring a partially-CGI'd Josh Brolin as a bad-ass with a time-slider*². But that's not really an accurate comparison, is it? Or is it? Infinity War and Deadpool 2 are very different products, albeit for partly the same audience*³. The merc-with-the=mouth has come armed with the fuckbombs, but it's Earth's Mightiest Heroes who carry the weightier story.

And yet in the weeks since my first two passes, I'd forgotten how funny Infinity War is, especially given its consistently escalating death-toll. Although obviously it's very different from that other movie, tonally. Avengers' humour is very much the Private Eye to Deadpool's Viz. Both are great institutions which can't replace each other, and don't try.

So, watching Infinity War again after a few weeks, I'm pretty much of the opinion that any deaths which occurred before the Infinity Gauntlet was fully operational (only four, remember) will be permanent. The amount of build-up, screen-time or dramatic weight allocated to each one seems fairly irreversible, and the film's legacy would be cheapened if these characters managed to find themselves magically resurrected by the end of Avengers 4. 

Conversely, the casting-losses which occur once Thanos snaps his fingers (the other twelve*⁴) are, to put it mildly, suspiciously rapid given their narrative stature. The heroes that flutter out of existence leave behind an intriguingly-thinned (and deliberately 'classic') team for next May's concluding chapter, but the ultimate resolution lies in the knowledge that Spider-Man 2, Black Panther 2 and Guardians 3 have already been commissioned.

But hey, I've previously joined the chorus bemoaning Marvel's reluctance to apply a little consequence to their continuity, and it's still by no means certain who will survive into Phase 4. At a rate of three cinematic entries a year, the MCU is now dense enough to give classic heroes the rest they've earned, while still maintaining forward momentum. Maybe, as a man from another galaxy once said, "it's time to let old things die".

Because we all know this isn't the end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning...*⁵

Avengers films.



it is.



It is.



2019 will tell, I guess.



Not likely, since you'll love it as well. Right?.



There is, layered in when Ebony Maw goes for a space-walk.



Level 1: Mace Windu is in this.





*¹ And of course that's perhaps not the way things should work. But let's not forget I sat in a Saturday night screening of A Ghost Story and watched people walk out mid-way, almost certain that they'd made their choice on a whim since Annabelle: Creation was playing two screens down and was likely the choice on the other side of their coin. Not all moviegoers are as disciplined or as informed as us, dear reader. And that's why I'm here; to help. Or maybe to lecture. Either/or. Okay, it's probably the second one. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Okay, Thanos-related plot question. When Thor is on the Milano, he tells the Guardians that Thanos "stole the stone and slaughtered half my people". So... where are the survivors, exactly? Because everyone on-screen looked pretty much floaty-in-space-dead to me, the Asgardian ship looked completely mullered, and the Guardians of The Galaxy (the only responders to the distress-call) didn't pick up anyone else from the wreckage.
It had previously struck me that there's not much of a big deal made of Thor being the last Asgardian now, especially as the whole point of Ragnarok was that the refugees fleeing the planet were the symbol of endurance and hope. But yeah, maybe half of that film's survivors are pootling off on the B-Ark somewhere, right? ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ For the record, there are currently Deadpool 2 cup-toppers on sale in the foyer. I expect that for the 12A certificate hero-flicks aimed at family audiences, but this is a hard 15. T-shirts absolutely, popcorn buckets at a push, but cup-toppers? Maybe it's meant to be ironic. Although I'm pretty sure the money that Fox are making from the products looks the same either way...
^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Yes, of course I made a list. And no, I'm not going to reproduce it here. I know I marked the review 'spoilers' but I'm not a complete animal... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ Yeah, I went there. I'll be wearing a plastic Union Jack bowler hat and writing angry letters to local newspapers, next. ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.