I will not say that the film is predictable, because it is not quite so, due to the fact that we only know Andy’s intentions at the end, and during the film, it is important to understand that there was not a hint of it, but let's not forget our guys who so imprudently localized it. I will not be the first, but the word 'redemption' is translated as 'redemption'. I don’t know the reason why our localizers decided to spoil the impression to all Russian-speaking people.
It's still puzzling to me why this movie exactly continues to appear in every single best-movies-of-all-time chart. There's a great story, perfect cast, and acting. It really moves me in times when I'm finding myself figuring out things with my annual tax routine reading this article, and accidentally catching myself wondering what my life should be if circumstances had changed so drastically. This movie worth a rewatch by all means, but yet, there's no unique vibe or something - there are thousands of other ones as good as this one.
There is a reason why this movie is at the top of any popular list your will find.
Very strong performances from lead actors and a story line from the literary brilliance of Stephen King (and no, its not a horror).
Sufficient drama and depth to keep you interested and occupied without stupefying your brain. It is the movie that has something for everyone.
Make way for the best film ever made people. **Make way.**
Some birds aren't meant to be caged.
The Shawshank Redemption is written and directed by Frank Darabont. It is an adaptation of the Stephen King novella Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. Starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, the film portrays the story of Andy Dufresne (Robbins), a banker who is sentenced to two life sentences at Shawshank State Prison for apparently murdering his wife and her lover. Andy finds it tough going but finds solace in the friendship he forms with fellow inmate Ellis "Red" Redding (Freeman). While things start to pick up when the warden finds Andy a prison job more befitting his talents as a banker. However, the arrival of another inmate is going to vastly change things for all of them.
There was no fanfare or bunting put out for the release of the film back in 94, with a title that didn't give much inkling to anyone about what it was about, and with Columbia Pictures unsure how to market it, Shawshank Redemption barely registered at the box office. However, come Academy Award time the film received several nominations, and although it won none, it stirred up interest in the film for its home entertainment release. The rest, as they say, is history. For the film finally found an audience that saw the film propelled to almost mythical proportions as an endearing modern day classic. Something that has delighted its fans, whilst simultaneously baffling its detractors. One thing is for sure, though, is that which ever side of the Shawshank fence you sit on, the film continues to gather new fans and simply will never go away or loose that mythical status.
It's possibly the simplicity of it all that sends some haters of the film into cinematic spasms. The implausible plot and an apparent sentimental edge that makes a nonsense of prison life, are but two chief complaints from those that dislike the film with a passion. Yet when characters are this richly drawn, and so movingly performed, it strikes me as churlish to do down a human drama that's dealing in hope, friendship and faith. The sentimental aspect is indeed there, but that acts as a counterpoint to the suffering, degradation and shattering of the soul involving our protagonist. Cosy prison life you say? No chance. The need for human connection is never more needed than during incarceration, surely? And given the quite terrific performances of Robbins (never better) & Freeman (sublimely making it easy), it's the easiest thing in the world to warm to Andy and Red.
Those in support aren't faring too bad either. Bob Gunton is coiled spring smarm as Warden Norton, James Whitmore is heart achingly great as the "Birdman Of Shawshank," Clancy Brown is menacing as antagonist Capt. Byron Hadley, William Sadler amusing as Heywood & Mark Rolston is impressively vile as Bogs Diamond. Then there's Roger Deakins' lush cinematography as the camera gracefully glides in and out of the prison offering almost ethereal hope to our characters (yes, they are ours). The music pings in conjunction with the emotional flow of the movie too. Thomas Newman's score is mostly piano based, dovetailing neatly with Andy's state of mind, while the excellently selected soundtrack ranges from the likes of Hank Williams to the gorgeous Le Nozze di Figaro by Mozart.
