Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians of the Galaxy ~ First things first, there will be spoilers for the movie, so if you're looking for a spoiler-free review of Guardians of the Galaxy, that review can be found at Biff Bam Pop! right here, and really, what are you waiting for already? See the movie!

I should confess that these aren't my Guardians of the Galaxy in the movie. I first encountered the Guardians of the Galaxy back in the 1970s at the Berlin Auction, or the Berlin Farmers Market for the folks from Cherry Hill, at one of those newsstands where they would tear the tops of the covers off of comics and sell them three for a quarter. Sometimes the pickings would be sparse, and instead of a Flash or Justice League, you would end up getting something different that you didn't necessarily want. This is how stuff like Lois Lane or Tarzan Family or Daredevil would end up in your collection, ready to be traded at school for something you thought was better.

One of those books that I actually enjoyed and didn't trade was Marvel Presents #3, featuring the original Guardians of the Galaxy. I loved this book. Here the original and somewhat redesigned members of the team - Charlie-27 of Jupiter, Martinex of Pluto, Yondu of Alpha Centauri, and Vance Astro of Earth - were teamed with the cosmic-powered Starhawk to finish off the alien invaders, the Badoon, who had enslaved mankind. This was in the 30th century, and I was well aware of Marvel trying to parallel DC Comics' Legion of Super-Heroes, but I didn't care, this was cool. These heroes bounced around different titles throughout the 1970s before scoring their own series in the 1980s, before disappearing.

These new Guardians of the Galaxy were born in the fires of the Marvel Comics crossover event called Annihilation and its spin-offs and sequels. This event brainstormed by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning took almost all of Marvel's space and cosmic heroes and wove all of their mythologies into one coherent continuity. And that is really what is so amazing about the movie. All of these characters have such continuity-heavy backgrounds in the comics, but in the film are presented with just what you need to know to enjoy the flick. It's magic, and serious props should go to James Gunn and Nicole Perlman.

Star-Lord and Rocket Raccoon were pretty much, to my knowledge at least, one-shot characters from the late 1970s. Thanos, Drax the Destroyer, Lady Gamora, Nebula and that bunch were all part of that weird 1970s cosmic epic involving Captain Mar-Vell and Adam Warlock by Jim Starlin before that. And Groot, well, Groot predates Marvel, going waaay back to Atlas Comics when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were doing giant monster and alien invasion stories in the 1950s. Annihilation brought them together as a team before they came to the big screen. That's that, but as I said, everything you need to know about these characters is on the screen.

There are Easter eggs and tidbits from earlier Marvel movies in here, and it's a major bonus if you know about them, but you don't need to know anything to see and enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy. This could very well be the first Marvel movie for all the background needed. In other words, the fanboy and the fangirl can bring their significant others to this flick and they will enjoy it just as much as their partner.

You'll meet Star-Lord, played by Chris Pratt, playing his charm and charisma for all its worth. He's a funny leading man who will make you blow raspberries at that Robert Downey Jr. guy. He is the default leader of the rogues who become the Guardians. Zoe Saldana plays living weapon Gamora, with wrestler Dave Bautista (or is it Batista?  I've seen it spelled both ways) as the literal-minded Drax the Destroyer. The personality quirks of these two characters mixed with Star-Lord are part of what makes this flick so much fun.

The real fun with characters and interaction come from the two CGI entries Rocket and Groot. Rocket is a genetically engineered raccoon (but don't call him that) who's as handy with tech as he is with big guns. Voiced by Oscar-nominated actor Bradley Cooper, Rocket and his bodyguard/partner Groot are the breakout characters here. Groot, whose vocabulary consists of three words, "I am Groot" (voiced by Vin Diesel), is a huge tree creature of many different abilities. Both of them are lots of fun.

These characters go from hating each other to making a Great Escape break out to eventually saving the galaxy - I'm sure that's not a spoiler or surprise, but their bonding is at the core of the flick. Real plot details involve big bads everywhere, including James Brolin's Thanos, Benicio del Toro as The Collector, former "Doctor Who"companion Karen Gillan as Nebula, Michael Rooker of "The Walking Dead" as Yondu, and the wonderfully designed Ronan the Accuser as played by Lee Pace.

As far as cameos go there is of course Stan Lee, but also look for Glenn Close, John C. Reilly, Troma's Lloyd Kaufman, and the voices of Nathan Fillion, Rob Zombie, and in the after-credits sequence, Seth Green as Howard the Duck. Yeah, that's right, Howard the Duck. Perhaps this more character-correct (although it's only one line) version can help erase the George Lucas abomination from 1986, and of course now that Disney owns Marvel, Howard can go pantless. Also, as this movie proves that Rocket Raccoon can be done believably, maybe we can get a real Howard film in the future…

One of the best parts of Guardians of the Galaxy is the soundtrack, not the terrific score by Tyler Bates, but the songs featured throughout. Star-Lord has a cassette tape of 1970s hits that play throughout the film, and it is almost as important as the characters to the film, because the movie wouldn't be the same without it. The 1970s vibe rocks the movie and makes it special.

