Guardians of the Galaxy

At this point in time in the MARVEL cinematic universe, anyone who considers new cosmic release Guardians of the Galaxy 'a risk' is frankly deluded. Seriously, stick the Marvel logo on any property and both bags of cash and budding fans clutching figurines will be charging their way, the superhero renaissance is truly in the palm of their hands. The Guardians of the galaxy is simply another step (granted a more significant one) in their ever growing franchise, heading presumably for a climactic Avengers 3 and most definitely more. Although Guardians of the Galaxy is an inexcusable stepping stone, it is one however which can be hugely enjoyed on its own, something the other solo movies lack, with its brash humour and general entertainment value making it unique.

Abducted from earth as a child Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) grows to become 'Starlord' a cosmic smuggler of all things shiny and expensive, one of which, a mysterious silver orb, is much wanted as he finds many will kill for it. Eventually he crafts a team of outlaws, including a walking/talking tree, Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), a raccoon, Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) an assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and a warrior, Drax (Dave Bautista), to defend the orb and take it to safety whilst being pursued by the sinister Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace). Having met none of these characters before in any form of popular media, the film does a very good job in introducing each of them, doing so progressively, almost like a set of solo movies, gradually introducing them into the story once the last character has received sufficient development. Some characters did work better than others however, actually more specifically the only one which really didn't work was Gamora who is supposedly a master assassin but who often found herself in inescapable situations; her personality wasn't really fleshed out and didn't go further than 'brooding'. Each of the other characters work very well with Chris Pratt as Starlord leading the pack well with sufficient charisma giving evident heart to his character, whilst the remaining three are provide the majority of the simple entertainment and comedic moments. The film however doesn't have to  try very hard to make us revel in its fun as this is simply an effortless task, as within a franchise of such saturation, forced to love the same characters over and over again, any change from the typical order is lovingly embraced, especially when that change is seen drastically in the form of a talking tree and raccoon. This mini team-up of tree and animal does quite the opposite of what one would expect, being seemingly there for childish merchandise purposes when in reality they actually provide much of the films grit and dark nature. As cute and fun as Groot is, many of his attacks are harsh and sinister, and when entwined with Rockets rather stern Chicago based persona the couple become less cute and cuddly and more disturbing yet entertaining.

Branching out from the typical story of the MARVEL universe which we know (and are beginning to rapidly get tired of), Guardians of the galaxy is certainly a breath of fresh air into the franchise being a change to the often light, cotton woolled story inserting a dose of gritty sci-fi action. This release dares to be different and feels far more like an expansion of the growing story, branching out into the cosmos onto planets which we will surely begin to know more about as the franchise continues. It is impossible to ignorable however the continued narrative formula seen in nearly all MARVEL films whereby each film follows an easily recognisable and safe route, to the point where we begin to not care about the characters as we know they will survive. The same happens at the end of this film, wasting time with meaningless sympathy for characters which we know will be fine, in this sense the Guardians of the galaxy does just feel like 'another stepping stone' as whilst it may be a new property, the story and familiar clichés remain. One of the only linking factors to the other films in the series is that of the main series villain, Thanos, barely played by Josh Brolin in his lacklustre appearance in the film. Thanos' appearance in the film is rather lacklustre, looking more like a ball of purple playdough pathetically created by a toddler than 'the universes greatest threat'. Quite the opposite was Ronan the Accuser who instead could be taken seriously with a strikingly sinister appearance, black liquid seeping from his eyes and mouth, his huge cloak and staff commanding the shot. Shame then that his character was largely boring and directionless, his actions usually unexplained or simply uninteresting.

Helped by its unique properties of characters and soundtrack, Guardians of the galaxy is MARVELS most refreshing release to date and perhaps even its best. Seeing the team interact with the Avengers is something nearly every fan is eager to see as it is clear that MARVEL has aided in reinvigorating the franchise with memorable protagonists, a unique style and established humour.

