The Galaxy Has Guardians

[Jamie French]

Let's see, how many people can I alienate today? Let's find out...

A ragtag team of reluctant heroes try to stop an evil force from taking over the galaxy?

* No points for originality.

Five loners with chips on there shoulders eventually loosen up and generally get along once they forge a necessary partnership?

* Those aren't character arches, that's just what people generally do.

Cancer mom right off the bat apropos of nothing?

* That's not giving the audience a reason to care, that's bashing an audience over the head and commanding that they care... because cancer and sad.

Wisecracking anthropomorph?

* Wisecracking anthropomorph.

These are some of the obvious, but generally forgivable flaws in a movie everyone seems to be losing their shit over.
More importantly, the movie never finds it's tone... it's afraid to stick to it's guns and be any one particular thing. The violence, a little too strong, the comedy a little too hokey, the self criticism, a little too contrived. These elements do not have to be as disparate as they are unwittingly portrayed in this film, but a binding agent is missing. Warmth. This movie is cold to the touch, the elements never congeal. In trying to be everything all at once it proves itself to be what it promised it wasn't - a forgettable, fair weather action movie.

Guardians Of The Galaxy is simply another offering in a long line of countless comic book movies who's target audience is more concerned with content rather than the medium of film itself. It's a continuing extension of an escapist universe. What it is not, is a very good movie.

We were conditioned to like this movie two years before it ever hit the theaters. The powers that be said, "Look, we know it's an unproven property but here's all the reasons you should give this movie a pass..." They failed to deliver. They told us what they thought discerning audiences wanted to hear. The effort was wasted in that respect. Those who like the movie were going to like it regardless of fanfare.

Guardians Of The Galaxy seems to be exactly what comic book movie fans need it to be, which is to say - it exists - it hits the preordained beats, it keeps your eyes moving, and it paints a familiar pass time in slightly different, temporarily distracting new shades. Predictably, it does little else.

[christianxxx]

who wrote that review?

[my my my!]

Jamie, I feel about 90% of hollywood's (or hollywood related) movies are downright , awful, forgettable, and at best okay.

I feel like every year, there are only 2 entries, that are worthy of a blu ray purchase, and the rest leave me with the feeling that I would not care If I never saw said movie ever again. and a few actually make me regret the time I spent watching it.

do you feel the same way?

Or do you generally like Hollywood movies?

[giovanni_hotel]

It was a movie geared towards 13 year old boys and they ate that shit up.
Mission accomplished.

I think that review was deeper than the script.

Racoons with guns is always cash-money.

[Charly Spoons]

Meh, kids films are rarely the best...



Lets hope Mad Max is a winner...



Tom Hardy! Awesome, check out his Bronson performance...

[RallyCola]

who wrote that review?

it doesn't matter if that is "original thought" or if jamie is just echoing another critic...these are the same sentiments most regular folk feel about the movie. fan boys will clearly appreciate it but in general, it had to be to advance the MCU so, while Jamie gets no points for originality in her critique having pointed out nothing that was not already known, kudos to Marvel Studios for figuring out how to make a mediocre acting, a very old and standard plot, laughable effects and a underrepresented comic property into a winfall. At present, it is at $220 million (in 1 week) on a $170 million dollar budget so it will likely turn a profit before it closes in theaters....I can't see it not making more than another $120 million.

[Corran]

Didn't care for the comic so I have zero desire to see this. It's aimed at kids/teenagers anyway, so I didn't expect much of a plot. Just pretty make up and special effects.

[christianxxx]

it doesn't matter if that is "original thought" or if jamie is just echoing another critic...these are the same sentiments most regular folk feel about the movie. fan boys will clearly appreciate it but in general, it had to be to advance the MCU so, while Jamie gets no points for originality in her critique having pointed out nothing that was not already known, kudos to Marvel Studios for figuring out how to make a mediocre acting, a very old and standard plot, laughable effects and a underrepresented comic property into a winfall. At present, it is at $220 million (in 1 week) on a $170 million dollar budget so it will likely turn a profit before it closes in theaters....I can't see it not making more than another $120 million.

you are right, but I am curious who wrote that review, since so many of the movie reviewers are so positive (like me) about the movie. I don't think she was trying to pass it off as her own review.

[RallyCola]

so...why are you so positive about the movie?

i did see it with an open mind and quite low expectations because having avoided reviews before i saw it, i went in with the understanding of 1 thing...everything that Marvel got right with their "phases" was about to be tossed aside in essentially a money grab and a chance to flesh out Thanos for the 3rd avengers movie. The "phases" though that plan has other issues, allowed characters to develop and come together. in Guardians, too many origin stories had to merge into yet another origin story of its own and they simply did a bad job of it because the movie, had to exist.

More importantly, since I realized that they totally screwed up (if rumors are right) the Ultron character, Guardians makes me less interested in Avengers 2 because i want Thanos and his infinity gauntlet already.

so, let me at least get past where Guardians lies in the MCU....as a movie, the plot was rushed, formulaic and undeveloped, lee pace was terrible, zoe saldana showed why she is incredibly overrated, glenn close was retarded, the funny dialogue quickly became tedious and overdone and the cgi was not very convincing. i found myself saying, that is was ok...i couldn't even call it entertaining.

i'm not saying you have to change your opinion...believe me, i'm fighting the good fight against fanboys on some movie forums right now...but i'd like to hear why you are positive on it. for some reason, i don't think you are a marvel fanboy, but stranger things have happened.

[Jamie French]

I love the idea of movies, I love the concept of film. I don't own one DVD. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Jamie, I feel about 90% of hollywood's (or hollywood related) movies are downright , awful, forgettable, and at best okay.

I feel like every year, there are only 2 entries, that are worthy of a blu ray purchase, and the rest leave me with the feeling that I would not care If I never saw said movie ever again. and a few actually make me regret the time I spent watching it.

do you feel the same way?

Or do you generally like Hollywood movies?