Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) ***½/5: Entertaining to some extent but it is a lightweight film. You get to understand that it's a lightweight film as it runs out of gas towards the end despite all the zany characters involved.

I read the early reviews and my expectations were altered a bit into thinking that a possibly major film is about to be released (the next Star Wars maybe?). I have come to expect that Marvel films get a lot of support from professional critics, overwhelmingly so at times, even if the flaws are there for all to behold. They jack it up with their reviews fuelling some unwarranted high expectation. That’s another story. This film, however, is good but  it’s also a light weight. All the mysteries of the universe that confronted the Avengers in Marvel’s 1^st  phase have now been dashed and it’s there for all to see. When you do see  the film you come to realize that what lurked  behind the mystery of the universe (or the galaxy in this case)  is quite unremarkable and conforms to what you expect of how a vast galaxy is supposed to be portrayed. I am predicting that by Marvel’s 3^rd phase the scale, which will obviously become grander, will also become more monotonous, predictable and trifling. All of this is due to the release of Guardians of the Galaxy. There are a lot of good moments that anchors the film and gives it some gravitas but the presentation of a band of misfits uniting for the common good is highly predictable and gets quite annoying towards the end. I was not sold on the characters, which was said to be the primary positive highlight, because most of them are caricatures.

The film stars Chris Pratt as Peter Quill or Star Lord a high profile thief, originally from earth by the way, that steals an orb of significant value to the primary villain, Ronan who wishes to use it for his own destructive ends. He ends up being pursued by multiple targets and this unites him with his eventual companions who all have rogue designs. There is Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Bradley Cooper as the talking raccoon, Rocket; Davie Bautista as Drax the destroyer and Vin Diesel as the lovable tree like being known as Groot. They assume the role of heroes after learning to unite to stand up to the overwhelming might of Ronan, who plans to use the mysterious orb as a part of his nefarious designs for the planet of Xandar.

Positives

The primary positive of this film is the scope of the galaxy which these guardians must defend. This is reinforced by some fantastic visuals and some interesting destinations especially a mining colony that is home to a lot of history. It also has the same casual, planet hopping  approach that begun with the  Star Wars series of films. Compare this with the upcoming feature Interstellar where humans are desperate to just leave our very small solar system. In this Guardians film you can be beamed up or go into hyper drive etc. The mystery is gone here and this superficial approach to the galaxy conforms to what you come to expect from films like this which are all influenced by Star Wars. It’s the Star Wars tradition whereas Interstellar will be more in line with the tradition of the masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. The greatness of Star Wars IV: A New Hope is not disputed here but it’s successors, in the form of this film, have not superseded it’s approach. The fact that this film conforms to a particular tradition does not make it great but makes it interesting because it is clearly a different sort of galaxy with a different aesthetic design as well as different types of villains that rely on various cosmic energies to destroy nations whereas in the Star War series domination by the empire was due to very, very advanced forms of technology with only the Jedi clan dealing in some form of mystical energy such as the life force. It was a much more organic approach. (Light sabers are a bit of technology not magic). In this film very large cosmic energies rule the day. The advanced technology is there but that is not what makes you a dominant force. When they tell the grand histories of certain events or places in this film it all surrounds a grand cosmic energy force. This would make Guardians stand out when compared to Star Wars. This is what you come to expect from marvel particularly as the tesseract was the bone of contention in the 1^st phase of films. The villains in this current release appear more like gods from on high (Thanos, Ronan etc) rather than the embodiment of a particular organic system. This adds its own sort of superficiality to the whole premise. I liked the presentation  but this  may be an Achilles heel in the marvel universe when the scale becomes much more grand. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 3^rd avengers film is called War of the Galaxies or maybe the 5^th one.  There will be more Guardians films and I suspect that the scale will become a monotonous one and not very awe inspiring.

The characterizations were fairly good but the emotional core lies with Quill. Having lost the source of his inspiration from an early age we can understand why he has a longing to unite on a positive level. He finds it with the other guardians and you eventually come to the same old realization that even though they are considered misfits they have a streak of good within them. Most of them were torn from something they cherished and they all had this desire to unite positively. If not torn from something they have been used to standing alone or existing in a state of isolation. Once you unite with others you have a sense of belonging and it just so happens that they all united around Quill who wants to do some good.  The influence of Quill is so paramount that the other characters seem like mere caricatures at times. Groot is an interesting character because at first you assume that he only says ‘I am Groot’ but by the end you realize that he is actually speaking and you come to understand what he’s saying. He is the most original character but the rest are fairly predictable. The other characters outside of the guardians are also caricatures and have little substance to make them seem like they embody a distinct culture associated with the Galaxy.