8/10- The best film of phase 2, and perhaps phase 1 too, Guardians of the Galaxy is a huge amount of fun and just what the franchise needed.

Calum Russell

The Inbetweeners 2

With only a few exceptions the transition from TV series to feature film hasn’t fared to well for the British in recent years. The most notable cases in point being the god awful ‘Keith Lemon film’, ‘Ms Browns Boys D’Movie’ as well as the ‘Pudsey the dog movie’ which one only has to see the trailer for to see that it looks absolutely pathetic. Perhaps one of the best TV- movie transitions of the past few years was the Inbetweeners Movie back in 2011 which ended the much loved series with sufficient humour and a hopeful romantic conclusion. However despite the very fitting end, money talks, and the Inbetweeners got a quite unnecessary sequel which invites us back to experience plenty more laughs unfortunately entwined within a hugely inconsistent narrative.

Sticking on the past storyline of a lads holiday the group of four head to Australia where Jay (James Buckly), working there in a hotel, promises them the time of their lives with girls and booze galore. With Will (Simon Bird) hardly enjoying university and Simon (Joe Thomas) and Neil (Blake Harrison) seemingly doing very little at all they decide to join Jay in Australia whereby comedy ensues. The story may as well be identical to its predecessor and in some ways it plays out much like it, however with nearly all plot lines tied up by the end of the last film, the film struggles to get off the ground for a good 15 minutes procrastinating with what the characters are doing and making excuses to why they are available to go on a gap year. This quickly gets tiresome as nervous laughs waft around the cinema in hopeful expectation of things to come, and thankfully the laughs come in their handfuls once the holiday begins.

It’s not until the side characters are introduced that the film finally gets into gear, pitch perfectly mocking the, now infamous, image of the arrogant, preppy gap year student. This, in contrast with the crass and puerile humour of the four boys makes for some truly hysterical scenes, with the ‘spiritual, true traveller’ character of Ben, played excellently by Freddie Stroma, clashing perfectly with the group. Moments of hilarity often spark from this character as he brings the relatable tropes of camping and budget travelling to the table where they are questioned and ridiculed. This subsequently builds into big comedy set pieces whereby their tension finally peaks to largely hysterical results.

You can’t help but reminisce however at the modest, low budget TV series where jokes formulated from ingeniously crafted comedic moments entwined with the sheer wit of the four hugely likeable characters. Here it simply feels as if they’re trying too hard, the set pieces (as funny as most of them are) are simply too grandiose and as a result the film loses some of its simplistic charm. At times the film often forgets what made the show so funny in the first place, where the characters and situations are so relatable that it’s a joy to follow them round and join in their relatable moments of hilarity, and when the film remembers this it is truly at its funniest. However it often forgets, dabbling in plot lines which neither fit in with the story at all nor the audience can relate to or be interested in. This results in a frustratingly inconsistent final film which has strong essence of Inbetweeners comedic flair but also a pungent whiff of huge narrative flaws which can be perfectly encapsulated in the films final beat, wrapping up so quickly it felt almost disloyal to audience members who felt so attached to the characters.

The Inbetweeners 2 lacks the narrative fluidity of the first film but matches if not exceeds it in comedic moments, with one or two especially surely going down as some of their very best moments. This in some ways simply isn’t enough however and you can’t help but feel a little disappointed as the film jolts by, laughter dotted over infrequent pages and the story being almost ignored.

6.5/10- A largely funny Inbetweeners outing with a disappointing focus on story.

Calum Russell  

Boyhood

It's recent previous releases such as 'Bernie' and the 'Before' trilogy which have made director Richard Linklater one of the most unique and interesting auteurs of the modern era. Such innovation is continued in 'Boyhood' Linklaters 12 year project chronicling the fictional story of a boy growing up from the age of 5 to 18. Filmed over the course of 12 years Boyhood's ambition is evident with no prior knowledge of how the actors would develop and change, however this gamble ultimately doesn't pay off.

