Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) (1 Viewer)

[SilverWook]

Somebody has to be that guy who doesn't see why a movie was so popular. My Dad was that guy when it came to Star Wars.

 

[SamT]

It has no compelling characters. The bad guy is a giant blue guy in a chair? I don't even remember his color. He wants to destroy all for no reason? It's just not interesting at all.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It has no compelling characters. The bad guy is a giant blue guy in a chair? I don't even remember his color. He wants to destroy all for no reason? It's just not interesting at all.

Whatever, you're entitled to your opinion, even one that is in the minority.

 

[Ejanss]

It has no compelling characters. The bad guy is a giant blue guy in a chair? I don't even remember his color. He wants to destroy all for no reason? It's just not interesting at all.

Oh, he has a reason (a nutty reason, yes, but...)--Those who didn't read the comics just don't get to find it out until Avengers 3A+3B.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Oh, he has a reason (a nutty reason, yes, but...)--Those who didn't read the comics just don't get to find it out until Avengers 3A+3B.

He likes destroying worlds!

 

[Ejanss]

He likes destroying worlds!

"He's just trying to impress a girl! "
Well, actually, it's just an idol statue, but he talks to it every day (koo-koo, koo-koo....)

 

[Tino]

It has no compelling characters. The bad guy is a giant blue guy in a chair? I don't even remember his color. He wants to destroy all for no reason? It's just not interesting at all.

You forgot to say "In my opinion"

 

[SamT]

You forgot to say "In my opinion"

Nah I didn't forget anything. No need to repeat it. Do you always say in my opinion here? I don't see yours.

 

[Tino]

Nah I didn't forget anything. No need to repeat it. Do you always say in my opinion here? I don't see yours.

I ALWAYS say it when I am stating an opinion. Don't want to come off as though I'm stating a fact in a subjective opinion.

 

[DaveF]

It has no compelling characters. The bad guy is a giant blue guy in a chair? I don't even remember his color. He wants to destroy all for no reason? It's just not interesting at all.

Galactic Armchair Guy makes no sense, and the direct threat, his crony Ronin, is also an opaque villain. But the movie isn't really about the bad guys, it's about the weirdo, comic-book A-Team and their relationship. And it's about the spectacle and joy of dinosaur rock from the 70s. It's not a perfect movie. But it was a fun one. But it requires not getting hung up on any number of details.

 

[RobertR]

But it requires not getting hung up on any number of details.

Yeah, like complaining that antigravity "isn't real", but accepting a ridiculously strong green guy and a Norse "god" without batting an eye.

 

[Tino]

Yeah, like complaining that antigravity "isn't real", but accepting a ridiculously strong green guy and a Norse "god" without batting an eye.

What...you expect people to be consistent in their complaints?

 

[Robert Crawford]

What...you expect people to be consistent in their complaints?

The one thing that is consistent about people is the inconsistency of their complaints.

 

[Simon Massey]

Normally I would have seen this when it was released but events conspired to ensure I have only just caught up with the film.

The problem with coming to a popular film like this later on is that hype gets in the way. With no awareness of the brand or comic, yet having been told numerous times how great this is, it is difficult to approach this in the right manner to review. There is no doubt that it is a lot of fun and a large part of this is down to Pratt who nails the lead, Quinn. Its bright and colourful (a welcome change to the lived in feel of many other sci-fantasy films) and confident in it's execution.

Yet equally it is part of a Marvel formula that started to wear thin after the first Avengers movie - for all the talk of how different this film was to the usual Marvel film, it's only real surprise is just how tied to the Marvel template the film is - everyone trying to get hold of a MacGuffin of unspeakable power, culminating in a large scale battle and fight scenes that unfortunately lead to very little of consequence, with all our heroes surviving to fight another day and a tease as to where this is all leading to. Admittedly, the fun here is in the different characters they have created. But If Marvel are serious about creating a cinematic universe where all these stories are interconnected then at some point they are going to have to take a risk in the storytelling - this isn't it!

