So I saw Guardians of the Galaxy last night and was
fairly underwhelmed by it. Critics are raving (92% on RT), Charlie Jane has
suggested that it’s spiritually redeeming on i09, and everyone that I went with
(a group of 8 other people) basically loved it. I feel like I’m missing
something essential here but I’m not quite sure what it is.
The movie is intended to be a comedy, even with the
darker overtones of the backstory in the Marvel Cinematic Universe™. The main
character, Starlord, is pursuing an orb (MacGuffin) that also happens to be one
of the Infinity Gems in the long lead-in to the Thanos saga (we’ve seen two of
the others in the form of the Tesseract (typically known in the comics as the
Cosmic Cube, which wasn’t an Infinity gem) from Thor and The Avengers and
the Aether from Thor: The Dark World.) In the course of his efforts, a small
group of criminals, misfits, and outsiders ends up banding together to
essentially save the galaxy; hence, the ‘Guardians’ title, which ends up being
more appropriate in this context than the original team could ever aspire to.
The original team was created in 1969 by Arnold Drake and
Gene Colan and was part of the surge in sci-fi topics surrounding the success
of the Moon landings and the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was a pretty
straightforward story of Earthlings and Earth-colonials banding together
against an evil reptilian race known as the Badoon. They appeared off and on
over the decades until the early 90s, when Jim Valentino helmed a regular
series for 62 issues. The membership has changed over the years to more closely
resemble the group from the film but, last I knew, when I flipped through a
couple issues at Vault of Midnight a few years ago, Dan Abnett was still
playing them pretty straight. Yes, even with the talking raccoon wielding the
big gun.
This film doesn’t do that. It’s clearly meant to be sort
of slapstick, especially when one notices that the best and funniest lines come
from Rocket (the raccoon), voiced by Bradley Cooper, who is constantly disgusted or bemused
by the “stupid humans” all around him. In fact, the best part about the film
was the dialogue, as the story was completely linear and loaded down with the
usual tropes of intro-crisis-resolution in clearly delineated acts, the love
interest, the heroes winning through with not a scratch on them, etc. Combine
that with the fact that the characters were pretty shallow and the acting
ranged from bad to adequate and it’s really hard for me to recommend the film
to anyone. From my perspective, it’s the poorest offering by Marvel Studios in
the modern (post-2000) era, largely because it’s a couple explosions away from
being a Michael Bay film that most critics would rightly savage. It’s a lot of
flashing lights with a few characters that I’m familiar with, which makes it
something I’m fine with sitting through rather than walking out of, but that's about the best thing I can say.
And, yet, everyone else loves it.
Now, you could assume based on how well you know me, that
I’m just not a fan of the absurd or chaotic and this kind of action comedy
simply doesn’t play to me… and you couldn’t be more wrong. Before we went to
the theater, several of us were sitting in a local restaurant, drinking and
cackling hysterically about old Venture Bros. episodes. That show, along with AquaTeen Hunger Force and Archer, are some of the greatest cartoons ever made and
they’re all in the same vein as Guardians. The one essential difference may be
somewhat subtle: Venture Bros. is designed to be a parody of well-worn
sci-fi/adventure tropes, specifically Jonny Quest. Archer is similarly a spoof
of Bond/Bourne stories and ATHF is just a trip into the strange, but still
loaded down with cultural cues from the geek world (like the Mooninites.)
Granted, sometimes you play to the capabilities of your actors. Comparing Guardians to Avengers once again, it’s obvious that there’s far more ability in a cast of Robert Downey, Jr., Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Chris Helmsworth, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner, among others. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Lee Pace, and the voice of Bradley Cooper just can’t quite keep up when it comes to watching people do interesting things on a screen. That stuff matters to me when I’m watching a film and one can argue that the personal talent and gravitas of someone like Downey keeps the one page plot of Avengers moving along, whereas Pratt doesn’t quite have the cachet to do the same thing for Guardians. Strong actors can work with weaker material and make it into something worthwhile. Not-so-strong actors often can't.
But, again, here I am attempting to make my case in
technical terms when everyone else seems to “get it”, without question. I’m pretty
far removed from the superhero days, as I haven’t regularly read anything of
that sort other than Astro City (which is only barely a “superhero” comic)
since the early 90s. Part of why I gave up on most of it was because they
weren’t showing me anything new. When I could read a story in 1993 that
instantly recalled something I’d read in 1978 because it was essentially the
same plot, I start getting bored or I feel like I’ve passed the point where
that stuff will ever be interesting and they’re just pandering to the new,
younger audience which clearly doesn’t include me. By the same token, I’m still
willing to watch most of what Marvel produces on the screen because it’s kind
of dredging up that excitement and hope for exactly what I’m seeing from 20 and
30 years ago. I always wanted to see Iron Man on film and the first one was a
great film; not just a great superhero film, but a great film, period. The ones
that followed were not so much, but I’m still willing to see most of those
classic characters in the theater because of what I’d read as a kid and an
adult. I didn’t read about Rocket Raccoon 20 years ago (even though he first appeared in the 70s.) Is that the
disconnect? I have a hard time believing that just being more familiar with the
characters would have convinced me that the plot wasn’t complete boilerplate
and Zoe Saldana could act her way out of a paper bag (even though I enjoyed her performance as Uhura in the first Star Trek reboot; again, it's possible that it was just the shallowness of the characters that was the main impediment.)
I guess there is something to be said for simply kicking back and "enjoying the ride" and I'm fine with doing that if the story intrigues me at all, but this one simply didn't. So, what am I missing? What is it that the vast majority of both public and critics seem to see in this movie that I simply don't get? This is far from the first time this has happened (see: Forrest Gump and Titanic), but it's the first I can recall where I was as baffled (I know precisely why I think those latter two sucked, but that's another post.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.