If you love Shawshank then it's a love that lasts a lifetime. Every viewing brings the same array of emotions - anger - revilement - happiness - sadness - inspiration and a warmth that can reduce the most hardened into misty eyed wonderment. Above all else, though, Shawshank offers hope - not just for characters in a movie - but for a better life and a better world for all of us. 10/10
It is impossible to imagine a world now, in 2020, that does not include these characters from the fantastically creative imagination of JK Rowling. That she worked closely with Chris Columbus in the creation of this adaptation of her introductory story featuring the boy-wizard means it stays broadly faithful to the book but allows the imagery to replace, rather than duplicate, the narrative. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson validate the best in the casting director's art as we set off on this wonderfully enjoyable fantasy adventure. The supporting cast - Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Julie Walters, Zoë Wanamaker et al all add richness to this as young "Mr. Potter" and is friends begin to realise their magical potential. John Williams works his wonders creating a score almost as recognisable as his "Star Wars" theme and the special effects are gentle, yet sophisticated. It is a bit on the lengthy side, and some of the adaptation sacrifices a little of the humour from the book - but all in all a movie to stand the tests of time.
_Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone_ is a masterclass is world building. This movie's world breathes and slowly discovering every inch of it is a joy, from Diagon Alley to Hogwarts Castle.
I would not say the story is overly brilliant, but that is just a catalyst for the world in this first film. Despite its minor drawbacks, it does enough to intrigue the viewer and kept me engaged.
The performances are a little off, which is expected as this film is primarily carried by three twelve-year-olds. But they get better as the film progresses and the adults in the film are able to bring the average up with their amazing performances.
Overall, this movie suffers from being dated with poor effects, CGI, and some rough child acting. Never-the-less, it manages to create an experience like no other and I expect the films to do nothing but improve from the initial entry.
**Score:** _77%_ |
**Verdict:** _Great_
Alright first lets start with my problems with this movie.
Some of the effects do not hold up and that can take away from the magic or suspense.
The child actors are not very good at acting in this movie.
It is way to easy to nitpick this movie and all the nitpicks can be very distracting.
I think the main theme was used way to much in the beginning and that kind of took the magic out of the main theme for me.
I personally did not get sucked into this world which made me kind of bored at times.
People love the harry potter movies but these movies don't really click with me when it comes to characters, the lore, and the magic and I think the full story of harry potter is to drawn out and I just want the movies to get to the point.
For me if the ending of the film is not very satisfying my respect for the movie drops a ton and I don't think the ending of this movie was very satisfying!
The villain in this movie is super basic.
Now on to the good stuff!
I like how most of the scenes build up the characters, show us some magic, and it builds up the mystery!
I like the sets and costumes a lot!
I like most of the music!
Ahh, the magic begins.
Harry Potter is an Orphan who on his eleventh birthday discovers he's a wizard and is called to term at Hogwarts School. But Harry is soon to find out that his past, and his destiny, is a truly remarkable, magical, and terrifying thing.
Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone arrived in a blaze of publicity, one of the most hyped and talked about motion pictures of the decade had finally arrived. The box office was guaranteed to bulge based on fandom book base alone, regardless of if the film got bad word of mouth or not, it was destined to be a monster smash hit. To someone like me who to this day has never read any of the Harry Potter books, it was easy for me to view objectively without comparison to the source - I enjoyed it immensely upon theatre release, and I still enjoy it equally as much now.
Director Christopher Columbus, I believe has wisely stayed loyal to the source material, and thus pleased the literature masses. Yet not all newcomers to the party were that taken by the magic on show, that's a little baffling to me because the budget explodes from the screen at every turn. Oliver Twist like sets form the marvellous Diagon Alley, dream like smoke cloaks the splendid Hogwarts Express, the school itself is a monolithic delight nestling in among eerie mountains - and what about the exhilarating introduction of Quidditch? Pulsating and frantic with no amount of devilment to keep us intrigued throughout.
The characters are all perfectly formed in the first two thirds of the film, here Columbus pulls off a masterstroke by interjecting the character arcs with dashes of wonder so that we the audience never gets bored. The final reel plays out solidly as per the mysterious "who done it" core of the piece, but it's down to the previous work in the film that we actually care come the finale. Some great casting of the adults really helps to make the film triumph, with Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane (one of the best casting jobs of the decade I would say), Richard Harris, Alan Rickman and Zoe Wanamaker all doing excellent work here. The kids are all newcomers that overnight were to become household names, all fresh faced and wet behind the ears, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint & Tom Felton are a delight to watch, and they all help to keep the feeling of charm constantly glowing up on the screen.
