Guardians of the Galaxy - review

[JasonEvans]

I saw it last night... not a lot of time for a long review.

I came into this film with giant expectations. Marvel has been touting it for months and has already announced there will be a sequel, meaning they think they have a lucrative long-term franchise on their hands. Early buzz from screenings has been very positive and Variety has even been running stories asking "Can Guardians of the Galaxy save the summer boxoffice slump?" Plus, I am a tremendous Chris Pratt fan and was eager to see him in a big-time starring role.

So, with all that in mind, I guess it should not be all that surprising that I came away a little disappointed. It is not that the movie was bad -- it wasn't -- but it wasn't the wondrous, magical journey I had hoped it would be. Some have called it this generations Star Wars and, for me, it wasn't close to that.

Lets start with the good -- there is lots of humor and I was often laughing out loud. Everyone in the cast seemed to be having fun and each of the main characters get various moments to shine. It is a well-acted flick and you care about everyone in the story. Rocket and Groot are two of the better CGI characters you will ever see on screen. I'd watch a Rocket and Groot movie any day of the week! The effects are top notch and you can tell the film cost a lot to make.



But, I found the overall story just a bit lacking at times. It vacillated wildly between serious and silly and really felt uneven as a result. The whole thing came off as rushed (even though the movie felt a lot longer than its 2 hour running time, I would have sworn it was 2:15 or 2:20... not a good thing). They crammed a ton of stuff into the film, much of which was unnecessary. For example, big bad guy Thanos is here (and we meet his "daughters") but he doesn't play a central role in the plot and it almost feels like there was some obligation to include him. Same with Benicio Del Toro's Collector character. I get that Marvel is setting stuff up for future movies, when both of these characters will play larger roles, but they felt shoe-horned into this movie out of obligation more than because the story needed them to accomplish something.

But my biggest problem was that we kept on getting told (rather than shown) what the motivations of various characters were. So, we get a bad guy who wants to destroy some alien planet though it is never clear why he wants to destroy it. The bad guy has zero back story beyond coming out of some primordial ooze and being doused in sparkly dust by his followers. The heroes would be squabbling at one point and then come together at another though we never saw what had changed about their relationship to bring them together. We were treated to a pseudo love story that came out of left field and was never explained beyond the fact that the two characters had spent some time together. Like I said, lots of stuff happens but it is rarely clear why it is happening.


The main plot device in the movie is a metalic orb that Peter Quill (Pratt) steals at the beginning of the movie. EVERYONE wants it (every significant character in the movie is seeking it), but when Pratt steals it, it is basically unguarded and is not at all difficult to take. Peter beats a few other galactic bad guys to its location by about 30 seconds but we never see how any of them found out where it was or why they are coming for it now. It felt like a movie that could have used a good quest as part of the story, but the quest would have gotten in the way of a few action scenes so it is just assumed that everyone knows where this orb is located. Whatever?!?!

As I said, the film isn't bad, but I had expected more. It is the kind of flick that suffers a bit when you think about it too much, and that ain't a great thing.

--Jason "if I played the star game, I would give it 3 out of 5 stars... but it is not in a league with Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Apes, X-Men, or Cap 2"Evans

[DUKIECB]

I saw it last night... not a lot of time for a long review.

I came into this film with giant expectations. Marvel has been touting it for months and has already announced there will be a sequel, meaning they think they have a lucrative long-term franchise on their hands. Early buzz from screenings has been very positive and Variety has even been running stories asking "Can Guardians of the Galaxy save the summer boxoffice slump?" Plus, I am a tremendous Chris Pratt fan and was eager to see him in a big-time starring role.

So, with all that in mind, I guess it should not be all that surprising that I came away a little disappointed. It is not that the movie was bad -- it wasn't -- but it wasn't the wondrous, magical journey I had hoped it would be. Some have called it this generations Star Wars and, for me, it wasn't close to that.

Lets start with the good -- there is lots of humor and I was often laughing out loud. Everyone in the cast seemed to be having fun and each of the main characters get various moments to shine. It is a well-acted flick and you care about everyone in the story. Rocket and Groot are two of the better CGI characters you will ever see on screen. I'd watch a Rocket and Groot movie any day of the week! The effects are top notch and you can tell the film cost a lot to make.



