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.
No comments:
Post a Comment