Review CXIV - A Walk to Remember

Review 114
A Walk to Remember (2002)

I didn't expect this movie to be good, but this movie had haunted me for a while... That makes it sound ominous, but that's not what I mean. I remember a friend many, many years back talked about this movie, and it had been referenced quite a few places. But like Soul Plane, it should have stayed buried... I'm talking about Adam Shankman's A Walk to Remember starring Mandy Moore and Shane West. Now, a quick search shows me that the film was slammed by critics - except Roger Ebert apparently (?!) - but praised by audiences. I decided it was time to break the curse - it was time to watch this movie and see just how bad it was.

Insert typical love teen romance. Insert devote, secluded, isolated Christian follower who's HOT and an angsty, bad ass teenage boy who falls for her. Insert bad ass friends and quirky black character. Insert bad ass friends reject boy when he decides to go with the girl. Insert boy doing everything for this guy while keeping his pants in check. Insert cancer (real cancer, not just the film), what a twist! Insert death. Insert medical school. Insert teenage romance never dies.

Guys... This film... Okay, let me get one thing straight. I'm not a romance type. I liked When Harry Met Sally... for example, but Say Anything... ? No. I mean, a little sub-plot of romance, fine, but... Okay, how about I say I don't like chick flicks? Alain Delon films do not count! I jest, but yeah, chick flicks are my nemesis being of that gender. So really, what was I expecting from A Walk to Remember? Not much, but I was expecting more. Let's go through this, shall we?

The acting. It was bad. No, seriously, it was bad. Shane West was awful. It was just edge the whole way through. Everything was wooden and lacking. Mandy Moore? Not any better. Again, this wooden acting every damn time. How can you get away with this? This was like watching a teenage play, but probably worse. It's almost like Dean Learner's delivery. But here I wanted an act, not someone putting on the truth.

The writing. Now, I can bitch about the acting, but my boyfriend - who got maybe five minutes into the film and was already dying - pointed out a valid point: The dialogue is atrocious. And it is. It was like the writers had never sat down with anyone and talked. Instead, they had them speak perfectly square sentences or just had really awkward phrases. Maybe it's Nicholas Sparks, the writer of whose book this is based on (please never read that), but the screenplay was written by some woman named Karen Janszen. Just look at the other films she's written for. Yeah, we were doomed from the beginning.

The plot. This ties into the writing, but it deserves a separate section. It was bad. I mean, again, what did I expect? I didn't expect anything good, but I'm going to go on a rant here. These damn films play into this idea that women can change men. Shane West's character (Layden I think? ... Oh, Landon) was this bad boy who nearly killed a kid and gets forced into doing some extracurricular activities at school. He happens upon Mandy Moore's character (Sam? Was that her name? ... It was Jamie. Woops) and nearly bites her face off. And then she sings some song at the end of some play and BAM, he falls for her. He abandons his friends, his lifestyle, and devotes (again, this word) his world to this girl. I mean, look, I can't say it's impossible, but this guy buys a STAR for this girl. I mean, shit, c'mon. He doesn't believe in God as she does, and yet we never have a debate. It's never an issue. I don't know - this girl brings up her faith rather frequently. I could see it being a problem, no? I mean, I've had debates even with just friends who had rather strict religious upbringings. I couldn't imagine myself staying wit- okay, sorry, I deviated a little too much. Basically, this guy left all his friends for this girl he's known for two weeks. I can't see this working out. And yet it does. He abandons everything. Even his mom gets a little worried when he decides he wants to go to medical school (we'll get back to this point in a minute). Let's be realistic here - this relationship is doomed and completely unrealistic. But this film plays on this fantasy teenage girls must have that they can form a guy to be exactly what they want. You can't. And it's disgusting if people take advice from these shitty, shitty films. How about a realistic relationship film? How about one where the two accept their differences and love each other? Because as much as there's this notion of "opposites attract", that's in magnetism, not between people.

