MARVEL'S MESSY, MANUPULATIVE MASQUERADE : a review of "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3"

"GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 3"
Based upon the Marvel Comics series
Written and Directed by James Gunn
* (one star)
RATED PG 13

With full admission, I have seen enough to just announce that whatever aesthetic Writer/Director James Gunn possesses, it does not appeal to me in any way. That being said, I do not believe for a moment that Gunn is remotely as clever as he maybe thinks he is and he is definitely not a cinematic visionary.

I have been notoriously soft upon the first two exceedingly popular to beloved volumes of James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy" series (2014/2017), plus the inconsequential "Holiday Special" (2022), which I felt each had their moments but were overall bland, sluggish and overstuffed with easy, pedestrian sentiments masquerading as anarchistic glee. 

To that end, I was also no fan of his initial move to DC Comics films division with his reboot of "The Suicide Squad" (2021), which to me, played like a "Guardians..." film with more profanity and gore. And so, I gave his HBO television spin off "Peacemaker"(2022) no attention. Oddly enough, and truthfully, with no intended disrespect to what James Gunn originated, I enjoyed the interstellar rat tag team of the Guardians the most in Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) and "Avengers: Endgame" (2019). 

So, certainly as the third volume and intended grand finale of the series as we know it was upon us, and even with my lackluster interest, I would concede that neither past installment existed as a "bad film." This, plus the fact that by now, I am a bit of a Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) completist, again despite my fatigue with the superhero genre overall. 

As I have stated many times upon this blogsite, there has been a certain quality control over much of the MCU's output since its inception with Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" (2008). Yet, recently, with the increase into serialized television programs which tie directly into the feature films and vice versa, the sheer assembly line aspect has so clearly taken its toll upon its feature films as recent installments starring Doctor Strange, Thor and Ant-Man have all stumbled to varying degrees. 

With James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3," I do believe that he made the film that he fully intended to make. But to me, I will raise what is sure to be a very unpopular opinion. For my cinematic sensibilities, James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3" is a disingenuous, mercenary and egregiously manipulative experience to witness as Gunn seemed to be all too willing to allow corporate interests dictate the end result, which often felt like like a ploy constructed to ensure high box office tallies in the overseas market and for God's sakes, there's that soundtrack album this side of K-Tel to sell to the masses. This is the weakest entry in the series by a wide margin, the weakest Marvel film to date and truth be told, it is the kind of film to which Martin Scorsese's criticisms of the superhero movie genre overall are more than proven to be correct. 

Frankly and simply, I hated it.

James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" opens upon the team's new headquarters of Knowhere, with leader Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) lost in a drunken stupor while mourning the loss of Gamora (Zoe Saldana), who was killed during the battle against Thanos. 

The Guardians, who still include Drax The Destroyer (Dave Bautista), the tree/humanoid Groot (voiced by Vin Deisel), empath and Quill's half-sister Mantis (Pom Klementieff), the volatile Nebula (Karen Gillan), space pirate Kraglin (Sean Gunn) and his cosmonaut dog, Cosmo (voiced by Maria Bakalova) are soon surprisingly attacked by Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), decimating Knowhere and fatally wounding the acerbic Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper).   

In order to save Rocket's life, the Guardians are plunged into the tragic origin story of Rocket and are forced to face down The High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), an interstellar eugenicist, vivisectionist and zealot bent upon inventing a superior race of beings to rule the galaxy and who holds the key to Rocket's existence and survival.

First things first, I have no issue whatsoever with the storyline of "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" as I did appreciate how Gunn devised a plot that would take this too jokey series into darker territories and a more operatic sheen, due to what is intended as a closing chapter and the bonds created between the characters over past films. That said and typically, this portion of my posting would inform you of certain admirable qualities about the film from production values and the overall aesthetic presentation. Yet, in the case of James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3," any such statements would be nothing more than faint praise. We know that the Marvel feature films showcase the top of the line regarding its production values but crucially, production values do not make a movie. The basics of strong storytelling, writing, acting and directions are always and forever the key ingredients and without those, all of the production values in the world cannot rescue a film..."Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" being no exception.