But, I found the overall story just a bit lacking at times. It vacillated wildly between serious and silly and really felt uneven as a result. The whole thing came off as rushed (even though the movie felt a lot longer than its 2 hour running time, I would have sworn it was 2:15 or 2:20... not a good thing). They crammed a ton of stuff into the film, much of which was unnecessary. For example, big bad guy Thanos is here (and we meet his "daughters") but he doesn't play a central role in the plot and it almost feels like there was some obligation to include him. Same with Benicio Del Toro's Collector character. I get that Marvel is setting stuff up for future movies, when both of these characters will play larger roles, but they felt shoe-horned into this movie out of obligation more than because the story needed them to accomplish something.

But my biggest problem was that we kept on getting told (rather than shown) what the motivations of various characters were. So, we get a bad guy who wants to destroy some alien planet though it is never clear why he wants to destroy it. The bad guy has zero back story beyond coming out of some primordial ooze and being doused in sparkly dust by his followers. The heroes would be squabbling at one point and then come together at another though we never saw what had changed about their relationship to bring them together. We were treated to a pseudo love story that came out of left field and was never explained beyond the fact that the two characters had spent some time together. Like I said, lots of stuff happens but it is rarely clear why it is happening.


The main plot device in the movie is a metalic orb that Peter Quill (Pratt) steals at the beginning of the movie. EVERYONE wants it (every significant character in the movie is seeking it), but when Pratt steals it, it is basically unguarded and is not at all difficult to take. Peter beats a few other galactic bad guys to its location by about 30 seconds but we never see how any of them found out where it was or why they are coming for it now. It felt like a movie that could have used a good quest as part of the story, but the quest would have gotten in the way of a few action scenes so it is just assumed that everyone knows where this orb is located. Whatever?!?!

As I said, the film isn't bad, but I had expected more. It is the kind of flick that suffers a bit when you think about it too much, and that ain't a great thing.

--Jason "if I played the star game, I would give it 3 out of 5 stars... but it is not in a league with Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Apes, X-Men, or Cap 2"Evans

Jason, thanks for the review. I really want to see this one because of the comedy aspect of it. I like funny movies and sometimes I think these superhero movies take themselves a little too serious. I felt that way in Avengers somewhat. The previews seem to portray almost a sense of self deprecating humor with the characters which I think I will like.

I have a question though, I want to take my son but I'm a little concerned about the intensity factor and possibly profanity. He can handle the action I think but I don't want to go and find out there is a huge amount of profanity and/or over the top violence. I know every kid is different but can you shed some light on how much profanity/violence there is and what you think an appropriate age would be to see it? Thanks

[JasonEvans]

I want to take my son but I'm a little concerned about the intensity factor and possibly profanity. He can handle the action I think but I don't want to go and find out there is a huge amount of profanity and/or over the top violence. I know every kid is different but can you shed some light on how much profanity/violence there is and what you think an appropriate age would be to see it? Thanks

In terms of sex and bloody violence, this film is definitely PG. There is zero nudity that I recall (unless you count Chris Pratt's bare chest, which the women will certainly enjoy) and only a couple mildly implied sexual moments. There is plenty of cartoonish violence with space-aged guns and weapons, which I find less scary than if they were using recognizable Earth weapons, but very little actual blood. The profanity is pretty tame too. I don't think they dropped a single actual F-bomb in the entire movie and they don't use all that many other curse words. Peter Quill flips the bird at one point (in a pretty funny way), and they certainly say a-hole many times. But I found the bad language a lot tamer than usual in a film like this.

I always have a hard time saying "this is good for 6/8/10/12 year olds" because different kids mature at different rates and are exposed to different things. There are some 8 year olds who can handle f-bombs and sex scenes and some 14 year olds who would be horrified at the same stuff. If pressed, I would probably say that most 10 year olds would be fine in this film. It is PG-13 and is a lot closer to PG than to R.

-Jason "I think the film is largely being marketed to kids and families" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

Saw it with my 10.5 year old this afternoon. Lots of action, kinda jumbled. Language a little saltier than other Marvel movies. Son gave it an 8.5

[Native]

Saw it with pops yesterday. Pretty packed for a Sunday showing.

I didn't think it was up to par with Avengers, but was still a very entertaining two hours or so. I'd give it a B+. Will be interesting to see how they tie in Guardians and Avengers down the line.

[davekay1971]

This is a rare thing, but I disagree with Jason's take on the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and wasn't bothered by some of the things which bothered him.