This film likes to have a lot of fun by challenging clichés and mocking a lot of things that are associated with grand standing. The comedy is also a source of a lot of dialogue as the characters seek to challenge the existing order of how things are usually presented. This does undermine the film to some extent and there are times when you wonder if the premise about the galaxy in which they reside is also a joke.

The action is not very thrilling but it gets the job done.

I didn’t mind the  cassette player device because at least that’s one way that Quill holds on to what makes him human.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is the flimsiness of the whole premise. It does not seem to be held together by an original driving force and seems to serve its purpose only as an extension of the marvel universe but does not necessarily have much backbone. Yes there are zany characters and splendid visuals but what else is there? The guardians do not seem to have a specific objective and you realize that towards the end when they fly off into deep space. The film gives you a momentary feeling as you’re supposed to know that these people exist.  There are a lot of superficial elements like pop references and a mocking humour  that seem to carry the film along in its stride instead of a more concrete premise apart from a warlord bent on wreaking havoc on a planet *yawn*. Even the grand standing of the primary villain is mocked in one scene and he comes across as a mere caricature in that one moment. All that was done before seems meaningless as it leads to a weak conclusion.  

All the mystery associated with deep space that was slowly being revealed in the 1^st  phase of marvel films now appears meaningless. I remember revising upward my rating of the first avengers film because I saw one of the post credit scenes featuring  Thanos and I said to myself ‘well that explains a lot.’ I thought that there would be so much to discover and to anticipate. Well this film makes that expectation of mine  seem trivial. Now that we have seen the galaxy and all it entails we should not expect more surprises. The grand scale envisioned for the 3^rd phase of marvel films will look a lot like the final battle in this film. Thanos will be revealed some more by then and he will come off as no different than Ronan in his desire to rule the universe or the many galaxies in the universe.  When Tony Stark got panic attacks in Iron Man 3 after realizing that there is a vast universe, with other living beings, out there this film makes you wonder if that was a necessary plot device. There is nothing remarkable out there in the vast galaxy. I was not stunned by the clichés on display. The main point here is that the film really brings down the marvel universe to a very superficial level.  In the 1^st phase marvel kept the sense of anticipation high however that sense of expectation has died down a bit after seeing this film. The extravagance of marvel is beginning to show and that is not necessarily a good sign.

This boils back to my original point that the film is a lightweight despite all of the comedy and false dramatizations. By the end of the film you get to see how a clichéd premise can run out of gas. The great characterizations initially are drowned out by the corny heroic actions. As they unite the heroes become guardians of a galaxy. Is that an official title? Why not make people believe that there are people looking out for them? Why not allow the people to acknowledge their heroic deeds? The only acknowledgment comes from top bureaucrats and a villain. The film never explained how the legend of these guardians were born. The characters come together for sure but it does not explain  why they should be considered guardians of a entire galaxy that their leader barely understands. They only helped to save one planet from destruction. I just never got a sense that a genuine movement had started because no objective was laid out. They saved the planet and that’s it.

 No real risks are taken in the end and so all the razzle dazzle achieved in quality is a mere extension for the marvel studios. There is not much to discuss until there is a true revelation, apart from howard the duck, of what this means for the many series of marvel films to come.

Why is it that a lot of characters are painted in different colours? Is that how they distinguish them from humans? Also why aren’t there different languages, apart from English, especially when you consider the many  life forms in the galaxy. At least the Star War series of films understood this.

Hercules (2014) ***/5: A good film while you're watching but does not resonate after the credits roll. Too much of a moral fable and less of a genuine action adventure. Some of the testosterone charged moments ring false.

Hercules has always been one of my favourite super heroes. I wonder if it’s ok to call him a superhero. Heroes like Hercules would have been the prototypical superhero in the time of Ancient Greece although their morals were questionable and this placed them more on the level of tragic heroes. The pure morals held so dear by the superheroes of America would not necessarily apply to the tragic/dramatic Greek heroes. Regardless of that distinction I was taken with Greek myth before I turned to comic books and Hercules was clearly the greatest hero in that era. This is why I intended to watch this current release regardless of the quality. The Legend of Hercules (2013) was atrocious but it had little or no correlation to the original mythic tales. I looked forward to this film, Hercules,  because it appeared that they would be featuring some of his legendary adventures, particularly the famous 12 labours. I must admit that I was a bit disappointed although I understood the approach being taken by director Brett Ratner especially as the story was based on a comic book.  Instead of high adventure I was treated to a moral fable and this limited the film in many ways.

