Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

Unexpectedly, I only saw two new movies in November --  Overlord (review) was brisk, splashy, weird and violent, and Buster Scruggs (review) was darkly hilarious, hauntingly memorable, and also kinda violent. Both excellent films. I also saw The Night Eats the World (review) which came out back in July, and it was also excellent; fascinating, and thought-provoking.

Otherwise, November was a bit disappointing on the blockbuster front. I thought for sure I'd see Robin Hood, but after it got universally slammed we figured it'd be more fun to wait until we can stream it and make fun of it without bothering people. And it was almost the same deal with Fantastic Beasts 2. Ralph Breaks the Internet still looks good, and Green Book. I'm actually feeling a need for a solid, big, blockbuster. So good thing December potentially has four of them, right?

But, it's also Oscar season. I'm not very big on Oscar season. Sometimes awards can urge me to watch movies I had no interest in before, but mostly it just annoys me because of how many movies seem to only exist to try to bait awards. Like there's suddenly this bothersome disconnect between art in film and entertainment in film; there are films made to be seen and loved by people, and films made to be rewarded by faceless arbiters, and they only intersect occasionally. And only, it seems, at this time of year.

I don't want to rain on people's parade, I'm just saying this as a kind of disclaimer, because I find that most of the year I'm more interested arty than I am now, because they reek of Oscar-bait, whether they're meant to or not. It automatically lessens my interest, and I'm aware of how biased that is, so I'm putting it out there, so that when I talk cynically about a movie that may not deserve it, you'll know where I'm coming from and can judge for yourself.

Disclaimer/rant/TED talk over. Let's get to the trailers!


Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Well this one's definitely not gonna be getting awards. Andy Serkis' directorial debut is a new version of The Jungle Book, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't go back to the book for source but still is trying to compete with Jon Favreau's remake, even though it came out two years ago. Serkis does have a good cast -- himself, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hollander, Naomi Harris, (and more!) and it focuses a bit more on the humans, which is a good idea imo, since it's a live-action movie. Who knows how it's executed. Kinda seems like the plot ventures into a tired "animals vs man" direction. I still haven't seen Favreau's, so maybe I'll get to both of them this month and see who wins the competition!




Mary Queen of Scotts
Dec 7th(limited); R
This one's ideal bait for the Oscars and has been building hype all year. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, with support from the likes of Guy Pearce, David Tennant and Jack Lowden. It's a period drama so there's costumes and locations a great need for excellent cinematography, and history so the roles are a meaty challenge. It can even sneak a little modern politics in there! I'd like to see it someday because I'm a fan of the cast, but it's not urgent.




Vox Lux
Dec 7th(limited) R
Looks like Natalie Portman is out for another Oscar. She has one, right? *research* Yes. I'd be crazy to deny that she has skill, and she clearly puts a ton of effort into her roles, but I've always been neutral toward her at best. For complicated reasons but I think the short version is she tries too hard. Everything she does feels forced to me. Anyway that's all to say that this movie looks fine. Actually I wouldn't mind watching it at all, but mostly out of curiosity because I have no idea what the plot is, and the visual look is kinda fascinating.




Ben is Back
Dec 7th(limited) R
Seems like a very solid drama, but watching the trailer was just making me feel dread about the plot. I bet Lucas Hedges and Julia Roberts put in some fine performances, and I bet if I watched it I'd enjoy or at least appreciate it, but, I think (cynically I know) it'll probably just fall through the cracks.




Dumplin'
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Kay, see, this looks super silly, but because it's going to be on Netflix I'll probably watch it instantly and have a fun time. That's it. That's all I have to say. (Has Netflix become the new and improved Disney Channel??)




Once Upon a Deadpool
Dec 12th; PG-13!
I was fine with the content level of the original version of Deadpool 2, but since this re-edit has added scenes and Fred Savage it might be worth checking out. I guess that's exactly the point, isn't it? Make it PG-13 so kids can see it; make new scenes so everyone else will see it again! But I can't imagine it being better than the original version. Unless the new scenes are downright spectacular to make me not miss what they cut out. For me, rated R for violence in Deadpool is pretty necessary, (I guess we'll find out how necessary!) and the language occasionally helped with the humor. Occasionally.




Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse
Dec 14th; PG
I can't even watch this trailer without grinning. When I first heard about this movie I dismissed it, thinking because it's animated it was for extreme fans, or part of a series or something. Of course, the second I finally saw the trailer my head exploded, and it became one of my most anticipated movies of the year! I can only imagine it knocking my socks off and I can't wait for it to happen -- it looks so beautiful, with the colors the animation style, and there's a real plot, and personal stakes, but it's not all revealed in the trailer so there's intrigue. If it's somehow not good, it's going to break my heart because I've completely forgotten how to be cautious and I have sky-high expectations. Can't wait to see it!




Mortal Engines
Dec 14th; PG-13
Peter Jackson takes on steampunk fantasy, and I wish he'd forgotten about The Hobbit and got to this sooner! It doesn't have me fully confident in its quality, but I am totally confident in that I'll enjoy it no matter what, because this is exactly my deal. I hope it'll reach the heights I imagine it's capable of, but I can't imagine not a having a blast in the theater even with flaws. I'm already a fan of Robert Sheehan and I really like the look of the lead girl Hera Hilmar, and then we have Hugo Weaving as the villain. It looks beautiful and spectacularly designed; it looks like a high-flying classic adventure plot; I can't wait to see it, even if it's made solely for me!




