Jump to content

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: The Groot Strikes Back


Werthead

Recommended Posts

My thoughts (non-spoilery).

I thought it was a solid film, maybe a little less fresh and inventive than the first movie but actually slightly funnier and with more interest in exploring the characters. The final battle goes on too long but otherwise it's a reasonable follow-up to the first movie. I also think there's a hell of a lot to this film that old-skool (1970s) Marvel fans will really, really like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I haven't seen it yet but I'm curious, does he somehow get another mix tape to serve as the soundtrack for vol. 3?

I'll have to put the answer in big spoiler warnings for this one - read at your own risk.

he gets a Zune player from Yondu with his mixtape on it. Starlord is in awe of how it can have 300 tracks on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the first film prior to seeing the new one and I'd say it's a better film in every respect except for the fact it isn't as fresh given it's still using all the tricks established in the first film. The villain works well and may be one of the first Marvel films with a final act that works in a satisfying way (winter soldier is the only other one I can think of). Key to this is that the conflict is character-based despite their being large stakes at play and when the Guardians start punching/shooting the villain it matters more.

And it's funny. For me, Drax steals the film as everything he says gets a smile or laugh from me. Bautista is so good at deadpan/manchild. Baby Groot is cute but still provides some almost silent movie comedy and the others all get some good lines - there's a great Mary Poppins pop reference. In terms of pop references for those clued in they'll love the gags that pop up throughout - others may find it a but insular when they don't pick up on the reference though. Michael Rooker easily earns the increased role in this film and shines throughout and really helps land the final act in a satisfying way

I'm a sucker for the old "protagonist realises the thing he was looking for was in front of him all along" screenwriting trick

. Rocket is a bit more subdued in this film and it's never really explained why or fully resolved but he gets a cool rambo moment. Speaking of Rambo - unless they plan to use Sly's character in sequels or infinity I feel his role is seriously overhyped.

It's the most unique of the Marvel films and I really hope their involvement in Avengers Infinity doesn't damage the characters. For me this is the big screen version of "Farscape" and oddly it's the sensibilities of TV shows like "Farscape" and "Buffy" that make this film such a joy because there is a humour and the characters feel like they have episodic adventures and we just get to sit in on the "finales".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/04/2017 at 10:44 PM, Winterfell is Burning said:

I feel more or less like you do. Not as fresh as the first one, but fairly entertaining and often hilarious. It also works very well as an ensemble, which is something some other superhero movies could learn (X-men franchise, I'm looking at YOU!)

I think Marvel Studios could also learn from this film that if you can't do good villains make sure the conflict is something the team is invested in.

I just watched "the magnificent seven" and it's night and day how both films have the same number of characters and Chris Pratt and one was souless while the other had characters I cared about across the board. Odd as Mag seven had far better actors to utilise but I'd take a wrestler playing Drax over D'onoforio playing a crazy cowboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Rocket is a bit more subdued in this film and it's never really explained why or fully resolved but he gets a cool rambo moment. Speaking of Rambo - unless they plan to use Sly's character in sequels or infinity I feel his role is seriously overhyped.

 

There's a reason for that:

Stallone is playing Starhawk, one of the original 1970s Guardians of the Galaxy. The other characters he teams up with at the end - Michelle Yeoh, Michael Rosenbaum, Ving Rhames and the robot voiced by Mily Cyrus - are the other original Guardians. According to Marvel, they plan to either spin them off later or, make GotG 4 about them.

I was disappointed there was no Stallone/Russel screen-time, which could have made for some great Tango and Cash references.

Something that I think the writers thought was cute but I don't think worked:

The revelation that all the Stan Lee characters are the same person and he's a Watcher.