Now, the plot there with the father and Landon? Garbage. I have never seen such shitty writing. This kid is upset because his father abandoned his family, yet I think it was just a divorce since the father wants to be close to his son. I mean, he's a cardiologist, so I would hope his son would be smarter than this. Although Landon does get into medical school, he's socially inept. Anyway, the only reason he ends up reconciling with his dad because his dad pays for private care for Jamie. I'm out. I'm freakin' OUT.

The way the girl brings up cancer is also really bad. I mean, damn, she reveals it for no apparent reason in an alley. She's apparently known for two years, has stopped treatment, and never even mentioned it to Landon. What a bitch! Wouldn't this be something you would tell someone you love BEFORE you start messing with their emotions? I'm wondering if this cancer plot is just a way of preserving a doomed relationship in the early stages of puppy love. Or maybe it's just bad writing.

The Christian plot was also... awkward. I mean, again, there is never a debate. Landon doesn't believe in God, yet we get these awkward scenes where Jamie brings it up casually and talks about Landon being her angel. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable if you weren't religious and your significant other started bringing up this stuff? ... I guess it's just me. It really didn't make sense to me to have this part. I guess maybe it's just because it was in the book, but it didn't translate to the screen well at all. But then nothing did.

A Walk to Remember feeds into the teenage girl's dream about romance where you can model your boyfriend to abandon his life for you, all while having cancer and loving Jesus. Let us never speak of this one again.

Review CXIII - The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Review 113
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)

The slasher genre has never been a particular favourite of mine. While I enjoy a good zombie movie every once in a while, like Dead Alive, Friday the 13th and the like do not appeal to me. But I've gone on this rant before, so there's no need to start again. However, gore films as of recently, circa 2000, have turned into super gore films that aim to just disgust. When I saw that A Serbian Film was considered one of the grossest movie, I checked it out. ... It was bad. I mean, the gore wasn't even that bad - it was just trying to disturb and disgust people with the mix of violence, sexual themes taken waaay too far, and uncomfortableness. This is the desensitisation movies need to pass in order to stand out? Of course I sound all high and mighty, but then I sat down to watch Tom Six's The Human Centipede (First Sequence) with one of my siblings after wanting to see just how bad it was. Go me?

Two American girls (Ashley C. Williams and Ashlynn Yennie) and a Japanese man (Kitamura Akihiro) are forced into a bizarre experiment by a top surgeon gone wrong (Dieter Laser).

The first installment in the series was not as bad as I thought it would be. And by bad, I mean gory and disgusting. Let me elaborate on that first. I mean, the IV scene was a bit gross, but once the operation is completed, you don't see anything. I wouldn't want to, but it would have made me really see the gore effects. Although I hated Poultrygeist (that review is from a while back, eh?), at least the gore was promising. But in this one... We see an infection, but honestly, it relies more on the idea of the operation than the gore. The idea is good, but I don't know man, I wanted some gore. And I didn't get that. So what do I get? Nothing.

Why don't I get anything? Because the film is also bad in plot, acting, characters... While I thought acting and characters would be lacking, I was hopeful in the plot. But I was pretty meh about the plot from right off the bat. I know horror movies deal with people that keep making obviously bad decisions, but our main characters, the two girls there, really are just beyond stupid. Personal safety and dealing with creepy guys making completely sexual passes... But whatever, fine, horror movie logic. But then the issue I refuse to let pass was that the doctor never explains why he obsesses with this ass-to-mouth business. I laughed with the first scene where he stares down at the picture of the dog creation he made, but then I never get an explanation. The guy is a top-notch surgeon, but that means nothing. The closest I get is when the Japanese guy ironically yells, "You German Nazi bastard!" But that's it. I mean, the doctor guy isn't even that old, so he can't be a Nazi. And that's just some guy yelling out of frustration, so that's no explanation either. It's never accepted nor disproven. Maybe if he was a closeted homosexual who was into rimming... (Gross, I know. Sorry) I would have accepted any excuse - not liked it necessarily, but accepted it - but offering none just didn't work for me. Yes, he's a sadist and messed up, but why the extended gastrointestinal tract? Why that in particular? And this goes beyond wanting to show his talent - this is a sexual thing. Spoiler alert, but when the doctor is climbing the stairs, he seductively licks the blood off of them. Even before that, you just get the sense he's turned on by the whole matter. But nothing is explained, and while that might not impede others, it definitely got me thinking about it the whole film. I mean, even if it was an explanation like Jerry Brudos, that would have been cool.