For those of you who perhaps do not enjoy the superhero film genre as it currently exists, feeling, just as Martin Scorsese has expressed, that what we are witnessing are more akin to being "theme park rides" than actual movies, what James Gunn has delivered will certainly not deter you from your opinions. In fact, Gunn's film may even enhance your opinions. Overlong, excessively loud and narratively chaotic to the point of incoherence, Gunn's film is sloppily told and whose overall tonality is disastrous. It is simultaneously histrionic and sluggish as its frenetic editing, CGI overload, and nausea inducing camera work (can someone please tell Gunn to cease swirling his camera). I felt more assaulted than enthralled and when all was said ad done, Gunn's morass of throwing just everything at me only felt to slow the film's 2 and a half hour running time to the point where I could feel every minute tick by. 

Characters appear and disappear from the film for no other reason than Gunn's script says so. I was as confused as the characters themselves when wondering who is rescuing whom from whomever and which ship are they on, or have escaped from or need to get to and destroy. The non stop pyrotechnics and bombastic cataclysm ensured that there is not one moment of nuance, shading or subtlety whatsoever, especially as the essentially the entire cast is full throttle SCREAMING every bit of their inanely written dialogue in which everyone speaks in the patois of overly glib, middle school level PG 13 insults and colloquialisms (save for one legitimately funny F bomb). Honestly, we are supposed to be within the far and furthest reaches of outer space and everyone sounds like rejects from the 1930's "Dead End Kids" series?!

And oh boy, there is the often celebrated soundtrack and needle drops, which I have had a problem with since the first film. While you and I can quibble about how creative James Gunn's music choices actually are or aren't, I will express that this third time around, the songs remain being AM radio level uninspired. Dear readers, this is not saying anything about my personal connections to these songs or whether I like them or not. On the contrary, I love so very many of the songs used over the three films. My criticism over James Gunn's choices have always been as follows: For me, I still contend his selections are nowhere near as forward thinking as they could be in a series that continues to promote itself as being the more anarchistic side of the MCU because in a film that will actually name check the likes of the ahead of the curve avant garde music of Adrian Belew and King Crimson, you will absolutely never hear either one in any of these movies for fear of alienating mass audiences and having diminishing soundtrack album sales. In the case of "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3," what was most egregious to me was that the songs stunningly were intrusive, ill placed, distracting, disruptive and felt placed to perform any narrative heavy lifting while also ensuring the jukebox musical aspect remained intact. Remember, there's still a sound track album to sell!

As top of the line as the visual aesthetics, I found myself having the same issues that I had with Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania," which is a Marvel films problem and does not fully rest at the feet of James Gunn. There is a continuing sameness to to the appearances of these otherworldly locations be it within the sub atomic levels of existence or throughout the vastness of the universe and all throughout this whole multiversal experience the characters are floating in and of. Yes, there is a visual base all Marvel films and shows need to adhere to attain consistency. But, even so, why will they not stretch themselves outside of their creative boxes and try to engage and therefore, enthrall audiences anymore? When the titular galaxy doesn't look any different than sights seen in the Quantum Realm, then what's the point of going anywhere else--it is all the same green screen graveyard that we've been subjected to for decades.    

As previously stated, I have no issue with James Gunn's storyline for this third film. Yet, and once more with feeling, as the late, great Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert so eloquently expressed, a film is not about what it is about. It is about HOW it is about what it is about. In that case, that quality is what exactly made "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" a failure. 

By now, any fan or even casual viewer of this series already knows that the Guardians Of The Galaxy    are made up of emotionally and psychologically damaged individuals who all are all struggling with their respective traumas of broken or destroyed families, coming together to formulate their own family. While established in the first film, it is as if James Gunn apparently thinks that audiences have either not understood or have forgotten his primary theme and therefore, sledgehammers the same maudlin, mawkish beats from the first two films over and over and over again. 

To be fair, James Gunn's affection for these characters has not waned. And again, I do appreciate how this film is easily the series' darkest chapter, as the origin story of Rocket is appropriately heartbreaking and earnest in its intentions. That said, I what I hated was how Gunn either had nowhere else to go with his characters as well as not trusting in the inherent drama and pathos of his own material to allow it to exist upon its own terms without feeling the excessive need to accentuate absolutely every moment to beyond its breaking points out of nothing else but sheer manipulation. 

Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana are sadly one note, as Pratt's Peter Quill is dim and sad, while Saldana, who returns as an alternate time line variant of Gamora, and one who has no emotional connection to Pratt's Peter Quill or the Guardians, is just angry. Additionally, Karen Gillan's perpetually irate Nebula is also frustratingly one note and despite both Dave Baustista and Pom Klementieff clearly coming off the very best out of the entire cast, there is nothing that we haven't already seen from them or their characters, no new shades to discover, no greater purpose than what we have already experienced. 