 The story is as simple as it sounds and unfortunately refuses to impress cinematically by choosing a more realistic route of storytelling whereby very little happens at all. As the story begins we are introduced to Mason (Ellar Coltrane), sister (Lorelei Linklater) and mother (Patricia Arquette) a fictional family which for the most part of the opening hour are fun and exciting to be around, as the story seemingly builds its foundations. Entwined within scenes of realistic childhood memories such as simple sibling rivalries as well as first days at school, a more complex and interesting plot brews in the background, one surrounding the consequences of divorce on a family's children. This sufficiently developed and otherwise interesting plot point should've provided a backbone for the rest of the film but is however abandoned without explanation, being replaced by a more disinteresting and far more overdone story of simple adolescence whereby none of the past trials and tribulations seem to have any affect on our bland protagonist.

 Granted, finding a quality child actor is very hard to come by, especially when choosing one 12 years in advance in order to play a complex 18 year old at the projects end. Unfortunately this doesn't excuse the level of acting seen by young Ellar Coltrane, which considering the films context is by no means awful, but is certainly not good either. This is where the main issue with the film sparks. In a film called Boyhood, being specifically centred around the development of a single character, the fictional boy, as well as the actor, are both so lifeless and devoid of personality that it is impossible to relate to the character. This therefore prevents the film from conveying its messages of the trials of growing up as they are all poorly conveyed through the films protagonist. In retrospect the character of Mason really does very little at all, being carried through the film by the more interesting plot points of those around him such as that of his birth father and struggling mother. Ethan Hawke who plays the loyal birth father does so very well and is by far the saving grace of the film, projecting a realistic character damaged by the consequences of divorce, nostalgic of the lost time with his children. A film focused on him, his ex-wife and their two kids would've made for a highly interesting view on how a bad childhood damages the person as a whole. Instead the film is bogged down with a plethora of unnecessary characters and scenes which go literally nowhere. Most notably, an early scene where the protagonist is moderately bullied  is neither seen nor ever mentioned of again in the film, an example of the narrative almost teasing the audience with the opportunity to branch out, instead opportunities to do so are constantly squandered . Thus the film goes nowhere, giving it a total lack of direction and no climactic target to strive towards, leaving the audience with no sense of progression resulting in boredom; especially when considering the films 3 hour running time.

Aside from the many unnecessary scenes, the writing on the whole is pretty solid, especially at the films opening which treats us to a whole load of compelling and emotionally involving scenes. These scenes went from the simple and elegant sight of seeing the protagonist paint over the height marks of the door at his old home to the grand and nostalgic scene of Mason and his Father sharing a camping trip, something that most if not all male audience members can relate to. It seems as though however that whilst Linklater has an excellent grasp on young life, his view on modern day teenagers is warped and at times embarrassing. Mason and his peers seem to speak in philosophical metaphors through the mouth of Linklater, their every line visibly crafted to forcibly induce feeling into the audience, but instead these moments simply came of as arrogant and almost unbearable. The paths of both the mother and father are far more developed, towards the end at least ,as we see the effect of growing up directly impacting them both, perhaps something Linklater has more relation to than the growing up of a modern day boy.

Linklater has a nostalgic and warm view on early childhood, as most of us do, however as the protagonist reaches adolescence he no longer writes the characters through the eyes of a growing boy but instead though that of an adult. Masons change seems unnatural and sudden, going from a loveable, naive yet developing boy into an irritating and arrogant teenager whose bland personality and monotonous tones were no fun to be around. Boyhood is perhaps one of those films which differs between cultures, the view on relationships for example here seems unrealistic and foreign here in the UK but may well be the norm in the US. Starting very well, using its 12 year production context intelligently to chart the subtle changes of a boy, Boyhood deteriorates into directionless drivel disguised as philosophy.


6/10- It's ambition is admirable but the final result frustratingly disappointing.

Calum Russell