I'll start with my differences of opinion: I was fine with the mix of serious and silly. To me, it didn't make the movie feel uneven, because the humor was a continuous aspect of the movie, and part of the entertainment. So when the movie went down a bit of a darker path, it was okay - the heroes had real loss and real danger, but there was still humor to lighten up those moments. I've seen some movies where the swings are too abrupt, or the movie suddenly forgets about whatever humor it had to become very dark. I never thought Guardians did that - it was a fun romp that hit a few darker moments, but kept the humor going throughout.

I also didn't mind the small roles for Thanos and the Collector. The Collector's role, while small, was essential to the plot. I'm not sure the Collector, as a character, really warrants a much meatier role, and he may remain a secondary character that serves to drive the plot in future movies. I wouldn't complain about that, at all. As for Thanos, he's being set up to the be heavy in Avengers 3, I think. So it makes sense to give him an introduction here, while holding him above the fray. Kind of like allowing Gandalf and Aragorn to deal with secondary bad guy Saruman (Ronan/Ultron) before turning their full attention to Sauron (Thanos).

Jason's dead on that Ronan needed more back story. He certainly makes a good villian, gets plenty of screen time for us to know that he's very powerful and very bloodthirsty, but we don't get much information as to why, except he's ticked off by a peace treaty. It wouldn't have taken much time to let us know why he hates the good aliens so much. That could have been done better.

I also agree that Guardians isn't remotely "this generation's Star Wars". It's not. It's a fun movie, very entertaining, but I can't imagine it would ever become the kind of cultural touchstone that Star Wars was. However, Guardians is the most fun, entertaining movie I've seen this summer.

My biggest surprise - while I liked Rocket, he was the clear loser in the contest of best-CGI-Guardian. Groot was amazing. Vin Diesel was a great choice, and I have no doubt that Gunn had the vocal work he did in Iron Giant, in which Diesel brought an incredible amount of humanity to an animated character with very limited vocals, when he cast Diesel for the role.

[Highlander]

...Groot was amazing. Vin Diesel was a great choice, and I have no doubt that Gunn had the vocal work he did in Iron Giant, in which Diesel brought an incredible amount of humanity to an animated character with very limited vocals, when he cast Diesel for the role.

I thought Groot was great, but had trouble seeing how much Vin Diesel actually brought to the role. His entire form was CGI, so Diesel could have done the work there, but then again so could a hundred other cheaper actors. I can see how he added some with the limited vocals, but it is almost like he could have recorded it in an afternoon. I mean, how many different ways can you say "I AM GROOT"?

I guess I give the animator a ton more credit than Diesel for this one.

[ncexnyc]

I thought Groot was great, but had trouble seeing how much Vin Diesel actually brought to the role. His entire form was CGI, so Diesel could have done the work there, but then again so could a hundred other cheaper actors. I can see how he added some with the limited vocals, but it is almost like he could have recorded it in an afternoon. I mean, how many different ways can you say "I AM GROOT"?

I guess I give the animator a ton more credit than Diesel for this one.

From what I've read Diesel had to do the "I am Groot" line in multiple languages. I know no big deal, however this really wasn't the role he was supposed to do. He was originally slated for another Marvel movie further down the pipeline, which was leaked at Comic-Con so he did this just for the heck of it.

[BD80]

Wasn't impressed with the movie. Liked it, but not a lot. The story holes are irksome, characters change motivation on a dime. It is as if there was a lot of footage left in the editing room. The movie is much like a comic book, a series of visual scenes.

The soundtrack is reason enough to see the movie. Some of the scenes are very good and the CGI is Marvel-ous. It made me realize how accustomed we have become to the miracles of modern movie making. Groot was a very good character, and the development of the group as a team made for a good story. The lead actor and the chemistry between the main characters is well worthwhile - it seems to be the hallmark of recent Marvel movies (post DareDevil)

I think my expectations were just too high.

