Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - The Wacky Heroes

A retrospective of the superhero films of the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe'. Based on articles by Matt Goldblatt in Collider Magazine, April 2015.

When the publicity for an announced film, instead of naming the director or producer, mentions the producing studio, it's usually a bad sign. But Marvel Studios is once again the exception to the rule here. Much like animation studio Pixar (also part of the Disney corporation), the Marvel logo has become a safe bet at the beginning of a film. So when the poster for "Guardians Of The Galaxy" proclaims, "From the makers of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Avengers," it gives hope for a good film.And the addition, "Is there anything left to save here?" reflects the irreverent attitude of the new film, but is also at the same time an acknowledgement by Marvel Studios of a film that could well have stood on its own in the 1980s, but in today's film landscape needs the backing of one of the biggest entertainment brands to be produced at all.

Marvel Studios didn't give this backing just to add a random superhero movie to their portfolio, but precisely to deviate from this well-trodden path of superhero movies. The result is a classic space opera in the style of »Star Wars« and »Serenity« that focuses on the successful dynamics of a team right off the bat. »Guardians« is also the film in the Marvel cinematic universe that has the least connection with the previous films. »Guardians Of The Galaxy« shows only isolated puzzle pieces of elements that were already familiar to the audience from the previous films, such as the Tesseract (Avengers) or the Aether (Thor 2), and lets the protagonists meet two characters that were previously only known from the so-called stinger scenes at the end of said films: The Collector character (Benicio Del Toro) and Thanos (Josh Brolin).

Except for these previously established elements, Marvel Studios was told to »go back to the start.« The »Guardians Of The Galaxy« originated from Marvel's comic universe, just like the previous superheroes, but was even less familiar to movie audiences than Iron Man six years earlier.

But the audience's growing trust in the Marvel movie universe was great enough that they bought a movie ticket for a film in whose first minutes a little boy's mother dies of cancer, that same boy is then abducted by aliens, and then 25 years later that boy, now grown into a young man, is walking around on an alien planet listening to "Come and Get Your Love" on his antiquated Walkman (an early form of an iPod). It's amazing how much the audience has developed an ever-increasing brand loyalty to gigantic faceless corporations that have cleverly promoted this loyalty through their products and massive advertising. But it is precisely such a corporation, in the form of Marvel Studios, that has commissioned this extraordinary film and placed it in the hands of director James Gunn, who in his previous film puts a pipe wrench in the hand of his main character in order to beat someone half to death with it. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the purest form of successful conversation to date between Marvel Studios and one of its commissioned directors. (In second place here is certainly now "Ant-Man", but more of that in a later chapter). "Guardians" is teeming with strange creatures, a lovingly unusual set, cool costumes, and so on. But stylistically, the film still fits seamlessly into the Marvel cinematic universe shown so far. Everything looks clean and neat, even the grimmest locations. And if at some point the characters in the film were to step alongside Earthlings from the Marvel cinematic universe, it wouldn't be too disconcerting cinematically.

But the film's peculiar style clearly comes from director James Gunn. The film has neither the gloom of Gunn's previous works nor their aggressive twistedness. But the irreverence and crankiness typical of Gunn's films always shines through in "Guardians." It's a film about outsiders, made by an outsider. And you can feel Gunn's full sympathy for these loser characters in every scene. Gunn delights more in elements that make these characters outsiders than those that are meant to make them seem 'cool'.It's important to keep in mind how much "Guardians" was seen as a big risk for Marvel Studios before its premiere. This risk assessment stems from a Hollywood system that believes it would be safer to use a board game as a movie template than a movie about a bunch of weird aliens in outlandish locations. As I said, the power of brand loyalty helped here. "Guardians Of The Galaxy," however, is not that brand. Marvel is that brand. And Marvel has banked on a film that isn't really offbeat, but is clearly an exceptional special case for Marvel Studios.

And this special case extends not only to the film's humor or plot, but especially to its cast. Gunn believed from the beginning in Chris Pratt, a slightly overweight actor who maintained his amiable nature despite rigorous fitness training. The wrestler David Bautista had already made a few films, but in them he had never interpreted a character as extraordinary as that of Drax. Zoe Saldana was the safest bank for Gunn, as she had already proven to embody a strong action heroine in the science fiction films Avatar and Star Trek. Bradley Cooper, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood right now, was even brought in to lend his voice to a raccoon with degraded impulse control. And then there's the odd character of a talking tree that speaks only three words, and speaks them with a lot of feeling -- thanks to action star Vin Diesel's nuanced interpretation of this severely limited vocabulary. Guardians Of The Galaxy is a film that's equal parts strange and comforting. The viewer is thrown into space prisons and planet-sized giant skulls with the protagonists and can feast on numerous alien creatures. But then there are the characters like wannabe hero Star-Lord, who give you the middle finger, listen to music from K-Tel and strut around with plenty of chutzpah. It's a movie that has the makings of a classic with the ten-year-olds, and it makes a joke about the interior of the hero's spaceship being speckled with ejaculate everywhere. Given these absurdities, you really have to wonder why this film was such a phenomenal success at the box office - and not just because a talking raccoon appears in the film.