But, even so, I will give credit where credit is due and that is to the actual storyline arc of Rocket. We have seen over these three films and how he is it in fact the central figure of the series, which James Gunn deftly set up in his unquestionably graceful final moments of the second film, which ends upon the surprisingly wistful face of the otherwise embittered raccoon staring pensively into the cosmos. For this third installment, Gunn and Bradley Cooper combined with the CGI wizards allowed this character to live and breathe as if it were actual flesh and blood, again showcasing the artistry that can exist when delivered with purpose, skill and heart. Unfortunately, Rocket deserved better.

I am not questioning the earnestness of James Gunn's clear opposition to animal cruelty and I did appreciate his passion. What I didn't enjoy is that he relinquished any sense of artful storytelling to depict Rocket's origin as the entire proceedings simply shoved our faces in CGI animal torture and vivisection with the tenor of any animal cruelty advertisements one can see nightly upon c able television. Essentially, where mere suggestion or implication could work, we see over and again, The High Evolutionary's grotesque subjugation and mutilation with those CGI watery eyes begging for mercy filling the screen. 

Yes, movies are manipulative for that is what movies are. Filmmakers use the tools of their art and trade to manipulate images to inspire emotional responses from audiences. Even so, and in all of your guts, you just know when you are not being trusted enough to make your own connections and arrive at your emotions on your own. 

With "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3," James Gunn felt the need to almost physically wrestle the tears from our eyes and that storytelling dishonesty made for a deep turn off. Face it, and in addition to all of the animal torture, we have a film where Gunn subjects us to not one, not two, but three prank deaths of major characters, demonstrating that Gunn did not have the courage of his convictions to really be honest and take his film to the wall if need be for fear, again, of alienating audiences. And in a larger Marvel scale, this is the second MCU film in a year to feature a collective of imprisoned children. It's easy, it's cheap, it's cynical. It's mean spirited.   

Easy, cheap, cynical, and mean spirited sums up James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" overall as pedestrian sentiments as fueled by constantly bombastic sound and fury masquerades as a motion picture experience. In fact, the worst thing that I can say about it is this: once it was all mercifully over, I felt as if I had endured yet another Zack Snyder directed DC film due to its utter and endless joylessness.

Making James Gunn just perfect to lead the new batch of DC movies. 

BODY AND SOUL: a review of "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret"

 

"ARE YOU THERE, GOD? IT'S ME, MARGARET"
Based upon the novel by Judy Blume
Produced by James L. Brooks
Written For The Screen and Directed by Kelly Fremon Craig
RATED PG 13
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

By the time I read Judy Blume's seminal Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, I had already devoured Blume's Tales Of A Fourth Grade Nothing and it's sequel/spin off Otherwise Known As Sheila The Great multiple times. In doing so, I completely embraced Judy Blume as one of my first heroes. While Judy Blume possessed an inexplicable gift of insight and empathy into the inner world of children, she also clearly enhanced my life as her books inspired a love of reading, stories and storytelling and in my future, my love of writing. In short, I would have read anything if she had written it. 

Yet, Margaret was different.

For some context, when I was introduced to the literary world of Judy Blume, I was eight years old. I entered the 3rd grade in an new school and I was then forced to gradually finding my footing in a classroom of highly sophisticated kids who visibly possessed tight bonds with each other due to the longevity of their time together as classmates since nursery school as well as living together within the Hyde Park/University Of Chicago campus community and neighborhoods--an area where I did not live and had previously been foreign to me. 

While George Lucas' "Star Wars" (1977)--then, only in the world for a few life changing months--provided me with a way in, the just as seismic lightning strike of Judy Blume (as delivered by a classroom visit by a school librarian) afforded me somewhat of an anchor in this brand new setting as my love of her books allowed me to slowly begin to establish an identity with my new classmates. I read her books constantly. And each time I was able to obtain a new title, as with Iggie's House and the dark, gut punch of Blubber plus the aforementioned titles, I became more and more devoted to Judy Blume as if she was the kind voice in my ear entertaining me with stories but even greater, assuring me that I was going to be ok and somehow understood my feelings, as confused and conflicted as they were.

But again, Margaret was different. 

While of course, the book was not lacking in Blume's trademark wit, honesty, and empathy, for the first time, there was something that felt to be a little out of reach for me. I was gently chided once by some of the boys in my classroom as I read intensely ("That's a girl's book," they said. "It's not a 'girl's' book," I retorted. "It's a good book!" Nothing else was said to me afterwards about it.) but, my classmates quickly realized that Judy Blume and I were inseparable. And still, with Margaret, I wasn't connecting as I previously had with Blume's stories. Frankly, I just didn't get it. 