As you can tell from my nitpicking, I didn't really find the film all that great, so all I'm doing is getting hung up on details. It had a poor rating, but I was hoping I could get a good laugh out of this one. I didn't. While The Human Centipede has made quite a name for itself, I can't say it's anything special. It aims to make you uncomfortable and think you're watching shocking, but it's really not as bad as the idea implies. Skip it.

Oh, and this 100% medically accurate? Are they trying to pull a fast one? I don't even know.

Review CXII - Wag the Dog

Review 112
Wag the Dog (1997)

Loving the Spanish poster, which translates to smoke screen. Anyway, I came across Barry Levison's Wag the Dog... somehow. And when I saw who starred in it (Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro), along with cameos from some known faces (Woody Harrelson and Jim Belushi), I was surprised I had never heard of this film. But then again, I don't like comedies really, and I don't usually explore political comedies. But the big names made me have hope. I mean, Robert De Niro had even helped to produce this one. Must be good, right?

The presidential election for the United States is eleven days away, and an underage "Firefly Girl" (translation: girl scout) has accused the president of sexual advances. The president is seeking another term, and this could make him lose the election. So what does spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De Niro) decide could save the president? A distraction. Something big. How about a war? With Albania? With the help of director/producer Stanley Motts (Dustin Hoffman), this war may be the saving grace in this election.

The shots were weird in this one. There were some weird focuses and zoom-ins that made the film seem like a television show at times. Otherwise, there was nothing particularly interesting going on, unfortunately.

The acting was good and I did actually laugh during the film. Dustin Hoffman's character did give me a good laugh at times, which is usually rare for me in dark comedies. I'll see the humour, but it won't make me laugh out loud. This one did. Comedic genius? No. But it gives a little laugh.

Even though Wag the Dog might not seem like your type of movie and even I didn't really find the film that good, I will recommend it for a watch anyway. And I'll tell you why: The government lies. I'm sure you've all heard about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 when the twin towers fell, or about assassinations maybe being plots from the government. I can't offer you the answers to those theories, it's something you would have to search on your own, but I think it's important you know right off the bat that not everything you see should be trusted. Your government doesn't have your best interests at heart, at least part of the time. And I can offer you a little story to help you understand if you think I'm a raving nut and "conspiracy theorists are just nut bags". It even relates to movies and directors - hurray! Stanley Kubrick released 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968, about a year before the first moon landing from the United States. The film has one particular scene where the group of scientists head to the monolith on... Jupiter, was it? Anyway, the monolith is surrounded by film cameras and lighting, almost like a movie set. Could this be a reference to another conspiracy theory about the moon landings being fake? In a way, yes, though the reality is a little less bleak. Apparently Stanley Kubrick was approached in order to film some "moon shots" if the footage from the Apollo 11 mission would have been sub par (Though reading now, it seems this is not true? I don't even know anymore). So I like to assume that the moon landings did happen, but that they needed footage to show the public because this was the television age after all. But really, if this stuff has been going on since the sixties, who is to say they haven't stretched televised reports? After all, Watergate, where Nixon was found falsifying the election votes, was a thing. And there is a thing called synchronicity, but I'll leave you that to look up yourselves if you're interested. I'm not confirming or disproving any theories because seriously, there is so much to say and some of it is major baloney, but if there's one thing I say to take away from Wag the Dog, it's to question everything. Descartes may have lived a long time ago, but the meaning of questioning dogma is still valid and especially appropriate today where knowledge is available at our fingertips.

Wag the Dog - we might be the people, but we're manipulated in order to follow a government plan. The title is appropriate, isn't it?