The story is about the legendary Hercules (Dwayne 'the rock' Johnson), the son of the Zeus(king of the gods), who is a wandering mercenary who leads a  team of fine  warriors that do various combat like services, such as violently defeating those that offended the paying party, for pieces of gold. He uses the legend of his name to strike fear into those who he must defeat on behalf of his employer. In what will hopefully be his last job, before he departs from Greece, he is commissioned by the king of Thrace to defeat the  warlord Rhesus who is said to be subjecting the outlying  territories to a merciless conquest. However things are never what they seem, a common theme in the film, and Hercules must assert himself as the man he was born to be.

Positives

The primary positive in this film is how Hercules is portrayed as a legend. It also makes you wonder about first impressions when you actually see the legend. The grand stories told about him by Iolaus, his nephew, serve to reinforce a grand image in the eyes of many but for the present, in the film, we are confronted by a man haunted by the past. His family were killed and you get to understand that many believe that he was responsible. Instead of the legend I would have preferred how the legend was born. The approach taken to fashion the legend of Hercules applies to other famous names in Greek myth. One can see that with how the centaurs are portrayed, what made the  Hydra so famous in the eyes of many and there is also a twist regarding the hound from hell, Cerberus. Things are never what they seem in this film although it is never explained why this is so. It’s as if most of the legends were mere concoctions and would correspond to a time when people were  limited in their mental scope.  It was a time however where people could be manipulated because anything that stood out in a forceful way would be very influential in a time when humans were bound to a very mild existence and the natural environment was still very awe inspiring in terms of its scope and it’s supposed secrets. The people in this film could not grasp things for what they were and so relied on first impressions, superstition, folktales and magic. No god of Greek myth is even featured in this film but you hear a lot about their great power. You get the impression that it is nature worship in its most grand form. It still does not explain how Hercules got his strength and so there must be some truth behind the legend.

Regardless of all these legends Hercules stands out and milks it for money.  You get the impression that he has sunk very low because when a man loses his heart in general social causes or movements and only takes care of himself it means that he is probably empty or broken mentally. Humans are social beings and so one who, by choice, has lost interest in being social it must be because  something happened to the individual that  forcibly took him/her away from the social scene. Hercules is such a man in this film because he does not do deeds to improve the social structure of human beings in general he does it primarily for his band of brothers and a sister so that they may receive payments in gold. They are ironically bound to a social cause of their own but it is a limited one.  I liked that for Hercules to redeem himself he must again become a part of a social movement because whether he likes it or not his deeds inspire people on a general basis.  This is a good element in the film although the film uses Hercules to channel yet another moral fable. When a man uses his individual talents to uplift himself and others it is likely that he will become a major force in society.  You become a force because your individual talents mean nothing if it is not demonstrated in the social scene or where others will be witnesses of your great exploits. You have to engage in the social scene to stand out on your own.

The action in this film was very good because I was looking forward to see how Hercules would demonstrate the use of his legendary strength. I was a bit disappointed in the demonstration by Hercules because there was no real test but the all round action was sufficient to keep you engaged.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film was that Hercules was not provided with a sufficient test for his abilities. He does exhibit his strength but based on the trailers I was expecting them to provide more detail of his legendary 12 labours. If they actually spent more time on his legendary labours this film would have been much more entertaining. It is the 12 labours that make Hercules legendary to this day and so only a scant reference of them at the beginning was a letdown. The feats that he performed throughout the film were a good demonstration of his legendary strength but they did not make him appear legendary in my eyes.  They could have crafted a better story around his labours and infuse it with the tragic element to highlight how he received redemption for his terrible crimes. In the brutal world of Greek myth you have to be prepared for heroes that are very shady and not as pure as superman. Basing this story on a graphic novel was a mistake because the graphic novels, for all their bloodletting, always exaggerate the hero’s qualities while denying all the negatives. This was very problematic for 300: Rise of an Empire.