It is not all good however. We get precious little of Thanos, and the Collector's scenes are more than a bit disappointing (although we get to see a Celestial!), although I did dig that his home was inside the dead skull of a Celestial. I would have liked to have seen more use of Nebula, as would most "Doctor Who" fans coming to the flick. I am sure however we will see her again, as well as her father as I believe Thanos plays heavily in Avengers 3, and of course Guardians 2 is a go as well.

If wanting more is my only complaint, how bad could the flick really be? In fact, I think this is one of the best of the marvel movies, right up there with Iron Man, Captain America, and Avengers, and that's high praise indeed. If you want a bit more of my thoughts (and The Bride's), you can check out our special Guardians of the Galaxy episode of The Make Mine Magic Podcast.

Rosemary's Baby 2014

Rosemary's Baby ~ My first thought when I had heard they were remaking Rosemary's Baby was why. It's almost a perfect film as it is, perhaps a bit dated now, but for its time, it was fabulous and changed the way we viewed horror. One could say that the original film, based on the Ira Levin novel, even created its own little subgenres of horror. It opened the door to several devil-related flicks, family-centric horror, and modern takes on old scare themes. The Stepford Wives, The Omen, even The Exorcist, they all owe a debt to Rosemary's Baby.

There are of course reasons to remake a movie, even one that was done right the first time. One reason would be to expand the original story, fill in details, complete connections, explain what was left unexplained. Another reason would be to update the film, as in a lot has changed since 1968 and now it's 2014. That means update the style of the filmmaking and storytelling, not just adding cellphones, the internet, and social media.

There is always the possibility that one has found a way to improve the original, to make it better, however in this case I doubt it. Some folks just want to do a remake as is, reproducing sets or shots, but with new actors or as above updated settings. Or it could simply be a bit of stunt casting, which does fit this case with Zoe Saldana in the Mia Farrow role.

I think the main reason I didn't want to see Rosemary's Baby remade was that it seems to be recent memory, and then I remember it's a relic of my childhood, and lastly as my mind shrivels a bit more I realize the original was made almost five decades ago. Damn, I feel old. It was a long time ago, and I even remember the ill-advised ABC Movie of the Week sequel Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby. Now that was a disaster, but at least it was a fun disaster. I don't think I can even call this remake fun.

Let's talk about the stunt casting of Zoe Saldana. Zoe is Uhura, she's Columbiana, she's Gamora. And it's not a matter of typecasting either she's better in those kinds of roles. This is not to say the woman doesn't have range, but she just doesn't pull it off here. I don't believe her for a second as naive, innocent, and demure Rosemary Woodhouse. There's a hint of the Zoe we all know and love in the beginning of the miniseries but she never surfaces again.

The other major change that director Agnieszka Holland made was the location move to Paris. This is disappointing as New York is very much a character in the original film. Holland is well known for a completely different kind of movie, the kind that would normally occur in France, but let's face it, this is Rosemary's Baby, and it's a miniseries for prime time American network television. What the hell were they thinking at NBC?

This new version of course add new details, as they do have double the time to fill being a four hour miniseries 'event' as opposed to just a two hour movie. That also means it drags everything out. Waiting and extended talky scenes do not a suspenseful story make. I love Zoe but she exudes as much (or as little) charisma here as the rest of her co-stars. The score by Antoni Lazarkiewicz is relentlessly uninteresting and pales in comparison with the stunning soundtrack of the original by Krzysztof Komeda.

This had the potential to be a refreshing and original take on the story but it fails both due to length and casting, and yes, even location. While the original presented tense subtle creeping horror, this version is boring, underwhelming, and overly and unnecessarily complex - and ultimately disappointing. Give this a pass. Read the book, see the original, hell, see the sequel, but give this 2014 remake a wide berth.

The Losers

The Losers ~ Yes, another comic book made into a film, but unlike most of them - shocker, I've never read this one, so I can't make all those nitpicky little comments about what didn't translate to the screen.

The Losers is a present day Vertigo comic loosely based on an old DC war comic from back in the day, some of the names even remain the same, although it should be mentioned, in the war comic, Pooch was a dog. The concept here is a group of special ops get framed and try to get even with the evil CIA boss who did the nasty to them. yeah, it does sound a bit "A-Team," but it's much better, and much much better than the trailer for the new big screen A-Team that ran before this movie.

The trailer is actually one of the major things wrong with The Losers. As with many films these days, they either give away the whole movie or show the best parts of the film. In this case, if you've seen the preview for The Losers, you have heard all the good lines.

I also think that not having read the comics I was able to be surprised by some of the more interesting plot twists an average comics fan would've have known going in. Zoe Saldana is stunning and quickly becoming one of my favorite actresses. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays his second comic book character on the screen with pizazz, his first being Watchmen's Comedian. And Chris Evans does his second as well after the Human Torch and will soon be playing Captain America. Sounds like he's making a career of comics to film.