Review CXI - Per qualche dollaro in più

Review 111
For a Few Dollars More (1965)

This review was supposed to come out waaay before I'm actually posting it. But I ended up getting bu- what, you're tired of hearing the same excuses over and over again? Fine. So, here is the second film in the "Dollars" trilogy from Sergio Leone, Per qualche dollaro in più with our usual protagonist Clint Eastwood, alongside the ever-so-lovely Lee Van Cleef and familiar face Gian Maria Volonté. Lezz go!

The Man with No Name (Clint Eastwood) returns, stronger than ever to get those bounties. However, bounty hunter Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef) is particularly interested in catching one man, El Indio, a criminal with a high bounty. When Monco (as The Man with No Name is known in the film) decides to go after El Indio as well, the colonel decides to work together in order to catch this infamous and crazy man. But does Monco really approve?

Okay, so For a Few Dollars More was beautiful. It was a lot more colourful than A Fistful of Dollars, and you could see Sergio Leone was exploring more in this film. However, the plot was... lacking. I mean, you had the first one ripping off some Japanese film (I watched Yojimbo - it really is a double to A Fistful of Dollars, but with funnier music), but now I can see why - Sergio Leone wasn't quite at his peak in story-telling yet. Hence why this one is a bit meh at times. I mean, Monco is cool, Colonel Mortimer is cool, but El Indio's back story was meh. I mean, the way the shots were put together for the back story was cheesy, and I don't know, it was flimsy. I don't want to ruin it, but you guys might see what I mean if you watch the film. I dunno, it's just weak. But the ending worked with it, so Sergio Leone was close, but he really got it down with The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. Again, like A Fistful of Dollars, this was more of an experiment, or practice, if you will, which would lead into an ultimate classic.

As I mentioned, the shots were very nice. Not quite The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, but Sergio Leone was trying. There is some reference to the final scene of The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, but less refined. But in this one, he played with mirrors, with windows, the like. It was good. Not spectacular, but good nonetheless. And the additional colours were nice. Not just going with sandy brown, dark browns, black, and sandied-green, but brighter yellows, blues, etc. Not necessarily something you care about, but it's something my boyfriend enjoyed mentioning throughout the whole film, hehe.

For a Few Dollars More is not necessarily as good plot-wise as its predecessor or successor, but at least this one was no rip-off. Sergio Leone was trying to get more stable footing in terms of cinematography in this one, and its higher budget is definitely noticed. Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Gian Maria Volonté all did great jobs, though unfortunately, the plot made it so no one particularly shined... Well, they were still all bad ass, so I guess that isn't completely true, hehe. Not his best, but still a fun watch from Sergio Leone! Oh, and Ennio Morricone still rocks it.

Review CX - Per un pugno di dollari

Review 110
A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

Aside from The Good, The Bad, The Weird (which, looking back, probably lacks in the proper formula for a Western), I never used to watch Westerns. It seemed like people had this assumption that you either liked them or you didn't. For whatever reason, I wasn't sure I would enjoy them. Sure, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (or Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) was a classic with one of the most famous soundtracks known culturally from the brilliant Ennio Morricone, but I stayed away, thinking it wasn't my type of film and it'd be best to stay away. I ended up watching The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly way back, but I didn't fully take it in because I still had this idea that Westerns weren't for me... Later on, I watched Once Upon a Time in the West (note all these films are from Sergio Leone) and really saw potential. But it was only recently that my boyfriend discussed the meaning of riding into the sunset, always looking for improvement, that I decided it was time to sit down and watch a Western properly. I wanted to start at the beginning of Sergio Leone's epics (or the first of the Dollars trilogy) - so I started A Fistful of Dollars. It stars Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name, Gian Maria Volonté as the main antagonist (Holy shit - this is the guy from Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion! Never thought I'd see him again), José Calvo (un español! Je pensais qu'il était un italien aussi!), and Marianne Koch. I was excited to check this one out, guys, I really was. But was I satisfied...?