The film was also limited as a moral fable.  It, therefore, seems that the story was limited to delivering a message. I never got the sense that the story was fully developed and this was why I was expecting the film to give Hercules more formidable challenges and to delve into the feats that made him great. When I saw the trailer I was impressed because this would have been the first film to actually address his 12 labours. No film has done so to this point and so when the opportunity does come they can actually explore the 12 labours and tie it into a form of rebirth. According to the original myth he undertook the 12 labours as a form of penance for murdering his children after being driven to madness by  the goddess Hera.  The labours were devised for him to achieve some form of salvation and redemption and afterwards his legend would be born and he would gain renown. Why not do a movie surrounding his 12 labours?  Instead Hercules becomes a vehicle to tell us about high moral values and how men can become like gods. I think there was a lot of room to make this film into an epic with fantastic creatures and featuring the gods on Mt. Olympus. Trying to make the film realistic and being a moral fable limited the amount of dynamics that could have been employed in telling a more complex tale surrounding tragedy and redemption. The moral fable makes it seem like a quick flyby film that does not resonate. It would have resonated if they did not rely on the moral fable and introduced some more complexities into the story.  Few Greek heroes are pure because what was considered a hero then was a person who performed extraordinary deeds.  Few of them had high moral values. The 12 labours of Hercules are significant because it was an excruciating form of redemption. There were a lot of issues that could have been raised as a result. Why even mention Cerberus as the 12th labour and allude that he will only find peace once he accomplishes it? I thought that this was the direction that would have been taken where the various labours represent a stepping stone to redemption. Similarly as they deconstructed the myth around Cerberus they could have done the same for the other labours.

I didn't like the twist to Greek myth. Firstly, how can Hercules come after Achilles and Odysseus who fought in the Trojan war. In  Greek myth the exploits of Hercules represented the peak of the Age of Heroes  just as his legendary form of death represented  its decline. Why present him in such a fashion? It was jarring and affected how I viewed the film. Hercules embodied all that was fantastic about Greek myth and so to present him in a time when all the great deeds have already been done cannot bring back the same aura. The only thing left is his strength.

I know the film is testosterone charged and from an action point of view ‘The Rock’ does deliver however there is a lot that does ring false. There is a scene, for instance, when Hercules exclaims, dramatically, ‘I am Hercules.’ It’s in the trailer so I am not spoiling anything here.  That particular scene is charged with testosterone and muscle but as a genuine source of inspiration for the audience it rings hollow.  I am also suspecting that it was the scene where Hercules was expected to rediscover what made him great in the first place.

In the end I was expecting a more fantastic journey and was looking forward to relive the exploits of the mighty Hercules. It is not enough for a film with such a big budget to be good while it lasted.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) ****/5: Great improvement over it's predecessor but some issues regarding the premise of this series still remain.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a great improvement on its predecessor. I really liked this film although by the end this concept of the planet of the apes is still elusive. I wonder how many movies it will take and I believe that by the next film some hard decisions will have to be made. This film provided the basis for those hard decisions to be made because not everything revolves around Caesar (Andy Serkis). The exclusivity given to Caesar was one of the weak points of the earlier film but now there are other players that deserve significant attention. When the history of the series is written then it’s possible that these characters will assume a place in the pantheon for good or ill. I am speaking obviously about Koba (Toby Kebbell). The human story was a clear weak point but it will probably set a platform for the development of the series. When Caesar eventually takes over he may find a place for human scientists, engineers etc. It’s similar to how Rome found place for the Greek intellectual tradition.

This film continues from its predecessor after a virus that originated with the apes in the first film, after being the generated by human scientists, has decimated most of the humans on the planet. There are survivors in the form of human colonies and one in San Francisco led by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) and Malcolm (Jason Clarke) the chief engineer or scientist needs to access a hydro electric power source from a dam. In order to get this dam they have to go through the home of Caesar and his apes. An uneasy alliance is formed but there are seedy elements involved that will undermine it and bring human and apes to the path of no return and all out war.

Positives

The main positive is that this film is much more in depth than its predecessor particularly as it concerns the community of the apes. It’s good to see how they have developed as a community in this film and this is reflected in the supporting cast. It is clear that when the apes write or tell their history someone like Koba deserves some form of mention. He may be portrayed as villainous but his actions are necessary if we are to see an actual planet of the apes materialize. If it was up to Caesar and his naiveté then we would have to wait for the a 6th film before he sounded the clarion call for apes to take up arms against the humans. Even by the end Caesar acknowledges that he must now lead the apes on and this can only be due to the push by Koba. Koba actually knew best in the end. It’s the same for many organizations you have the idealistic head who believes he/she can live out their fantasies and visions without some form of conflict or encountering a negative but there is a second in command who knows what’s really going on. It’s the second in command that gets things done or keeps the wheels spinning on a realistic level so that the leader can live out their fantasies. Not all leaders are as fantastic, as I here claim, but a they are out there and the only reason they have not succumbed to pressure is due to the hard/dirty work done on the ground by their lieutenants. Koba might be filled with hate but he understands the down and dirty of the situation in a way that Caesar never will. To make him appear so villainous was probably not the way to go because it only enhances Caesar’s reputation even more. Koba awoke in him real primal urges. When you see Koba do something that might seem villainous it’s all instinctive. He challenges the alpha male and that is a regular thing in the ape world at present. If he is defeated then he submits or is banished. It’s a natural thing and so I had nothing against him. He did not suddenly break with Caesar he challenged him, initially, because of perceived weakness in his leader and then took matters into his own hands. It’s similar to what Ra’s Al Ghul told Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins (2005) ‘You lack the courage to do what is necessary.’ Koba was more or less telling Caesar the same thing. As a leader you have to please the other potential leaders in your squad or you will be undermined, covertly or overtly. You, as a leader, must show strength at all times. I think that the development of Koba’s character is the most important thing I have seen in this series of films so far. It is good to know that Caesar is not infallible.