The Losers is a fun flick, over the top performance and violence. Don't take it too seriously, like a Roger Moore Bond flick, and you'll enjoy it.

Star Trek - The New Frontier

Star Trek ~ There are numerous reasons why a major entertainment franchise would be rebooted. Perhaps it’s been forgotten a generation ago. Maybe the last film in the series did comparatively horrible at the box office to previous entries. Perhaps the last television attempt was on a flailing network and was badly promoted – and in some cases dissed by supposed fans of the franchise. For Star Trek, coming up on its 43rd anniversary, can count all of those reasons and more for its current reboot in theatres in just a week or so.

The powers that be have brought in J.J. Abrams, of “Alias,” “Lost” and Cloverfield to helm this eleven Trek film, with an all-new cast in a prequel/sequel/reimagining/reboot (yes, it is all of those things) to the original TV series. Trailers have brought nothing but controversy for Trek fans and interest in viewers with no Trek in their past. Surely, this flick will be a rite of passage.

Before I go any further, be warned that this is a spoiler-rich review. I saw the film nearly two weeks ago and have been trying to write a spoilerless review. It’s just not possible to do, and address the things I want to address – so if you continue reading, consider yourself warned.

The flick begins with a bang, and the rollercoaster hardly stops from there on, which is a marked difference from Trek. The Treks before this have seemed pretentiously talky, so much so that is considered to be the way it should be - a point made by Trekkies when they haven't liked films with 'too much action,' like Nemesis, the last movie in the series that may have helped kill the franchise. And that's a point I'd like to bring up to the hardcore 'fans' out there - Paramount did not nearly kill the franchise - you did by not supporting it. I think this is the main reason this new film was made for the mainstream younger audience -and not those hardcore fans- to save the franchise.

And that's not to say that this new film is not for the fans. The writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, have taken great care to keep continuity and canon high on their priority list - despite the time travel alternate divergence mindgames that go on. They not only play by the rules, but they also get to play by theirs as well. There are moments, little nods, like the red shirt phenomenon, Admiral Archer's beagle, Kirk eating an apple during the Kobayashi Maru, Sulu's fencing, McCoy's signature catchphrases, and the timelost old Spock doing to young Scotty what the timelost old Scotty himself does to a young 20th century engineer in The Voyage Home, that are just brilliant. And although they are brief, I love the scenes of Kirk and Spock as boys. Beautiful, just beautiful.

The cast is near perfect. Yes, as hard as it is to believe, but twenty minutes into the flick I had forgotten about the original cast and was seeing the new faces as the characters. Chris Pine plays William Shatner as Kirk (rather than just William Shatner, which probably would have been disastrous) just as Zachary Quinto does Nimoy as Spock. Each though brings their own flavor to the part - a bit of James Dean for young Kirk and an alien outsider vibe to young Spock. Karl Urban is the perfect McCoy. That particular bit of inspired casting is a gift from God. I may have to wonder if DeForrest Kelley is his father, it's so close.

The rest of the cast is rounded out well with the always entertaining Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho doing a wonderful intimidating impression of George Takei doing Sulu in the original series, as opposed to Takei's more satiric take of recent years thanks to his coming out and participation with the Howard Stern programs, and the highlight of the cast has got to be Zoe Saldana as Uhura - finally claiming the spotlight the character should have had decades ago. Zoe is an actress to watch for the future.

Conversely, Anton Yelchin who plays Chekov, is quite annoying, and one of the lowlights of the film. I have to wonder however if this is on purpose. If memory serves when the Beatle-esque character first appeared in the second season of the original series many fans hated him just as they did that other ratings bump Seven-of-Nine decades later in "Voyager." Maybe we're supposed to hate him?

It should be noted that it's not all wine and roses though. Along with Chekov there were other elements that didn't win me over. Star Wars is alive an well in the film. Things like the great Tatooine-ish bar scene and fight in which Uhura is introduced and Kirk looking at the Academy training center shaped like a starship work well, but it goes too far in the Hoth scene with Cloverfield's cousin - thankfully it's a brief departure. I also didn't care much for Kirk's allergy, but again, very brief. I'm torn by the slug scene. is it a rip-off or an homage to the similar scene in Wrath of Khan?

The special effects are great. I like the new warp effect but no so keen on the new transporter effect. The music is amazing. Much like the powerful score of Tyler Bates in Watchmen, the music of Michael Giacchino more than makes this movie as great as it is. He dabbles in Philip Glass, brings on the Akira Ifukube, and even retunes a bit of the original Alexander Courage. I can't say enough about this score, other than I bought it, and for a soundtrack for me, that's saying a lot.

All that said, I think this new Star Trek will not only reignite the franchise, but will be the first summer blockbuster of the year, if not the summer blockbuster of the year. It's fresh, it's accessible, and it's exciting. And Trekkies will hate it.



.