Owls here, witches there, what's that strange three headed dog doing over there? The Harry Potter franchise begins with a bang and a whip of the wand, and I and gazillions of others personally love it. 8/10
"Forrest" (Tom Hanks) isn't the sharpest tool in the box, but he has an heart of gold and an unparalleled sense of human decency. These laudable characteristics are the result of an upbringing by his mother (Sally Field) which has seen him grow from the bullied young boy from Alabama who discovers that he can run a little faster than your average bear, to a sort of national hero. We learn all this from him as he sits at a bus stop chatting to an initially disinterested nurse, and then to a collection of fellow travellers who learn of his drafting to Vietnam. That's where he meets "Lt. Dan" (Gary Sinese) and his new best friend "Bubba" (Mykelti Williamson) and where his innate sense of what's right saves lives and earns him the plaudits of a grateful nation (and gets his butt-ox on television too!). His army days taught him much, but nothing so useful as a skill at table tennis. Soon on the American ping-pong squad in China, he manages to get an endorsement that allows him to reunite with the hippified, now paraplegic and disillusioned "Lt. Dan" and make a mint shrimp fishing, before returning home to face some fairly predicable family trauma. All of this has been happening against a story of a longing for his one true love. "Jenny" (Robin Wright). They've been friends since childhood, but she has a wandering spirit and though his love was requited, it wasn't what he needed. Might there be a future for them, ever? Robert Zemeckis uses a chronology of events in the USA, starting in the 1950s, to create a template for the story of a man who lived through racial tension, war, bullying and emerged the stronger; the more honourable and despite his low IQ was quite capable of putting those more intellectual around him to shame. The photography that cleverly superimposes him into television broadcasts works entertainingly as he gazes bemusedly out onto a audience that is increasingly warming to him. I will admit, I struggled a bit with the running segment towards the end, but Hanks epitomises determination and integrity with Eric Roth's adaptation of the Groom novel allowing plenty of philosophical food for thought whilst having a laugh at scenarios both serious and ridiculous. Like life itself, this film is like a box of chocolates and though I didn't love them all, there were plenty to enjoy and reflect upon.
**One of the unavoidable movies to know Tarantino… but I think it's not as incredible as it is sometimes said to be.**
This was one of the films that consolidated Tarantino's career and made him one of the "superstar" directors who, whenever he releases a film, whether good or bad, attracts a legion to the cinema. I was never a fan of his, and I don't think I will be. He made some films that I liked and others that I hated. I wouldn't call it regular, a “safe bet”, but we can't deny it, it's original, true to his style and doesn't seem concerned about pleasing anyone.
The film follows more than one plot: we have a couple of violent bandits who try to rob a cafeteria, we have a boxer at the end of his career who has to flee after winning a fight he had agreed he would lose, we have a couple of murderers in the pay of a mobster who are tasked with recovering a stolen suitcase, and we also have the capricious girlfriend of that same mobster, whose boredom forces her darling to assign one of his assassins to babysit for her. What unites them all? In addition to the fact that they naturally intersect, they are all part of the same violent, brutal and marginal universe.
For many, this film is one of the best of the 90's. I would never consider it as such, that is, for me, an exaggeration. It's reasonably good, it's gained cult status, it has fans, but it's not a masterpiece, not for me. It's not a boring film, it doesn't tire us out and the various sub-plots are intertwined very well, with skill and elegance. There's a lot of violence, heavy slang and drugs, and that can be really hard at times, I felt that too. However, this heavier language, drugs and violence end up being a natural part of the underworld of crime and marginality where the characters move, so it's something we can count on right from the start. And there are no sympathetic characters who can arouse some empathy, so it doesn't matter to us whether they live or die in the most unpleasant ways (and some of them suffer a lot).