7/10

 

[Sean Bryan]

But If Marvel are serious about creating a cinematic universe where all these stories are interconnected then at some point they are going to have to take a risk in the storytelling

I thought Captain America: The Winter Soldier did that quite well. One of their best films (critically and commercially) used 70's political/conspiracy films as the "template" with no powerful macguffin being chased after. But the "MacGuffins" that have been used ARE all part of the interconnected cinematic universe mega story they are telling. Just to clarify, because I've read this criticism before, there have been three "MacGuffins" used in only four of the ten Marvel films. - Captain America: The First Avenger/The Avengers [the Tesseract]- Thor: The Dark World [the Aether]- Guardians of the Galaxy [the orb] The other films (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Iron Man 3, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier) use no such "MacGuffin". Others being after Stark's tech doesn't count, because Stark's tech (and what he does with it) is the point of his stories. So 4 of 10 films make the so called "Marvel Template". Ok, but these are not just random "MacGuffin" objects thrown into the story to give the players something to chase after. They are all related and part of what Marvel is building to with their two part "Infinity War" climax to the first three "phases" of their cinematic universe. As explained by The Collector in Guardians of the Galaxy, The MacGuffins are Infinity Stones. There are six. Each on its own is extremely powerful, but if someone were to possess all six together it would be .... very, very bad. The most powerful being in the universe wants them, that can't end well.

We've see three so far, but its likely we've actually seen four. It has been speculated that the gem in the Scepter used by Loki in The Avengers (given to him by Thanos) is a fourth stone, and that has been supported by the teaser Marvel showed for Infinity War at comic con. Infinity War part 1 and 2 will be the culmination of the 21 films of Phases 1, 2 & 3. Of course not all of the films will have dealt directly with the infinity stones, but as Marvel says, "It's all connected". So I could understand, (to a degree) the criticism by some of a "Marvel template" where characters are after a powerful object from the use of the Tesseract in Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers and the Aether in Thor: The Dark World (but that was just 3 of 9 films). But then, even in the mid-credits tag at the end of The Dark World the Collector, after receiving the Tesseract from Asgard for safe keeping, says "One down, five to go". So right there viewers who have no comics knowledge should have been clued in to the concept that these aren't just random powerful objects but are related in some way. But sure, a mid-credits tag isn't something that all viewers are necessarily going to have seen. Ok, then in Guardians there is another powerful object that is driving the story. BUT in this story the six Infinity Stones are further explained. Now viewers should know there is something to them. At that point I would think that most viewers would be like "Ok, so they are going somewhere with these powerful stone thingys. Neato." and not "Another Marvel MacGuffin?" Ummm.....If there was no connection between these "Infinity Stones" and they weren't building to a massive climax of 20+ films which heavily involves them, then the criticism of SOME of the Marvel movies using a template of "chasing after a powerful object" can be a valid point. However, considering what they are actually doing I don't believe it is.Either way, come May 3rd 2019, Marvel's first three phases of their cinematic universe will be concluded and we'll be done with Infinity Stones. As Phase 4 starts moving along, it'll be interesting to look for clues sprinkled in to see where they might be going if they do another big mega film for the conclusion of Phases 4-6 if they keep the same pattern.

 

[Simon Massey]

I thought Captain America: The Winter Soldier did that quite well. One of their best films (critically and commercially) used 70's political/conspiracy films as the "template" with no powerful macguffin being chased after.

​I will grant you it was quite good until they decided they couldn't kill off a character properly and then included a big act finale of a giant ship crashing into the ground and destroying a building. Now where did I see that before ??

Just to clarify, because I've read this criticism before, there have been three "MacGuffins" used in only four of the ten Marvel films/

My criticism was related to the films since the Avengers has been released, as the previous films had no need to be specifically connected with the exception of the idea that we were building to a team-up. In other words they were free to tell their own story, though obviously a lot of these were also tied to showing the origins of the characters. I noticed that the three you mention are all included in that second phase I was referring to. Iron Man 3 I actually rated higher than all of these.

I'm sure they are building up to a bigger story in the Avengers and I was aware of the tags in the films, but whether they are building to something or not, these films have to stand on their own and the repetition is hurting these films' quality. Are people going to care by the time we get there if they keep repeating things ? If every hero basically survives every single time, where are the stakes?

And I will wager now that these all powerful MacGuffins will simply be used to build one all powerful MacGuffin that can destroy the entire universe, rather than just a city/planet/galaxy. The only thing changing in these films is the scale.

Im actually more inclined to believe that Marvel would have been better to have the films take place in the same universe but not feel the need to connect them all in some way. I will reserve judgment until they are all done, but on the evidence so far, Im growing increasingly disinterested. Hopefully Whedon will change the game.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Sigh

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sigh

Yeah, everybody is welcome to their opinion and it's really nothing to get upset about.

 

[Steve Christou]

Watched it again a few days ago in 3D, what a fun film, not the greatest film of 2014 but easily the most enjoyable 'in my opinion'.

 

[Simon Massey]

Watched it again a few days ago in 3D, what a fun film, not the greatest film of 2014 but easily the most enjoyable 'in my opinion'.

I should add I didn't hate the film or anything. I thought it was pretty good fun. I guess the hype had left me a little disappointed.