Jump to content

Guardians of the Galaxy 2


Recommended Posts

Anyone?

 

I haven't had that much fun at a movie utterly devoid of a story in ages.

 

There are about 3 plot points in the entire film. I was about 3/4 of the way through and said to myself-- oh... this IS the storyline. Nothing else is actually going to happen.

 

In theory that should be bad, but I love the characters so much I was tricked into not caring. That probably means I wouldn't watch it again in fear it would fall apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Reading up on it, it seems that Gunn got hit because he joined a Twitter mob himself against Mark Duplass (whose crime is literally trying to bridge the partisan divide) who said nice things about Ben

You dont have to buy it. I'll delete you from existence for free.

Bryan Singer lost his Fox deal, but is still a free man.   Disney made outright racist cartoons for decades and has used the context of the past as a defense.   The guy who started the smear campaign

The "cute" beginning credit sequence with Groot dancing/fighting just annoyed me, it went on for too long. I enjoyed it overall, thought it was quite funny, but not my pick of the year for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory that should be bad, but I love the characters so much I was tricked into not caring. That probably means I wouldn't watch it again in fear it would fall apart.

It doesn't fall apart after repeated viewings. (Even in my less-than-modern local theater.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was sort of like Metallica's Black album. A much hailed album, that while good, would have been served better by cutting out the filler. There were so many sinks and nods it got to be a bit much. I mean internet sites and blogs have to have content,. It do we really believe that the "original" guardians will take over after these guys run their course?

I think they even "sequeled" the soundtrack. There were a lot of great songs, but they played out more in the foreground than the background.

 

I still have the check to see if Microsoft paid for that Zune reference. That was hilarious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a blast watching this movie. Me and my 6 year old went. I actually think they did a great job with baby groot. He by far got the most laughs in the theater when we went opening night. Marvel knew what they had, marketed baby groot hard, and it paid off.

 

 

I agree, the main plot was weak. But what really helped the story of the movie was the side plot with Yondu. I really enjoyed that story and seeing how it wrapped up at the end. It moved me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if that Yondu B-story hadn't been there the movie would have fallen flat. I've never seen a story where the heroes were pretty much narratively passive the entire time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I definitely liked GOTG 1, but didn't see it in the theater. I will see GOTG 2 at some point, and I know I will probably like it, but I don't see anything here that inspires me to go see it in the theater.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't had that much fun at a movie utterly devoid of a story in ages.

 

There are about 3 plot points in the entire film. I was about 3/4 of the way through and said to myself-- oh... this IS the storyline. Nothing else is actually going to happen.

 

In theory that should be bad, but I love the characters so much I was tricked into not caring. That probably means I wouldn't watch it again in fear it would fall apart.

 

How many movies over the last few years have you watched and liked until the damn plot took over? It feels like we're so in tune to the basic Hollywood formula that no matter what, the big climax feels boring. Marvel movies are no exception, particularly since most of them had meh villains and plots that don't make the greatest sense in the world (the first Guardians no exception). This movie wasn't any different. Outside of the bits we already saw most of from the Trailer with Rocket and Groot, there really wasn't much memorable about the climax after Peter shoots Kurt Russell. Well, there was the Pac-Man visual gag (totally called out "Be Pac-Man, be Pac-Man" just before it happened) and Groot crying as the ground tried to swallow him up.

 

I think they made a good choice in letting their characters run wild through 90% of the movie and making the storyline secondary to the little themes that had going. Strangely enough, the character that served as the glue for the whole movie was probably Drax. I liked him well enough in Guardians of the Galaxy, but my goodness, he just reached full bloom here. Almost every scene he was in was comic gold, from the film's first good joke about nipple chaffing and paying it off later, to sneaking up on Peter for surprise words of wisdom on his need to find a pathetic woman such as himself, inquiring about Ego's penis, declaring his humbleness, and putting together the movie's best running gag by declaring Mantis repulsive.

 

He even made a turd joke funny.

 

If there had been a stronger plot running the movie, little character moments like that probably would have been crowded out in order to push the narrative forward. And, while I've seen the Hollywood formula done to death to the point of pretty much checking off the boxes as we get to the end of movies, wallowing in the fun of these guys, including the bad guys, kept the movie fresh and interesting. And, yeah, makes me want to see it again.

 

 

 

Honestly, if that Yondu B-story hadn't been there the movie would have fallen flat. I've never seen a story where the heroes were pretty much narratively passive the entire time.