"Guardians Of The Galaxy" reaches far beyond the boundaries of the superhero genre instituted by Marvel. The characters certainly act heroically, but not for the usual reasons for moral action. All the characters have individual abilities, but not to the extent that they elevate them above the other inhabitants of their cosmic world. Rocket the raccoon is good at blowing things up. Gamora has implants that make her a more capable assassin. Star-Lord is clever and Drax has physical strength. The character that comes closest to being a superhero in the classic sense is the walking tree Groot, who has extraordinary and powerful abilities.However, when you look at the antagonists, Marvel returns to its established underachievement. "Guardians Of The Galaxy" features no less than four uninteresting villains. Korath (Djimon Hounsou) is an unhelpful sidekick. Nebula (Karen Gillan) is a little more interesting because of her sisterly rivalry with Gamora. Then there's Ronan (Lee Pace) whose malevolent motivations make next to no sense. Ronan's motivation echoes that of Malekith, the villain already familiar from "Thor - The Dark World": "My people have been wronged!" But in the case of Ronan, this motivation makes even less sense than for Malekith, since Malekith at least (partially) had a people that supported him. Ronan, on the other hand, does not even have supporters from his own ranks. He is a fanatical Kree-one. The viewer is told at length that not a single person from the Kree empire shares Ronan's warlike zeal and would board a gigantic spaceship to wreak havoc on the planet Xandar. Instead of the Kree, Ronan is aided by the Sakaaran. A faceless alien race that Drax aptly paraphrases 'cardboard soldiers' and conforms to the recurring Marvel trope of cannon fodder, who may be taken around the corner without moral rebuke for the heroes.

And then there's Thanos, who by now you might get the impression is the biggest villain in the Marvel cinematic universe is also the least interesting. It's understandable that the Thanos story arc hasn't fit into every previous film in the Marvel cinematic universe. But by now, there are ten films in the Marvel cinematic universe and in none of them does Thanos pose a serious threat to the protagonists. Thanos presumably has two of the so-called Infinity Stones at his disposal, and if so, this is still a mystery. It's also quite possible that he doesn't possess any of these stones, which would be even worse. If you evaluate his behavior based on "Guardians" then you almost have to assume the latter.The MacGuffin of "Guardians Of The Galaxy", the so-called "Star" contains one of the stones of infinity. Nevertheless, Thanos simply assigns the procurement of this gem, which is important for him, to one of his subordinates. If one wants to follow a possible plot logic, then it could be that Thanos does not know that the star contains one of the stones of infinity. (But this is unlikely, since then it would not be clear why he needs to get his hands on the star under any circumstances). Or maybe Thanos wants Ronan to test the Infinity Stone hidden in the star, or maybe he had some other, as yet unknown, reason for not sending Gamora and/or Nebula to get the stone first. Either way, none of these possible explanations are reflected in the script. When Ronan takes the Infinity Stone, Thanos' threat on it is, "I would reconsider the direction of your current course." Ronan then brazenly interrupts the conversation with his patron. Thanos is ostensibly the biggest villain in the entire Marvel cinematic universe, and he comes across as surprisingly weak and incompetent, at least in his manifestation so far.

The appearance of Thanos in Guardians Of The Galaxy is the only time in the Phase Two films of the Marvel cinematic universe where its overarching story arc is taken a step further, rather than leaving it in the narrative space of the Avengers. Like every other previous attempt to advance the story arc around Thanos outside of a "stinger" scene (This is what happened in the "Avengers"), the scene in "Guardians" feels rather superfluous. The stinger is basically just a MacGuffin and it would have certainly been possible to integrate its importance into the plot without establishing a half-heartedly drawn antagonist who eventually gains importance.On top of that, the personality of the film clearly comes from James Gunn, but the plot structure was clearly dictated by Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios really needs to learn how to get the climax right in the third act of their plot. There's probably no getting around a confrontation between two opposing parties, but why on earth does a giant spaceship have to slam into a planetary surface every time? (This happened before in Thor - The Dark World and Captain America - The Winter Soldier). This has already been criticized in previous chapters, but it is quite astonishing that one and the same climax is used in three consecutive Marvel movies.Marvel Comics likes to call itself the "house of ideas" and Marvel Studios should take advice from their sister company in planning the climax of their movies without delay. These predictable and obtuse plot elements are especially annoying in a film that is otherwise as entertaining and twisted as "Guardians Of The Galaxy."

Although Marvel Studios continues to grow and the studio has already announced films through the end of the decade, "Guardians Of The Galaxy" feels like the successful culmination of what Marvel Studios started with a washed-up actor in the role of a second-rate superhero six years ago. The films of the Marvel cinematic universe are far from perfect, and the road from "Iron Man" to "Guardians Of The Galaxy" was certainly not an easy one. But it was an exciting journey. It was a journey guided by humor, daring and an honest love for their cinematic characters. So it's not the worst way to create a cinematic universe.