[Wander]

the heroes had real loss and real danger

When? I used to think Superman was boring because his character was invincible, and I still sorta do, but almost every character in the Marvel universe is invincible. Not in the same literal way as Superman, but to the audience member, it's effectively the same thing. Do any characters die in the Marvel movies? The Avenger characters survive falling from planes and nuclear detonations in outer space, the guardian woman survives being in a spaceship that explodes, Wolverine is as invincible as Superman without a Kryptonite weakness, Professor Xavier inexplicably is fine after being exploded into a million pieces, the few sort-of-major characters that actually die like Groot and Cyclops always get brought back to life, and even the bad guys like Loki and Magneto never die.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's fine to just take the silly, cliche route for comic book movies, and I enjoyed Guardians and a lot of the movies I referenced above - but I never, ever feel like any character is in any sort of real danger, and I agree with JE that the serious parts here didn't work for me. Marvel movies are better than DC ones by far on average, but for a "serious comic book movie," nothing Marvel does will ever be as good as the Dark Knight trilogy.

[davekay1971]

When? I used to think Superman was boring because his character was invincible, and I still sorta do, but almost every character in the Marvel universe is invincible. Not in the same literal way as Superman, but to the audience member, it's effectively the same thing. Do any characters die in the Marvel movies? The Avenger characters survive falling from planes and nuclear detonations in outer space, the guardian woman survives being in a spaceship that explodes, Wolverine is as invincible as Superman without a Kryptonite weakness, Professor Xavier inexplicably is fine after being exploded into a million pieces, the few sort-of-major characters that actually die like Groot and Cyclops always get brought back to life, and even the bad guys like Loki and Magneto never die.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's fine to just take the silly, cliche route for comic book movies, and I enjoyed Guardians and a lot of the movies I referenced above - but I never, ever feel like any character is in any sort of real danger, and I agree with JE that the serious parts here didn't work for me. Marvel movies are better than DC ones by far on average, but for a "serious comic book movie," nothing Marvel does will ever be as good as the Dark Knight trilogy.

As for the real loss, that was fairly obvious in Guardians (Gamora having lost her family and then kidnapped by the man who killed her family, Drax having lost his family, Quill having lost his mom then having been kidnapped, etc). You're right about the question of danger - Marvel movies hit a generally lighter tone than Nolan's Batman movies, which are the standard bearer for DC at this point (although Wolverine and the X-Men, while Marvel characters, are not Marvel movies). You can rest assured going into Avengers 2, for example, that Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Cap and Widow will survive the movie. The most Marvel is likely to dare is death of a secondary character...Coulson in Avengers, and maybe I could see a character like Hawkeye or Fury as a "shocking" death, but that's as far as I'd go. There's certainly value to the audience of not being 100% sure that a given character is safe (hello, Game of Thrones). The Marvel movies aim more for the tone of putting their heroes in a tough position and letting the audience enjoy seeing how they overcome, rather than wondering IF they will overcome. So far, they've been successful with that lighter tone, and I'm okay with them staying there. I suspect they will, as it's a hugely successful approach to this point (Guardians as the number 1 movie of the summer?)

[OldPhiKap]

As for the real loss, that was fairly obvious in Guardians (Gamora having lost her family and then kidnapped by the man who killed her family, Drax having lost his family, Quill having lost his mom then having been kidnapped, etc). You're right about the question of danger - Marvel movies hit a generally lighter tone than Nolan's Batman movies, which are the standard bearer for DC at this point (although Wolverine and the X-Men, while Marvel characters, are not Marvel movies). You can rest assured going into Avengers 2, for example, that Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Cap and Widow will survive the movie. The most Marvel is likely to dare is death of a secondary character...Coulson in Avengers, and maybe I could see a character like Hawkeye or Fury as a "shocking" death, but that's as far as I'd go. There's certainly value to the audience of not being 100% sure that a given character is safe (hello, Game of Thrones). The Marvel movies aim more for the tone of putting their heroes in a tough position and letting the audience enjoy seeing how they overcome, rather than wondering IF they will overcome. So far, they've been successful with that lighter tone, and I'm okay with them staying there. I suspect they will, as it's a hugely successful approach to this point (Guardians as the number 1 movie of the summer?)

Side note -- am I the only one who laughed inappropriately when Nick Fury "died" in Captain America 2? I mean, Samuel L. Jackson standing over a grave marker that is inscribed "The past of the righteous man . . . ." That's damn funny right there. But hard to explain to my 10-year old son.

[bjornolf]

My wife and I saw GotG today and really enjoyed it. It was both fun AND funny, which you can't always say. The one comment she made that I thought was funny was that the Quill character reminded her a lot of "Stiffler with abs in space." I had to agree with her there.