I mean, that's just unnecessarily silly :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it yesterday. It doesn't quite live up to the first film, but it was always going to be tricky to do that. It has good ideas, great performances and enjoyable moments but nothing that I think is going to have the impact of the first GotG. Some of the ideas work better than others (the Ravagers have an honour code now? Nothing in the first movie really leaves the space for that, IMO) and Mantis is underused and underdeveloped, little more than a plot hook and a foil for some Drax lines. But I had a good time, and I disagree about the climax - for me, it worked fine and didn't feel too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

will this post work this time (I've tried several times over 24 hours with no joy).

I thought the Stan Lee "Wacher" theory was just a fan theory that Kevin Feige liked the idea of?

it seems a bit odd he doesn't revert to his Watcher appearance when hanging around with other Watchers

. I'm also trying to remember if his cameos have every influenced events at all given Watchers aren't supposed to intervene?

I still like the theory as it's cute and a nice tribute to the guy who co-created many of the Marvel characters. It also extends outside the MCU films too. But I think it'd make more sense if he was a celestial type creature himself.

As for Stallone and co

I  thought the 1970s Guardians were set in the year 3000 but that may have been retconned and certainly can for the films.

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Saw it yesterday. It doesn't quite live up to the first film, but it was always going to be tricky to do that. It has good ideas, great performances and enjoyable moments but nothing that I think is going to have the impact of the first GotG. Some of the ideas work better than others (the Ravagers have an honour code now? Nothing in the first movie really leaves the space for that, IMO) and Mantis is underused and underdeveloped, little more than a plot hook and a foil for some Drax lines. But I had a good time, and I disagree about the climax - for me, it worked fine and didn't feel too long.

I thought the Ravagers were also very different from the first film and there was quite a bit of backtracking on them and Yondu in the sequel although I think it's ultimately for the better.

Another inconsistency was

Ego claiming he was the only Celestial when there was a skull of one in the first film. So either Ego meant he was the only one NOW or he really didn't look very hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved it, about as much as the first one. Some times this was a little too goofy, but the higher emotional investment made up for it.

Spoiler

I was actually on the verge of tears during the funeral (90% of which was probably Cat Stephens.)

3 hours ago, mormont said:

(the Ravagers have an honour code now? Nothing in the first movie really leaves the space for that, IMO)

I think it's fine if you just accept that Yondu and his group are on the fringes of the community, for violating said code.

Also:

Spoiler

 

WARLOCK!

I'm fine with the Stan Lee cameo, they never made any sense canonically so why complain about them? They're just a bit of fun. And they never said he's specifically a Watcher, could be just him stranded in space talking to some. Jack Kirby has appeared as literal god, this is pretty minor by comparison.

And also Grandmaster just hangs out in the credits that was cool.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Marvel ever explained why they release these movies in most places a week or so before America? I just asked a friend if he wanted to go on Friday and he said he'd already watched it online. I know most people don't use illegal sites and would want to see it in the theater, but this has to be costing them some money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Has Marvel ever explained why they release these movies in most places a week or so before America? I just asked a friend if he wanted to go on Friday and he said he'd already watched it online. I know most people don't use illegal sites and would want to see it in the theater, but this has to be costing them some money. 

It does seem odd that the US is a week behind several countries with Marvel releases. That said, I'd be surprised if your friend had watched anything of passable quality this soon. If people are watching camera recordings of films they are missing out as much in visual entertainment as the film makers are financially.

I think most people pay to see at the cinema or at least wait a few months for bluray copies to spring up online and that's usually with Korean subs all over the screen. I can see that damaging sales but not a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it, I can say that much, but can't say much more about it. Much like the first movie, what kept it being anything other than deeply mediocre was the humour, which was often hilarious, especially drax.

Now whether I am just now too old and not the target market any more, whether I've seen too many of these movies or it's something else but I seem to find all of these things deeply unengaging now. And by that I mean not only marvel ensemble franchises but almost all modern blockbuster franchises. 