The Man with No Name (referred to as "Joe" for the rest of this article) (Clint Eastwood) happens upon a town and quickly learns from the barman (José Calvo) that he should leave the town - there are two gangs that run the town and few insiders survive, let alone outsiders. However, "Joe" decides to take it upon himself to help the town out by turning the two gangs against each other.

Now, if you know A Fistful of Dollars, then you probably know that the plot is identical to that of 用心棒 or Yojimbo for us non-Japanese-speaking individuals (但是我动汉语,所以我可以董一些字). Apparently, the only difference is that Yojimbo takes places in ancient Japan and features a samurai and A Fistful of Dollars is a Western. But I never actually saw Yojimbo, so I can't hate on the remade plot or make a comparison. Still, I'm sure 黒澤明 (Kurosawa Akira) got it down super well in Yojimbo, along with the ever-wonderful 三船敏郎 (Mifune Toshirō), so kudos to them. Anyway, I'll get around to watching Yojimbo at some point and, when I do, I'll put my two cents in. Whatever the case, I enjoyed the story of A Fistful of Dollars. I mean, it wasn't anything spectacular, but it was cute. And Gian Maria Volonté played a pretty damn evil man, but I like that as he did it well. Clint Eastwood was, well, a bad ass of course and absolutely loveable. There's just something about how a man holds a pistol, smokes a cigar, and wears a poncho.

But seriously, I got a few good laughs in the movie and I thought it was fun. Since I had seen The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, I could definitely tell this preceded as it lacked the visual elements that were refined for the last Dollars trilogy film. It tried some things, but again, it was nothing special in the cinematographic department. That came later. Still, I enjoyed it. The plot kept me, but to me, I've watched these Westerns more for the people than the plot. I really look at how the character goes about things because usually the plot is pretty simple (based on the few that I have seen) - someone wants money, someone wants revenge, a bad guy is the source. You better hope your actors play the parts well or else you get a bland movie with a nothing plot. But Clint Eastwood was real good. I mean, he plays the anti-hero well and was pretty inspiring (made me wish I could fight in such a manner and come out as cool, but maybe that's just me). And again, Gian Maria Volonté was good - I was definitely convinced.

I took the whole film as a kind of little experiment from Sergio Leone, where he was learning the tricks of the trade, figuring out what he wanted. Given the tiny budget, yet rather avid following that came, he definitely got a second, third, nth chance. So the film isn't his best, but I still had fun. Next up - For A Few Dollars More.

Review CIX - How to Get Ahead in Advertising

Review 109
How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989)

(Image from here featuring Ralph Steadman's crazy art)

I've already talked about how much I loved Withnail and I from Bruce Robinson. However, I always paired this film with How to Get Ahead in Advertising as it came out around the same time (two years after Withnail and I) and also stars Richard E. Grant. The two are not related, but after watching Withnail and I, I always knew I would have to check out How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Years passed and I finally decided to sit down and get a viewing. Somehow it seems fitting after watching whatever that last one was.

Denis Dimbleby Bagley (Richard E. Grant) is an advertising tycoon who is considered one of the best. However, if there's one thing he despises, it's boils. And now he's taken up a job for a pimple cream that is driving him off the edge.

How to Get Ahead in Advertising grew on me (not unlike the boil in the movie). When I watched it, I wasn't really sure how to take it. I mean, Richard E. Grant's performance was over-the-top and the messages were just thrown at you so blatantly. I sat on the fence for a while, but looking back on the film about a week later, I can say I enjoyed it, but it was not a favourite. Why did it take so long for me to decide? We'll get to that.