As an adult, I look back and realize that, just as simply, I wasn't ready for it. It wasn't time. And quite possibly, perhaps that book was not necessarily written for me.

As Judy Blume's Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret is a story partially about a girl on the edge of reaching puberty, it is ultimately a deeply perceptive and unapologetically female take about finding one's place in the world, and decidedly without the imaginary male audience reading it. This was Blume speaking directly to every girl who chose to read and through that level of deep communication and understanding, the book clearly reached its intended audience with a passion and devotion that has lasted over 50 years, while dumbfoundedly also being the center of book censorship for the same amount of time. 

Clearly, Blume herself knew that there was something different about this book compared to her other works as she resisted selling the rights for any film adaptations for over 40 years since the book's publications before ultimately selling to Producer James L. Brooks and Writer/Director Kelly Fremon Craig, who herself had previously made the outstanding "The Edge Of Seventeen" (2016). Well, Judy Blume and her generations of fans can not only breathe easily, they, and all of us, can rejoice as Craig's film adaptation is a winner, one that fully honors the beloved source material as well as emerging as a sublime and graceful work of cinematic storytelling in its own right. 

As with the novel, Kelly Fremon Craig's "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" is set in 1970 and chronicles a year in the life of 11 year old Margaret Simon (richly played by Abby Ryder Forston), whose life is upended upon her return from summer camp as her parents Barbara and Herb (played by Rachel McAdams and Benny Safdie) have decided to move from their New York City apartment to the suburbs of New Jersey in the face of Herb's recent job promotion. 

In addition to suddenly having to leave behind all she knows and loves, including an especially powerful friendship with her eccentric Grandmother Sylvia (Kathy Bates), Margaret's new life finds her on the cusp of puberty, a profoundly and simultaneously private and universal experience, as shared between herself and a new clique of friends led by know-it-all Nancy Wheeler (a perfectly cast Elle Graham) who hilariously guides the group through her now iconic chest growing chants while competitively taunting about who will receive their period first, thus triggering Margaret's anxiety about the natural progression of her growth and development. 

On top of that, plus a budding crush upon neighbor/classmate Moose Freed (Aidan Wojtak-Hissong), and enduring hormone fueled class parties with her new classmates, Margaret begins to navigate precisely what her place in the world actually is and can be, which incudes the world of religion. While she speaks and prays to God as a means of conveying her worries and fears to someone, anyone who just might understand, Margaret Simon, has been raised without religion due to the familial prejudices faced by her parents' interfaith marriage, as Dad is Jewish and Mom is Christian, and therefore, Margaret feels untethered at her core.

Meanwhile, Barbara, a former Art teacher, is struggling to find her own footing in her new life in New Jersey while Sylvie, struggling with loneliness, also attempts to discover where this next life chapter may take her, thus making the film an intergenerational coming of age story of three women all attempting to define life for themselves, each upon their own terms. 

Dear readers, in a pivotal time of movie going where the franchises have fully taken over, especially in the wake of the rise of streaming platforms and the decimation of movie theaters during the Covid-19 pandemic, it is a miracle that Kelly Fremon Craig's "Are You There God? It's Me Margaret" was even made let alone received a full, theatrical release. Moves like this one not only are deserving of our support just due to the kind of film that it is. It is deserving of our support and embrace because it is an exceedingly strong, warm, genuine, delightful and wisely honest film that is enormously breezy in its entertainment and "slice-of-life" presentation but also possesses a depth of existential pathos that is true to the life experience and our roles within that experience. 

Kelly Fremon Craig has succulently created a film that works as a perfect bookend to "The Edge Of Seventeen" as well as serving as a terrific companion piece to Writer/Director Bo Burnham's masterful "Eighth Grade" (2018) as well as Director Domee Shi's "Turning Red" (2022) for Pixar. While "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" smartly keeps the narrative staged in 1970, Craig deftly weaves the nostalgia of her film with the contemporary eras of the three aforementioned films into a timeless narrative, which then creates a conversation with everyone in the audience. Much like the events and trajectory of the characters within the 12 year odyssey of Writer/ Director Richard Linklater's beautiful "Boyhood" (2012), this specific stage of Margaret's life will undoubtedly reflect the exact same section of the girls in the audience, while adult women will remember. 

