• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

GUARDIANS of the GALAXY - Grading & Discussion

Grade the movie...


  • Total voters
    249
That's why, despite being rather lukewarm on this film, I am optimistic about the sequel. Marvel went overboard with the silliness in this film to attract new audiences, but that hurdle has been overcome. Now they can tone the silliness down and have a real plot with complex characterization for the sequel.
I wouldn't expect that. The film's tone is the style of James Gunn, more than anything else. Given that people clearly love this, one I would expect the sequel to have more of the same.
 
Considering that most normal people love the movie (including most critics who, you know, actually get paid to bitch about movies), while only a handful of whiny internet hipsters and neckbeards are bitching about it, I'd say it's a safe bet the sequel will be close to the same in tone, too.
 
Hope its good. Got tickets for a showing here in a couple of hours.
 
Considering that most normal people love the movie (including most critics who, you know, actually get paid to bitch about movies), while only a handful of whiny internet hipsters and neckbeards are bitching about it, I'd say it's a safe bet the sequel will be close to the same in tone, too.
Quote of the day.
 
I didn't get the impression that it was a Celestial's head. More like one of Galactus's cosmic peers. Sure, the Celestials are on the same power level as the big G, but I don't recall them ever being shown to be of the same physical size as him. They're closer to about 2,000 feet in height, hardly big enough for one of their heads to serve that role.

But, like I said, there are bigger ones. In a multi-issue story in his comic series, Thor once took on a Celestial called Exitar the Exterminator, who is depicted as being at least ten times bigger than Arishem the Judge, one of the two-thousand footers you're talking about. And an issue of the Fantastic Four which showed the team pursuing the Beyonder through the Multiverse depicted them passing through a universe with nothing but Celestials in it. No planets, no stars. Just Celestials. Under those conditions, who's to say one can't get big enough for his severed head to serve as a mining planet? Of course the movie doesn't give evidence either way as to Knowhere's origins. All I'm saying is there's enough evidence in canon not to completely rule the possibility out.

PS: In the comics Galactus is actually much smaller than a Celestial, because though he's depicted as a giant he's not - unlike the movie - depicted as a giant gas cloud.

It looks like it is a Celestial‘s head -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowhere
 
A lot of Marvel movies average out to be very good with some excellent highs and some lulls in other parts equaling out. Only a few are excellent throughout. Unfortunately, I didn't vote that Guardians of the Galaxy was excellent, however, it does manage to achieve something I don't think any Marvel film has done so far. It doesn't average out to be very good, it is just consistently very good. I couldn't find a weak part of the film. The action was very good, the humor pretty much hit its mark and was very good throughout, the character moments were touching in the right place and were also very good. But I didn't find too many moments that broke above that line to be excellent. Maybe the bar has been raised that much, I don't know. However, when saying it is very good, I do mean that. I gave it an A, the same score I gave the first Iron Man. It takes a tremendous movie that is enjoyable from beginning to end in all aspects, so I applaud that. For the risk that Marvel was taking, I think they delivered (I think they were taking a risk with Thor as well, though, but I also think this movie is better than Thor).

While I'm sure I'll comment on others, I'll comment briefly on the villains. Marvel's villains have not been the most rounded characters. I don't think Ronan or Nebula by themselves were much better. But there were subtle moments that worked anyway that made them something more. For Ronan, it was the whole political landscape behind him. That little scene with the Kree where it's clear that peace is an alien concept to them (and, while they're not supporting Ronan, they aren't opposed to him succeeding) shows his motives as one of nationalistic pride and xenophobic superiority rather than anything personal (he's not in it for glory or power or wealth).

With Nebula, the best things for her are the subtle hints. Gamora before she changed sides putting her down, Thanos referring to Gamora as his favorite daughter even after the betrayal (right in front of Nebula). The fact that both Gamora and Nebula actually hate Thanos (but took different paths to achieve that goal). There was a nice scene in the prequel comic someone mentioned that I wish had been mentioned explicitly in the movie. Apparently, when training, Nebula had fallen and was hanging on the side of a cliff. Gamora pretended to offer her a hand, but then threw her down instead. I'm sure whoever had read that comic (or had it described like it was to me) was paid off when Gamora offers a helping hand to Nebula and the end, but Nebula chooses to chop off her hand and fall instead. I'm glad she survived, though, and I hope we'll see more of her.
 
Last edited:
One thing I liked, which was a subtle twist on convention, is that the goodguys weren't betrayed by the greedy one of their group. In fact, the greedy one (which, in reality, were most of them, who were in it for personal gain) stayed pretty committed towards stopping Ronan or were (more conventionally) interested in protecting themselves. The one who "betrayed" them (briefly) was the one who wanted no gain at all - just the noble act of revenge. Granted, he wasn't very bright, but I thought that was a nice twist on a pretty standard plot point.
 
I'm pissed. I WANT to see this movie, but I DON'T want to pay extra to see it in 3D (because it bothers my eyes) and there's no 2D screening locally.

I hate this 3D shit. The film doesn't even look good. It looks too dark and the colours are washed out. Give me a nice clear 2D anytime. I haven't yet been able to see the latest Apes movie either because of this.
 
Gave it a solid B+. Good film, but I still prefer The Avengers and the two Captain America films. My 12 year old son loved it, although he loves all of the Marvel films.
 