The movie is a criticism of the advertisement industry and a man who, while thinks he might be able to escape it, is forced back into it quickly. I like that. As Richard E. Grant's character explains at one point, the industry makes you believe what you don't need is what you want, and what you want is what you need. While Denis Bagley originally takes this in stride, he eventually sees the light and decides he's done with his job. Enter the malicious boil, his evil side. The film then gets particularly whacky, which was crazy, but expected from the farce it was. I mean, I didn't mind the whackiness, but I can't say I completely dug it. I guess maybe because I was expecting a different turn, it didn't meet my expectations, but not in the most positive of ways. It seemed like with the introduction of the boil, the film got all rushy and was all over the place. It never really look an easy path, though I remember thinking something similar of Withnail and I. Still, Withnail and I seemed to take it at a better pace than How to Get Ahead in Advertising. Consequently, I prefer Withnail and I.

The film may have been sporadic, but the message was definitely clear - the advertising industry is out to sell, not to help. How much do you really need all these products advertised to you? These diet packages and foods are not necessarily that great for you, but they show you how effective they are at helping you. Still, you could easily lose weight if you put on the proper mindset and did your own research. Or the advertisements that carry a jingle and make you think you need to go somewhere to be happy. Denis Bagley realises he is contributing to this spew of psychological manipulation and decides he's had enough. He could be a typical consumer who makes such an epiphany. However, in the end, Bagley's "bad boil" side comes through and, while now alone and separated from his wife, he doesn't care. The industry does not have room for those with a moral compass, said and done. Now, I won't say all advertising is bad, but there is definitely manipulation that people should be aware of. Psychologists are often hired in order to improve a company's advertising. There are certain tricks that have been established and if they get a product to sell, that's what the company cares about. But if you're aware of what's going on, you're safe. You don't take in the nonsense and you add an adblock on your browser. You don't have to become the all-evil persona of Denis Bagley - you can escape. Having that knowledge should at least put you a step above.

So I agree with the message of the film, great. But I don't like how the film so blatantly tells me its message. I mean, really, what did I expect from such a title. Obviously it would be about the moral standings of advertising, but still. I like a bit more of a puzzle-solver - I like having to think. How to Get Ahead in Advertising gets rid of that. It just straight up says what the advertising industry is doing and then points out what's wrong with it by making the "bad boil" only evil and manipulative. It also just reaffirmed points of view I already followed - it didn't teach me anything new. And again, it just went right up and told me the problem with everything. Thus, I got a sporadic film that got me laughing with Richard E. Grant's comical performance (I love when he pretends to be that woman in the office. I also love the scene where he talks through the box) that lectured me for about 90 minutes about stuff I already knew. It's not bad because at least it's trying to teach people a good message, but you don't really make thinking individuals by just telling them a message - you have to kind of bury it so they can find it themselves. It gives a longer lasting impression. In the end, the only thing that made me enjoy the film was Richard E. Grant's performance (and beauty, hehe) and the message I agreed with. But I can't say it's a film I would watch again because it lacks depth. I prefer it over the stupid crap that is basically an advertisement in itself, but sadly, it ended up just being a rather mediocre film.

Bruce Robinson's How to Get Ahead in Advertising is not a bad piece of cinema, yielding an important take-home message, but its rather shallow story-telling of the matter and rather random and super-fast pacing makes it sub-par in the world of thinking films. Worth a watch for Richard E. Grant and the rather cool special effects.

Review CVIII - Guardians of the Galaxy

Review 108
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

I happened upon James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy probably around the time it came out in theatres. I was blown away by the rating - how was it so high? I had barely heard of this film - though I never go outside apparently as I would later find out - and here it had this amazing rating. I didn't trust it, so I never checked it out. However, after hearing about even more praise from a reviewer, I asked my boyfriend to sit down with me and watch the blockbuster smash starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, and Bradley Cooper, along with some notable appearances from Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro, Peter Serafinowicz, and John C. Reilly.

Peter Quill's (Chris Pratt) mother dies from cancer in 1988 and, after running out of the hospital (because that's how we convey our sadness in every film), he's taken in by a group of galactic mercenaries. Twenty-six years later, he finds himself in quite a situation when he steals an orb which may harvest more power than he ever imagined.