 

That was the weakest part of the movie for me. Rocket was the least successful of the main characters and the violence of that whole prison break was just so tonally separate from the rest of the movie. Plus they easily had the least entertaining of the three camps of villains in the movie. You go from Peter throwing an energy ball with his daddy to Yondu going on a 10 minute killing spree. I don't mind the B-story in theory, I just don't think it meshed with the rest of the movie all that well.

 

Once they got back to the other characters, things were fine ("I'm Mary Poppins y'all!"). But I'll be just getting through those scenes in the middle I think.

 

 

 

Yeah, baby Groot is fun but it was a little too much.

 

You hush your mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Hollywood formula for blockbusters for sure. Star Wars pioneered it and it's been emulated ever since. Marvel movies have their particular version of it, and this has been my complaint about them for awhile. Pretty much all of them follow the same pattern-- meet the hero who is ineffectual or broken in some way despite having a a good heart, give them agency and power, watch them sort of ruin it for themselves, then they come around and do the right thing, and finally they face off with and/or amongst a giant cgi swirly thingy of doom.

 

And yeah-- also a Marvel thing to have these incredibly dark moments that would be really disturbing if they had more depth, then they jump right to a really silly joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also really enjoyed the movie. I loved the frequent pairing of Drax and Mantis. Besides the ongoing "ugly" gag, it was a fun seeing the two socially unaware/awkward characters interact, which showed how different each was. Had they not been paired together, it would have been easy to come off as them just trying to replicate Drax, but this provided a nice contrast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my review:

 

Way too many gags - they were funny, yeah, but it was distracting after a while and actually started to take me out of the experience rather than enhance it, like in the first one.

I wonder if Gunn was consciously trying to make a comedy rather than an adventure movie, that's kind of what it was. The Marvel prototype of 'taking a superhero movie and peppering it with self-deprecating jokes' is getting old so perhaps he was going with 'take a comedy and throw a superhero movie on it'.

 

Too many 'music video' scenes. They even tried to make fun of themselves for it at least once, as if that would make it all okay. Just one or two fewer is what would have made it all okay.

 

Thin plot that never really took off. The basic story: Quill meets his dad and he's a god who wants to destroy the universe (or whatever) is fine, it could work, but I never felt any of the emotional elements. I never really feel any dramatic tension or sense of danger (maybe because points one and two are in play).

 

That said, it was still fun, but nowhere near as tight as the first one.

 

** 1/2

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder if Gunn was consciously trying to make a comedy rather than an adventure movie

 

Well, yeah. It's a comedy, and an unapologetic one at that. It's why I came down on the Yondu killing spree. It just doesn't belong in this movie. It's not a pure comedy mind you, but one that is using the trappings of its genre and taking them semi-seriously as it sets up the next gag. If you want a measuring stick for this movie, I'd suggest looking at the original Ghostbusters as the prime example.

 

I'm not really sure why that's a problem. With even Marvel feeling a bit stale with its consistent "That was pretty good" feeling, Guardians feels like a bit of fresh air to me and is well ahead of the pure comedies that muck up the cinema today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a problem if the story is strong enough (see Ghostbusters, Guardians I), but this felt too much like Gunn was so pleased with the comedic sci-fi movie he created the first time, he forgot to actually write a plot this time and tried to rely on a string of gags to carry it.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought the gags (and the soundtrack featurettes) were set to 'overload' and it killed it for me.

 

Another peeve: in this era of supposed strong women characters in film, Gamora does exactly....nothing...in this one. And don't get me started on Mantis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a problem if the story is strong enough (see Ghostbusters, Guardians I)

 

The first Guardians' plot was the weakest part of the movie. That movie succeeded despite its plot, not because of it. In that sense, Guardians 2 took the stuff that worked in the original and tossed out the stuff that didn't.

 

I really don't think that Ghostbusters and Guardians 2 are all that different in their focus on the plot. The more I think of it, the closer the comparison feels. Yeah, we remember the climax of Ghostbusters, but that's because the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man tearing through New York is a legendary sight gag. But do you remember or care about the cult of Gozer and all that technobabble surrounding him and ghosts? As a villain, what do you know about Gozer aside from being big trouble? Compared to Gozer, Ego is deeply developed and obviously has a strong relationship with Peter.

 

Heck, neither Gozer nor the secondary villain Walter Peck even get mentioned in the first half of the movie. The movie's basically about the three guys and their wacky business venture and Bill Murray creeping on Sigourney Weaver untile she and Rick Moranis start getting possessed. Ironically, Ghostbusters 2 had a much more focused plot and it didn't make it a better movie. In fact, it might well have hurt it.