These are all qualities, and will be even more valued by those who are more familiar with the “pulp” literary subgenre. I'm not, it's not part of my culture, and I even had to go look it up on the Internet to understand what it was, and what its characteristics were. Despite that, there are a few things about this film that I really didn't like or felt over the top. One of them is the dialogues. There are scenes with a lot of dialogues, dialogues without any interest, which can dwell on boring topics, just because. One of them, right at the beginning of the film, is about foot massages, just to give a small example. There are many scenes that seem overly drawn out due to these endless dialogues. I also think the film has too many images of bare feet. Tarantino gained fame as a fetishist, but he always said he wasn't… watching this film makes it hard to believe him. And one of the characters, who is a murderer, makes a very long quote from the Bible… it's the kind of “literature” that I think an underworld murderer probably wouldn't know by heart.
The actors are very good, we have several notable names: John Travolta is excellent in the role he was given, with that black suit and his hair soaked in oil. Samuel L. Jackson is not far behind, and Uma Thurman is fantastic. I would say that, at least, Thurman and Travolta achieve performances at the best level of their respective careers in this film. Bruce Willis isn't bad, but he's just not that interesting. I enjoyed seeing my countrywoman Maria de Medeiros in her only major international role, I'm sorry she couldn't go further, but that's life. Tarantino also appears in the film, and it would have been much better if he hadn't. He's a ham as an actor.
Technically, the film has many qualities, starting with the excellent cinematography, with vivid colors and good lighting. There are excellent action scenes, for all tastes, and the soundtrack makes good use of several musical themes that we know very well.
Tarantino is the most overrated director of our times, all his films are silly but people say they are masterpieces, perhaps they are but not for the right way, the only good thing about Tarantino is that he isn't afraid of revenge for the sake of making his characters good.
Ving Rhames ("Wallace") is the kingpin who provides the loosest of templates for a couple of inter-twining tales that are amusing, bizarre and sometimes down right dangerous before we get a sort of alignment at the conclusion. "Winnfield" (Samuel L. Jackson) and "Vincent Vega" (John Travolta) are a pair of dapper enforcers, despatched to retrieve a stolen briefcase. Though their manner may be precise, the execution of their tasks are usually more hit and miss, definitely messy - and frequently requiring of the specialist clean-up services of "Mr. Wolf" (Harvey Keitel). "Vega" is also charged by his boss with looking after his cocaine-loving wife "Mia" (Uma Thurman) and that flirts with dancing and disaster too. Meantime, ageing boxer "Butch" (Bruce Willis) is supposed to help the boss by taking an early dive in a fight. Instead he manages to kill his opponent! Soon he is intent on fleeing town, well at least he tries before he and "Wallace" end up being the playthings of some interesting characters who keep their own leather-clad gimp locked in a box... It's really difficult to make sense of the narrative in writing. It flows really well, but at differing speeds and in several different directions at once. The stories are violent but delivered in an almost tongue-in cheek way. The dance between "Mia" and "Vega" has become the stuff of cinema legend; there is loads of chemistry - especially between Travolta and an on form Jackson who really does deliver his biblical verses with a puritanical - an lethal - zeal; Willis is as good here as he ever was and you cannot but feel sorry for poor old "Pumpkin" (Tim Roth) and his pal "Honey Bunny" (Amanda Plummer) whose habit of committing petty robberies when they realise that nobody ever thinks to hit a restaurant, all goes awry. The dialogue is cleverly targeted, with wit and pith but also used sparingly when the first rate soundtrack is allowed to let everyone come up for air. Tarantino himself features towards the end as just about everybody gets their just desserts. This is a classy and sharp piece of enigmatic and enjoyable cinema held together well by a creative and visionary director who appreciates how to get the best of a cast that know how to entertain!
Insane movie!
One of the bests(if not the best) Tarantino's movies!
***The cream of the crop of quirky crime thrillers***
RELEASED IN 1994 and written & directed by Quentin Tarantino, "Pulp Fiction" is a drama/thriller/black comedy about two hit men in Los Angeles (John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson), their mob boss & his wife (Ving Rhames and Uma Thurman) and a champion boxer who incurs the wrath of the boss (Bruce Willis).