Let me summarise this film in one word: shit. Let me summarise it in one sentence: It's another typical, rip-off, money-grabbing, shitty Marvel film pushing the latest social agendas to today's kids and adults. But let's elaborate. I'll be spoiling the film, so you've been warned. First, what do I mean by rip-off? Check out the poster I found. Remind you of anything? Here's a hint. The bad guy in the film is straight-up Darth Maul/Darth Vader. Prison-break scene, kind of like rescuing Princess Leia. I don't even like Star Wars, but I see this, and I've only seen two of the films of the series. The Star Wars series is not the only thing it rips off. It rips off this whole Lord of the Rings idea with the whole orb killing everything it can with the one who possesses the power. And even I know this and I've only seen two Lord of the Rings films. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't even try to mask this - it's just rip-off after rip-off. They also make a reference to Star Trek too with one of the characters (vulcans and whatever that tattoo guy was), but of course the film makers do this because they know people liked those ideas and so they recycle it in a new film where the masses get everything they want in one film. But c'mon, be creative! This is a film that's getting a super high rating? It has no originality - it just does the same thing as every other galaxy/fantasy film released by Hollywood. Please. Guys.

I didn't know this film was a Marvel film until just before watching it. I think if I would have seen that, I would have realised why the film had such a high rating. Marvel films went from just films watched by the comic-book fans to loved by the adolescent girls on social media. I don't know how it happened, but I think it started with Iron Man and slowly became this huge thing with the Avengers series. The CEOs and film developers saw a way to make money and they're attempting to squeeze out any sequel possible in order to make more money. But I didn't know anything about these guardians. Maybe it was legit, like Howard the Duck (I don't read comic books if you couldn't tell except for the occasional one). I decided to check it out, and excuse me if I'm wrong in my information - I quickly checked out Wikipedia. Basically these "guardians of the galaxy" were part of some Marvel superheros bit back in 1969 that eventually got its own-titled run. But guess what? There was some revamp thing going on in 2008, the same year that Iron Man the movie came out. I don't know if this is just coincidence, but my paranoid side makes me think they saw opportunity in this series, with its male and female protagonists, and brought it back so there would be a reason to make a film later on, assuming the Iron Man/Avengers series came to stardom like they hoped. I'm probably stretching it, but honestly, you never know.

So yeah, this film is unoriginal, it's a typical Marvel film, but is it really that bad? I never saw any of the Iron Man movies, nor any Avengers movies. I started watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I dropped it so fast, I got a little past the running scene at the beginning and that was it. I obviously don't like them. I admit, I went into Guardians of the Galaxy being super biased, but if it would have offered something, anything, I was willing to accept it. Nope. This film stars some asshole main character who I don't care for. He doesn't take his mother's hand and she instantly dies (what a coincidence), so he regrets it for his whole life. He's left unattended where he then proceeds to run outside into a foggy field. Where is this hospital located? Why the fog? Why does everyone leave him alone? His mother just died. You can't get shittier writing than this. But it gets even better when you see how he's some smart-ass adult who sleeps around (of course), but yet has the most amazing talent I've ever seen. Remind me of Iron Man? You betcha. Then the racoon, the wood guy, the girl... Just replace the film with any of the Avengers shit and you're set. You are so set. It's recycled crap, guys! The humour, stupid. The dialogue, crap. The prison system, ridiculous. Men and women in the same prison? How about no. Strong-independent-woman-who-don't-need-no-man-except-when-she-craves-the-D? Check! A poor, educated racoon (unlike the educated owl from The Sword in the Stone), showing how testing on animals is bad? Check. Environment? Groot. Check. It's pushing a bunch of stuff the masses support just to get views. I just... whatever. The colours were drab too. I didn't see anything interesting going on. It was boring for my eyes. The CGI, fine, it was nice, but that doesn't make a film. It just looks like CGI. This is a live-action, not an animated film.

I didn't finish the film - I got an hour in - but I won't finish it. The film is garbage. It doesn't deserve the high rating it got. Maybe it's loyal to the comic books; however, I can only judge it from a watch. And it doesn't even deserve it. Avoid it. And did I mention they're making a sequel? 'Nough said.