 

 

 

Another peeve: in this era of supposed strong women characters in film, Gamora does exactly....nothing...in this one. And don't get me started on Mantis.

 

She attacked the enemy's weak point for massive damage in the opening scene. Does that count?

 

Anyway, she's the straight man. Forever important in comedy, forever underappreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough to compare a sequel to an origin movie that obviously has to spend some time (usually the first half) introducing characters and getting them together. That's what Guardians 1 and Ghostbusters have in common.

 

But in contrasting Ghostbusters and Guardians 2, everything in Ghostbusters is building to the conclusion, even when it's ridiculous it makes sense to the story's progression. Guardians 2 is random gags that could be in any movie, in any order, plus music videos that don't exactly advance the plot.

 

Ghostbusters is:

1. Ghosts are invading NYC for some reason.

2. Three wacky scientists who study the paranormal find themselves drawn into it.

3. They get to the bottom of it and overcome incredible odds to kick ass.

 

There are necessary bumps along the way (that Dick guy shutting down the power), a love plot, etc. and lots of gags, and it all flows.

 

Guardians 2 is:

1. The Guardians are established galactic heroes for hire.

2. Peter has always wondered about his dad and finally meets him and he's a demi-god.

3. His dad actually wants to use Peter to take over the universe or something.

(This last part is never really that clear to me, and it might help if it was, but like you say, it doesn't really matter. I don't really remember what Gozer's plans are either.)

 

I think the problem is Gunn is trying to keep Ego's motives a secret for so long that that basic plot can't move along so we have scenes about Yondu being an outcast in his guild or something, Rocket being a jerk and then taking out a bunch of guys... that do nothing to serve the actual story so it ends up feeling all random.

 

The writing just never feels tight in the film. One of my favourite examples is how lazy the climax is. At one point I guess they need a way to get Gamora and Nebula (I think?) out of the cave so big rock elevators start going up for no reason other than to have an undramatic moment of them leaping on to one and *gasp* almost not making it. That's the whole movie for me. Just not thought out enough. I totally disagree that Guardians 1 had that problem. It's cohesive and has flow from start to finish imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I meant by narratively passive heroes. Outside of the opening action scene, most every plot point in this movie is something that either happens to, or is told to the heroes.

 

Movie heroes make decisions-- and they fail all through the second act, but it's their willingness to take action that makes them a hero. They don't even have to be good decisions-- Marvel loves its self-involved heroes, who then learn a lesson about being selfless along the way.

 

The Guardians simply react-- react to getting chased, react to getting captured, react to Ego's plans, react to getting captured again, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All stones are now accounted for.

 

1. Cosmic Cube = Tesseract = was the containment unit for Space Stone; currently in Odin's Vault (Avengers)

2. Loki's Scepter = was the containment unit for the Mind Stone; now part of The Vision (Avengers, Avengers 2)

3. The Aether = liquid suspension container of Reality Stone; now hidden with The Collector (Thor 2)

4. The Orb = was the containment unit for the Power Stone; now guarded by The Nova Corp (GOTG)

5. The Eye of Agamotto = is the containment device for the Time Stone; held by Dr. Strange

 

There was a Gauntlet also in Odin's Vault, but Thanos also apparently has one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all enjoyed the movie at our house. It was definitely more of a side story that was personal to Peter than a plot pusher for the overall Thanos/Infinity Stone stuff. I would have liked to see some Thanos and more about the stones, but I'm sure Marvel has plans for that leading into next year. That's what the first movie was about, anyway. I didn't really find anything disappointing about what we were given. It wasn't complex, but it didn't need to be to tell the story they wanted to tell. The musical sequences were perfect and the character interactions pretty golden for the most part.

 

The only thing that really bothered me about the movie was how they treated the Milano. I loved the ship in the first movie and they completely destroyed it by being stupid in the first 15 minutes. I expected more of a reaction out of Quill. Instead we get Gamora lecturing them like children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All stones are now accounted for.

 

1. Cosmic Cube = Tesseract = was the containment unit for Space Stone; currently in Odin's Vault (Avengers)

2. Loki's Scepter = was the containment unit for the Mind Stone; now part of The Vision (Avengers, Avengers 2)

3. The Aether = liquid suspension container of Reality Stone; now hidden with The Collector (Thor 2)

4. The Orb = was the containment unit for the Power Stone; now guarded by The Nova Corp (GOTG)

5. The Eye of Agamotto = is the containment device for the Time Stone; held by Dr. Strange

 

There was a Gauntlet also in Odin's Vault, but Thanos also apparently has one.

You're forgetting the soul stone, which hasn't appeared yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...