I also liked the son’s character and he is clearly a future leader for the series. Caesar may be the founding father but they can’t live forever and if the story is to gain some form of impetus other people will have to start taking over the starring roles. We will see how they handle this by part 3. Everything else goes according to script but because of Koba the film had some genuinely surprising moments and was not as predictable as it would seem from the outset.

The human element is a good addition from an emotional standpoint but it must come to a point when it has to be all out conflict and hopefully this is the last we will see of a film where the humans are spending most of their time trying to understand the apes. This film was an acknowledgement that the apes are not mindless, servile creatures. With that understanding there should be no holding back from either side

when the real conflict ensues.

Good visual effects. The apes really look life like; much more than in the first film.

Negatives

The primary negative is that there is still no sign of when a planet of the apes will come about. Will it be the next film? I thought the dawn of the planet of the apes would signify something more than the conquest of a mere human colony. The human colony is isolated and so we are not aware of how many humans are actually alive. I understand that the colony is not aware but we as the objective audience are not aware. The last film was called Rise of the Planet of the Apes but there was no sign of any planet just apes retreating. This film says there will be a dawn of the planet for the apes but still the scale is so small that you don’t get a sense of where it is all heading. Just to conquer the human colonies in the North America will be a massive task especially as one was so difficult. I mention all of this because this film is going for a more realistic approach as opposed to the traditional, straight to the point approach of the original B movie films. Will the apes arm themselves with tanks, body armor etc? Will the population of the apes increase rapidly? They will have to go all out for the next film because I am still not sure about these apes taking over the entire planet particularly how they will spread from continent to continent. I am really looking forward to the title of the next film. Will it be the Planet of the Apes? This would be fitting since we already have the dawn.

This boils down to my next negative criticism which was applied to the first film in the series: the lack of emphasis on the external elements. The internal elements are there but there is not enough of the external and so the world appears isolated as if it is ‘The Lord of the Flies.’ They can’t avoid the external elements for the next film and so they will have to be included. A lot of contradictions will come to the fore and it will be interesting to see how they (filmmakers) handle it. How will the apes govern the entire planet?

The naiveté of Caesar coupled with his heroic status never gelled well for me. He is clearly naïve for the most part and this is why Koba is the most important new element in this film. If he never pushed Caesar then we would not even be talking about the planet of the apes we would be talking about the community of Apes. He paid for his naiveté but by the end he is still portrayed as the leader of the movement. In one scene he calls Koba weak. Really? Koba will now go down as the first leader to actually make a push for the establishment of a planet for the apes not Caesar. By the end however the filmmakers are too eager to have Caesar remain the face of the planet of the apes although there is not much remarkable about him as there was in the first film. He is wise but he is also lacks a killer instinct and would have made the humans run all over him. By the end he seems to have discovered the killer instinct but we will see how far his wisdom takes him especially as he is prone to be very lenient. Koba never did anything wrong in my estimation because how else will a planet of the apes emerge if they don’t go out and conquer. The poster of the film is erroneous. It's not Caesar who led the charge that would bring about the eventual planet of the apes but Koba. Koba should have gotten his due.

The human story did not resonate sufficiently with me. There are a lot of tears but there is not much of a connection with the audience. This affection that Caesar has for the human must have implications later when he becomes a world conqueror.

I still give this film a higher rating because it was more engaging than the first film but the vulgar elements still remain. They will never be resolved and the time will come when we discover that the apes are no better than humans. A point made clear in the film but it will be interesting to see if the apes become capitalists. I am really looking forward to the alternatives they bring to governing style. When it eventually becomes subsumed under an industrial framework I would love to see if the filmmakers will demonstrate the effectiveness of this new style. I am looking forward to it. The apes get their first taste of industrial technology when they get access to weapons used in modern warfare and so it's clear that they will embrace industrial technology and science. Should be interesting.