Kelly Fremon Craig not only and brilliantly keeps the emotional honesty of Blume's novel wholly intact but also the biological honesty, which itself serves the characters, and only continues to make the controversy surrounding this story inexcusable as this stage of life is being experienced or has been experienced by over half of the world's population for all of human history. This particular element of societal shame remains intact in the narrative as the mystery and primal embarrassment surrounding the human female body and the natural bodily process and metamorphosis is reflected in many sequences between Margaret and her friends, both humorously and painfully, playing out through moments of peer pressure, public humiliation and even Margaret's misguided cruelty towards another classmate who is taller, bustier and more outwardly "womanly" than her peers. 

As Margaret Simon, Abby Ryder Forster is superbly engaging through her matter of fact presence which is as natural as if we were just watching this real actress live her real daily life away from the cameras. She never once strikes a false note, and to that end, neither does Craig who directs the film with a sure, clean creative hand, always knowing the inherent drama within Blume's original story is enough just as it is. Nether she nor Forster needlessly jazz up the proceedings with histrionics and prefabricated emotions and contrivances. They allow Judy Blume's story to exist and breathe on its own terms and they inhabit it wonderfully, with patience and tenderness. 

As much as this story focuses upon Margaret's emerging menstruation, Kelly Fremon Craig's handling of Margaret's relationship with religion is also quietly daring, especially within a genre that often wishes to proselytize and weigh in on the side of simply having a strict belief and adherence to faith. Judy Blume's novel and now Craig's film are thankfully and crucially much wiser than that, knowing all too well that one's relationship with religion and spirituality is not that simple, especially, in this case  for Margret as her relationship is forged through religious bigotry and a parental rejection of all religions until Margaret makes a decision for herself when she becomes as adult. 

Here is where, Craig widens her scope as the film could have easily centered upon Margaret, leaving all of the other characters upon the sidelines. "Are You There God? Its Me, Margaret," is also the story of a marriage and parenthood, with still young parents attempting to make their way in this new era of the 1970s by refusing to make the same closed minded mistakes made upon them by their own parents. Even so, and as well intentioned as they are, both Herb and Barbara are not infallible and their own closed minded decision to raise Margaret without any sense of religious awareness could be viewed as a mistake in and of itself. In doing so, Margaret is indeed left to her own devices, and bravely goes it alone to figure religion out for herself and is ultimately criticized by her parents when she does. 

As for her prayers, well...with no real foundation or context as to what the concept of God could be, it does bring to question just exactly who does Margaret feel that she is speaking to in her private moments? Is it a deity or is it herself? Both? Neither? Regardless, it is through Margaret's sense of aloneness that she turns inward and outward, trying to see if anything fits, trying to determine just what is exactly her place in the world and the universe. 

And Kelly Fremon Craig's scope widens even further...

While Margaret is appropriately center stage throughout, I loved how Kelly Fremon gave equal conceptual weight to both Barbara and Sylvia. Rachael McAdams give a performance of such ease and grace as she is having a stretch of time that is as equally awkward and as painful as her daughter. Yet, instead of Margaret who is facing so much of the unknown, Barbara, is confronting her own sense of self based upon who she was, the events that shaped her and does any of that fit into this new world of suburbia with all manner of parent school committees to join being thrust at her. I enjoyed how Craig showcased Barbara's difficulties with establishing a new life as a homemaker, with the running theme of their home not having furniture long after moving. The unsettled nature of the living space perfectly reflects the unsettled nature within Barbara as who she was is not lining up with who she could be or rather, who she is wondering she should be in this new environment. 

Perhaps, most unsettled of all is Grandmother Sylvie who is not only confronted with life in New York City without family but also without any close friendships with people of her own age group. What does life now represent for her? The gradual realization that her best friend is an 11 year old girl gives the film a deep existential ache, I was thankful Kelly Fremon Craig did not ignore or brush aside and as you would expect, Kathy Bates is equal to every moment given to her, as she elicits the outward humor and the sorrow underneath.

Kelly Fremon Craig's "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" is a rare, understated jewel of a film designed and delivered to a youthful audience yet never for one moment, treats young people as commodities undeserving of an entertaining and artful narrative that treats their lives seriously. To that end, Craig has created an earnest and honest slice of life film that houses no villains and refuses to tie up every narrative thread into a too pristine bow. We are gifted the presence of being with a collective of characters all trying to understand what life on Earth means, and that makes for a another cinematic rarity these days as this is a film of gracious humanity.

Just like the novels of Judy Blume.