I didn't get the impression that it was a Celestial's head. More like one of Galactus's cosmic peers. Sure, the Celestials are on the same power level as the big G, but I don't recall them ever being shown to be of the same physical size as him. They're closer to about 2,000 feet in height, hardly big enough for one of their heads to serve that role.

But, like I said, there are bigger ones. In a multi-issue story in his comic series, Thor once took on a Celestial called Exitar the Exterminator, who is depicted as being at least ten times bigger than Arishem the Judge, one of the two-thousand footers you're talking about. And an issue of the Fantastic Four which showed the team pursuing the Beyonder through the Multiverse depicted them passing through a universe with nothing but Celestials in it. No planets, no stars. Just Celestials. Under those conditions, who's to say one can't get big enough for his severed head to serve as a mining planet? Of course the movie doesn't give evidence either way as to Knowhere's origins. All I'm saying is there's enough evidence in canon not to completely rule the possibility out.

PS: In the comics Galactus is actually much smaller than a Celestial, because though he's depicted as a giant he's not - unlike the movie - depicted as a giant gas cloud.

It looks like it is a Celestial‘s head -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowhere

Good enough for me!
 
I'm pissed. I WANT to see this movie, but I DON'T want to pay extra to see it in 3D (because it bothers my eyes) and there's no 2D screening locally.

I hate this 3D shit. The film doesn't even look good. It looks too dark and the colours are washed out. Give me a nice clear 2D anytime. I haven't yet been able to see the latest Apes movie either because of this.

While I'm sure a random person online isn't going to change your mind, I thought the 3D was actually pretty good. For me it added to the movie and didn't detract from it.

I do agree though that 3D is being shoved down our throats more and more. Out of the two showings this movie is getting at my local theater (3D and 2D) only the 3D showings start early and are spread out throughout the day while the 2D showings don't start until the afternoon and only number about 4.
 
Get a pair of "2D Glasses" they're designed to transmit only one of the 3D projections to both eyes (rather than a left-eye specific and right-eye specific images.) They're supposed to work and help people who have problems with 3D movies.
 
I am beginning to think that Marvel can almost do no wrong. :lol:

We saw the film today and it's a true pleasure to actually end up enjoying a film as much as the advanced word made me feel I would. I had no quibbles with it. The casting seemed to work nicely, individually and together. Vin Diesel you're sly for getting paid all that for only what amounted to three lines - okay so one was repeated multiple times. :D

Karen Gillan looks to have a nice career going. After spinning off ala Darth Vader.. yeah, we'll probably see you again!

The CGI for Rocket Raccoon was beyond incredible, maybe the best I've seen yet. It still "looked" CGI, but it was so well done that I forgot about it. His expressions!!!

Several lines had us dieing, but one in particular: "She has no idea. Under a lack light, this place looks like a Jackson Pollack painting."

The balance between action and humor and sensitivity was almost seamless. Especially when we find out how Quill chose his nickname. :)

I look forward to finding out more about his father. ;)

I gave it an A, just because I was engaged the entire time, beginning to end.
 
Get a pair of "2D Glasses" they're designed to transmit only one of the 3D projections to both eyes (rather than a left-eye specific and right-eye specific images.) They're supposed to work and help people who have problems with 3D movies.
And so it would still cost me extra to see a film on the chance it might look okay as opposed to paying extra to see a film knowing for sure it won't look okay while bothering my eyes.

In all likelihood I'll probably have to wait months for both films to be released on video so I can see them properly. Then, of course, I'll completely miss out on seeing these visual spectacles on the big screen.
 
Eye popping 3D.
Loved how they came together, wasn't expecting an origins story based on the previews I'd seen.
I laughed, I wept, (but that may have been my eyes getting tired;)

Seemed like a perfect film, but I wasn't happy with yet another, giant ship hovers over then eventually falls onto city finale, that's getting tiresome.

B+

Oh yeah, it was evident why Benicio Del Toro was originally cast as Khan for STID. Him as the Collector kept distracting me, I kept thinking about how much better he would have been for that role, appearance wise.
 
Last edited:
Then stop bitching about the lack of a 2D option in every movie thread. Reviews on "2D glasses," which cost a few bucks on Amazon, are very positive for people who have issues with 3D movies. Or complain to the manager of your local theater. But in every thread EVERY THREAD you bitch about the lack of a 2D option.
 
It was a truely awesome and wildly funny epic of a movie. The movie worked from Quill's dancing across the landscape to the prison break to the epic defense of Xandar. Lee Pace's Ronan made Loki look like a wuss by comparison, I loved seeing Yondu's yakka arrow in action. The movie filled with action, humor. some touching scenes and tons of aliens.
 
Get a pair of "2D Glasses" they're designed to transmit only one of the 3D projections to both eyes (rather than a left-eye specific and right-eye specific images.) They're supposed to work and help people who have problems with 3D movies.
And so it would still cost me extra to see a film on the chance it might look okay as opposed to paying extra to see a film knowing for sure it won't look okay while bothering my eyes.

In all likelihood I'll probably have to wait months for both films to be released on video so I can see them properly. Then, of course, I'll completely miss out on seeing these visual spectacles on the big screen.

Well, the question is pay extra to see it in theaters or wait. Sorry your theater doesn't have a 2D option, but you do have options. One of those options is to wait, but that has drawbacks as well, as you pointed out.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top