The lurid, droll tale is told in a non-linear fashion, but it's easy to follow and the final act ties everything up nicely. The dialogue's witty and the story maintains your attention, despite its 2 hour and 34 minutes runtime. The film's stylish and pulsates with energy and innovation; it understandably influenced many 90's films and beyond.
I put off seeing this iconic picture until almost twenty years after its release because the protagonists are all big city gangsters or somehow involved with 'em. These are lawless people who would kill a person without batting an eye. Their god is money or hedonism. Let ’em shoot each other to smithereens for all I care. But if you can look beyond this and the constant profanities, the film's worth your time. What redeems it for me, besides the all-around entertaining movie-making, is that it's a tale of redemption and the high price of stubborn folly: The wise person recognizes God’s grace and responds accordingly while the fool doesn’t and blithely goes on his (doomed) way. Once a person receives grace they naturally extend it to others. There are additional gems spiced throughout.
Both Travolta and Jackson shine here. There are several other celebrities on hand, like Harvey Keitel, with many in cameos, e.g. Christopher Walken; not to mention several formidable females, like curvy Julia Sweeney (Raquel), cutie Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne), Angela Jones (Esmarelda) and voluptuous Susan Griffiths (Marilyn Monroe).
BOTTOM LINE: If you're in the mood for a quirky crime drama/thriller you can't go wrong with "Pulp Fiction." It's top-of-the-line in every way, including the subtext.
THE FILM WAS SHOT in the Greater Los Angeles area. ADDITIONAL WRITER: Roger Avary.
GRADE: A
Guardians of the Galaxy has solidified itself as an incredible franchise within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Volume 1: The creation of these characters injected suspense, excitement, and a generous dose of over-the-top comedy into the MCU. Chris Pratt's portrayal of Star-Lord was a fantastic choice, and the characters like Rocket and Groot became instant fan favorites, with merchandise flying off the shelves. While Nebula's transformation from antihero to hero was well-received, Gamora felt underutilized. Drax provided comic relief, but off-screen controversies involving the actor can affect viewers' perception of the character. Overall, the movie is enjoyable and worth watching.
Volume 2: While some may prefer the first installment, Volume 2 offers a deeper dive into the characters and more excitement. The film is wonderfully executed, providing a fantastic adventure that is highly recommended for its magical space journey and character development.
Volume 3: This installment returns to the original concept of Marvel, seamlessly connecting with other films in the MCU. The movie offers fantastic character development, ensuring each character shines without overshadowing the others. Star-Lord and Gamora remain central, but the film also explores Rocket's origin story exceptionally well. The ensemble cast, including Mantis, Nebula, Groot, and Drax, deliver standout performances. New additions like Cosmo and Blurp add charm, while Adam Warlock's portrayal, though slightly disappointing, is explained within the storyline. The film is emotional, with impactful end credit scenes, making it a must-watch in theaters.
Holiday Special: The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is an exciting and enjoyable addition to the franchise, offering a fun and engaging viewing experience. The special presentation is a delightful continuation of the characters' stories, making them more relatable and adding an extra layer of excitement to the Marvel universe. This special is a testament to the franchise's creativity and is a welcome addition to the MCU continuity.
A good nerd flick for the geeks! At least this one has some humor. My daughter loves Groot.
**Guardians of the Galaxy embraced its underdog status in the MCU and catapulted its cast of misfits into stardom!**
Who saw this movie coming? I know I didn’t. I only saw Guardians of the Galaxy because it’s a Marvel movie, but I knew nothing about the characters, and even some of the actors were still on the rise, but James Gunn and this movie turned them into mega-stars! This movie perfectly balances exceptional comedic performances with sincere heartfelt moments. This rag-tag group of outcasts finds family in each other while finding their way into our hearts. I expected a hilarious performance from Chris Pratt (but was surprised at how ripped he got for the role!) but was surprised by how funny Dave Bautista and Karen Gillan were proving themselves as sensational comedic actors. These unknown characters and lesser-known actors became household names due to great fun writing, entertaining performances, excellent effects, and a perfectly chosen director that knew how to bring it all together.