Im sure there is a big long discussion as to why that is, what it is that modern franchises are doing that I find so alienating but I guess I can list what this movie did that sums ups a lot of the problems is see time and time again. These problems apply not just to Marvel movies but pretty much any series of movies that aim to create a franchise, DCEU, Star Trek.. even Star Wars 

1) Expecting the audience to care about poorly developed characters. Guardians has a big cast and attempts to give each equal screen time, which obviously reduces the focus on each one. At the same time every character has to have an emotional dilemma or problem to over come, which is then followed by some heartfelt music and close ups of their teary faces. This movie wanted me to care about Starlord; and while I like him I don't feel like I know him outside of one or two broad character traits. 

None of these movies do enough to create rounded characters and so I'm left stoney faced and irritated by every over emotional climax. This was especially true at the climax of this movie where I was supposed to care about a character who imo was nothing more than tier 3 in importance.

Plus the over abundance of main characters means that:

2) These movies are too long and don't have anywhere near enough story to fill the time. This was a good movie at the 1h 45 minute mark. The problem was the climax went on for another hour, mainly because there were too many threads to sew up. I can't remember the last marvel movie I wasn't checking my watch at towards the end. You just feel like beats have to be hit and new stories are set up for the next movie ( less of a problem with this movie admittedly).

To compensate they just add numerous complications and twists and so what is essentially a very simple tale becomes a labyrinthine epic. It means every action and revelation has little weight , as its hard to keep track of why anything is happening. Complication isn't the same thing as intricate storytelling. This movie suffers from this a lot as all the characters split off to tell their own stories. You basically end up with 8 movies in one, none of them satisfying. Its like there is a fear of telling just one interesting story.

3) The action is totally uninvolving. Mostly I put it down to poor direction , if it wasn't just things flying across the screen and if action meant something then I'd care more. But the fights have no weight, physically or emotionally. They are just laser shows. I could compare it to any fight in Star Wars OT and it would come out worse because I don't care and too much is happening to try and distract me from that fact.

And then there is the CGI problem. Now I really enjoy the Guardians aesthetic, which is bright and seriously colourful and is just fun. I love all the skin tones and the backgrounds and the textures. But it doesn't feel real , it's just a pretty digital painting. These movies really struggle to give their scenes a real sense of reality. Instead it all feels quite Phantom Menace, which characters sitting in a 15ft area of foreground , in front of a flashy greenscreen. Every scene feels like his. I don't know how they would get around this considering the subject matter, but Force Awaken did a decent job. 

 

So so yeah it's still worth watching but I'm probably at the point of realising I can't enjoy this stuff any more, maybe it's me or maybe these movies are just getting worse. I can't tell 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

1) Expecting the audience to care about poorly developed characters. Guardians has a big cast and attempts to give each equal screen time, which obviously reduces the focus on each one. At the same time every character has to have an emotional dilemma or problem to over come, which is then followed by some heartfelt music and close ups of their teary faces. This movie wanted me to care about Starlord; and while I like him I don't feel like I know him outside of one or two broad character traits. 

None of these movies do enough to create rounded characters and so I'm left stoney faced and irritated by every over emotional climax. This was especially true at the climax of this movie where I was supposed to care about a character who imo was nothing more than tier 3 in importance.

 

I agree this is a problem with a lot of blockbuster films these days but I really don't think GOTG is guilty of this.

Starlord discovering Ego murdered his mother, Nebula revealing why she hated Gamorra during their fight, Mantis' reaction to Drax thinking about his family. None of these would have worked for me if i didn't care about the characters or if they hadn't made me care for them more.

I guess if it doesn't work for you then it would be exactly the same as many other films though.

I do wonder sometimes whether movies simply are worse (what I tend to think) or whether we're all getting too used to long-form story telling in TV? I do sometimes get the impression people want the same level of characterisation and develepment from a 2hour film as 12-60 hours of TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RumHam said:

But that would cut both ways, no? Plus I thought most movies were screened for critics early anyway.

Well no one thinks they're going to make a bad film, certainly not Marvel these days. I think the idea of it is buzz, critics can help with that but what really counts is lots and lots of regular cinemagoers talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...