Generally speaking, I'm fan of Chris Pratt and here he is thoroughly entertaining as the "Star Lord - Peter Quill", a sort of inter-galactic treasure hunter who is challenged to track down an orb. Once he finds and tries to sell it, his world becomes a whole lot more interesting as just about everyone from Djimon Hounsou - sporting a cracking hairdo as "Korath", to kick-ass Zoe Saldana "Gamora" and the most unlikely of duos "Rocket" & "Groot"- one a racoon (Bradley Cooper), the other a walking tree with an extremely limited vocabulary (Vin Diesel) - want to snatch it from him! It soon transpires that the orb contains a source of unimaginable power that the evil "Thanos" and his lieutenant "Ronan" (Lee Pace) will stop at nothing to possess. When all these attempts to steal his artefact attract the attention of the authorities lead by an immaculately coiffured Glenn Close, they end up in a maximum security prison where they decide to join forces - alongside the deservedly named "Drax the Destroyer" (Dave Bautista), forcing their way out and setting off on a quest to stop the arch criminals from reducing Ms. Close's world to atoms. It's got bundles of charisma, this film - the script is witty and fast moving, the characters are easily the most interesting and developed in the ensemble Marvel-verse, and the pretty eclectic soundtrack is used properly, rather than as a substitute for the dialogue. I'm praying that it doesn't spawn a whole slew of pointless sequels and spin-offs; it's originality is an huge part of it's charm.
When planning how I was going watch all these MCU films, this is one I earmarked as being one I thought I'd enjoy - not based on anything of note, I knew very little, but from the passing screenshots and such I had seen it seemed like one I'd enjoy. I'm happy to say I certainly did!
'Guardians of the Galaxy' is so enjoyable. It's 121 minutes of pure entertainment. It does, at least to me, have a different feel to it when compared to the nine preceding MCU films. That's not a negative for either this or those earlier productions, it just felt different to me.
I particularly enjoyed the cast, which features - as is customary at this point - a load of well known names. Chris Pratt is, probably, the perfect choice for Peter, he carries the role extremely well - his humour sticks out, but he also performs the more serious stuff nicely.
Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper and Michael Rooker are all thoroughly enjoyable too. Vin Diesel (kinda?) appears to portray Groot, which pleases me as someone who is a big fan of 'Fast & Furious'. There are a few others in there, including Djimon Hounsou and Benicio del Toro. Terrific cast!
There is a lot to like here. I look forward to seeing the follow-ups to it.
Guardians of the Galaxy is a gorgeous and wonderfully entertaining space opera. The characters are so damn lovable, the world building is incredible, the soundtrack gives the film an entirely unique feel, and the effects are astoundingly first rate.
The story follows the pattern of the space fantasies that influenced George Lucas, but the presentation is the work of the extraordinarily gifted filmmaker James Gunn. If we ever forget that the MCU was ever a thing (we won't but let's just be hypothetical), many generations will still be talking about this fantastic movie.
**A long form review originally posted n 2014:**
Now that I’ve given _Guardians_ a BluRay watch through, I feel more comfortable reviewing it. I saw it on the first day of its Australian cinematic release, but I wasn’t sure what I thought. I watched it again and still wasn’t sure, but now that it’s six months later, I am sure.
I’m a massive fan of director James Gunn. Come to think of it, I’m also also a big fan of Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Chris Pratt, Benicio Del Toro, Djimon Honsou, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Peter Serafinowicz, Alexis Denisof, Rob Zombie and Nathan Fillion, and they’re all in this. Not to mention I’m an absolute sucker for the MCU. So after hearing that a very decent chunk of the fanbase thinking that not only was this the best Marvel film of the year (going up against _Winter Soldier_ and _Days of Future Past_), but that they would then go on to say it was the best Marvel Cinematic Universe film ever, you could imagine I was very surprised to find that I actually didn’t think it was all that great.
I don’t want people thinking I didn’t like it. I did. In fact I will go on record saying that it was miles away from their worst film, and if I’m being honest they handled the last 25 minutes (arguably the most important part) of the film absolutely spectacularly. But I didn’t get the magic that everyone was telling me about. How this was the film for the new generation. I didn’t even get the sense of satisfaction that I had in Cap’s movie just a few months previous.
So many things seemed under utilised, but I don’t know what you could have cut to make room for the extra things I wanted. Which means the only way to get it is to have a longer film. It’s already two hours, and a longer movie means a bigger budget and less screenings. ie. more money going out and less money coming in. And at the end of the day Disney is a business, and they have to make their money the best way they think they can. So I understand why it wasn’t perfect for me, but that doesn’t stop me from feeling _Guardians_ is a mite overrated. Good damn movie. But overrated.
Personally I’d stick it somewhere in the middle of the MCU’s releases thus far. Leaps and bounds above _The Incredible Hulk_, _The Dark World_ and _Iron Man 2_, but not so beloved as the likes of _The Avengers_, _Winter Soldier_ or _Iron Man 1_.
73%
-_Gimly_
This movie is more of a comedy than anything else. It is truly a comic magazine brought to life on the big screen and more focused on delivering a sequence of action scenes and laughs than anything intelligent in the form of plot or characters. I would say it is a movie for the younger audience and comic fans. Having said that I must admit that I found it rather fun to watch.
The main characters are two mostly irresponsible rascals, one dumb but likable living tree and two fanatics of which one certainly need not apply to the Mensa club. Of the five I liked Rocket and Gamora the best. Rocket is a rather likable rascal and Gamora is simply cool. Quill is sometimes just silly, Groot is more of a living prop and Drax is just too stupid.
The story is more or less just there to tie the scenes together. Unfortunately we do really not get much of a background to the Guardians of The Galaxy universe. It would have been nice to get a bit more understanding of why things are as they are etc. The return of this movie is watching the action, the special effects and the laughs. It is an action-adventure-comedy plain and simple. If you approach it as such it works reasonably well.
Speaking of special effects, they are generally well done. The designs are interesting. The shape of the bad guys spaceship is totally ludicrous of course but visually pleasing and goes with the rest of the movie’s tendency to be more of a comedy than a serious movie. The same can be said for that cool but weird net they made by interlinking fighter crafts.
On the whole an entertaining movie. I have to say that the dancing scene at the end was a wee bit too silly for me though. I have a problem understanding how a movie like this can get such a relatively high rating at IMDb but okay it was fun to watch and it is not entirely undeserved. Personally I think a 7 out of 10 is more in the right region.
SHARE THIS:
The thing about this film when I first saw it, was the incredible juxtaposition of sadness, humor and courage. Great acting! The music is superb. That Sony Walkman must be the best bit of brand advertising ever engaged by a company within a film. The film should appeal to a broad range of viewers.
Like most of the reviews here, I agree that Guardians of the Galaxy was an absolute hoot. Guardians never takes itself too seriously which makes this movie a whole lot of fun.
The cast was perfectly chosen and even though two of the main five were CG, knowing who voiced and acted alongside them completely filled out these characters.
Guardians of the Galaxy is one of those rare complete audience pleasers. Good fun for everyone!
This was a pleasant surprise of a movie, full of great humor as well as an intriguing story. It's quick and zany at times. Think Psych in space (back when Psych was funny). The pace is quick and the story line is easy to pick up and follow.
What makes the film work is something that early Lucas and Joss Whedon understand: great sci-fi movies are really westerns at heart. There is a relationship with nature, a broken, compromised hero, a deep necessity for teamwork, and the story happens OUT there in the wild. Guardians of the Galaxy has ALL of this.
Guardians is already set up for a sequel so we will see if Marvel can continue the magic. It's a great addition to the Marvel universe.
CinePops US / International 
CinePops Spain 
CinePops France 
CinePops Italy 
CinePops România 
CinePops India 