The Mule
Dec 14th(limited); R
Because it's a Clint Eastwood movie should I just trust that it's good and ignore that it seems like there's no way the story ends happily? I mean, it can end not happy and still be good. I don't know how, but I guess Clint Eastwood does. Somehow the idea of Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena being cop partners is very appealing to me though.




Mary Poppins Returns
Dec 19th; PG
Since the original wasn't animated, this Disney classic gets the soft-reboot-in-the-form-of-a-sequel treatment instead. I want to be okay with this movie. I want to enjoy Emily Blunt (she is charm itself) and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and the new songs, and the homage it pays to the original. But the cynic in me doubts that it's homage at all, but perhaps just banking (ha!) off the original. I hope it's not just a rehash and finds justification for it's existence, but unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to watch it. And I only want to watch it if it is worthy on it's own merit. If Michael has the exact same arc as Mr. Banks in the original (which seems very likely) I may have to get annoyed, no matter how magical Emily Blunt is.




Bird Box
Dec 21st(Netflix); NR
So I'm definitely not the first person to say this, but hear me out: A Quiet Place, but with sight. It's a Netflix release and it's got Sandra Bullock instead of Emily Blunt so I seriously doubt it'll be as good (I do like Bullock sometimes I promise), but hopefully it's not actually as similar as it seems. It's Netflix so chances of my giving it a chance are pretty high, but there's not much interest there at all. I dunno, it's just not intriguing me. Except: why is it called Bird Box?




Aquaman
Dec 21st; PG-13
Who even cares at this point? Either it'll be the worst thing the DCEU puts out, or the best, or somewhere in between. I'm going to see it anyway, so I'll let you know. I've recently become a bit of a fan of Patrick Wilson (the Conjuring movies can take credit, so that's bonus points for James Wan too) so I'm kind of looking forward to him being the bad guy (at least it's not an animated bad guy haha right??) and I think it's funny how much like The Little Mermaid everything seems. Honestly, I seriously doubt it'll be the worst DCEU offering, but I do kinda expect to be disappointed. Also, underwater scenes in movies make me extremely uncomfortable. So. I expect to be uncomfortable.

Bumblebee
Dec 21st; PG-13

Well it's set in the late 80's, so how bad could it actually be? They finally scaled back on a Transformer movie, getting the main focus down to two, and they put some style into the trailer, so hopefully that translates to the movie... and already this has a high chance of being my favorite Transformers film. Still, that's not saying much. I feel like this is one I'll wait for steaming on, unless there's a huge positive response or something. Hailee Steinfeld is good... Bumblebee is the best transformer character... it could very easily be a very decent movie.

Holmes and Watson

Dec 25th; PG-13

Like... it looks real bad. But at the same time, it makes fun of the other modern takes on Sherlock Holmes and I just respect it so much for that. It's probably gonna be terrible. I will continue telling myself this in an effort to keep from getting excited about it. Yeah. It's probably going to be terrible. It just... they do all the obvious jokes! And there's Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, and Ralph Fiennes is Moriarty! And they say modern things but it's set in the proper time! It's so weird! Ugh. I dunno. It's probably going to be terrible. But here's the thing: if it's good it'll be because it just doesn't care, and that's kinda rare these days.

Destroyer
Dec 25th(limited); R
How come Toby Kebbell has second billing but doesn't even appear in the trailer while Sebastian Stan is everywhere but so far down the cast list that I discovered he was in the movie by recognizing him? Anyway, I watch all movies I can find that have Toby Kebbell in them, and I watch all movie I can find that have Sebastian Stand in them. So I guess this will be a case of two birds with one stone. If the movie's good that'll make three! And I don't know, but it looks like it could be good maybe. Not naturally my cup of tea, but it could be. Nicole Kidman stars and is kinda unrecognizable.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

In October I got to the theater to see Venom (review), which I didn't care for but have no enmity towards either, and Bad Times at the El Royale (review), which rocketed up to be my #3 movie of the year!

I never got around to First Man, so that's my top priority now, and hopefully I'll have time to catch up before November's interesting movies get here. There aren't any absolute must-sees for me this month, but I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up seeing one or two.

What looks good to you? Happy November!


Bohemian Rhapsody
Nov 2nd; PG-13
Full disclosure, I'm not much a Queen fan particularly, but I am a fan of 70's/80's rock. I'm also a fan of Rami Malek (ever since Larry Crown) and word is that he's great in this. Word is also that the movie around him isn't so great, but I get a sneaky suspicion that expectations of this being an Oscar contender may have heightened the disappointment. Just the PG-13 rating is a good indicator that it wasn't exactly vying for a best pic nom. The trailer is very groovy and if the film is like that, I expect I'll get a kick out of it someday. I'd be there for the music mostly anyway.




Nutcracker and the Four Realms
Nov 2nd; PG
Twelve-year-old me would've been all over this. Now, if I ever sat down to watch it, it would be in the hope that it's so stupid and horrendously bad that I could just laugh at it for 2 hours. I actually want to see Keira Knightly embarrass herself with that pink hair and those eyebrows and that voice. Does that make me a bad person? I realize it's a movie for kids, but actually good kid movies are good adult movies too, and really, if they were serious about doing an updated twist on The Nutcracker, this is the absolute LAST way I'd want it done.




Prospect
Nov 2nd(limited); R
Coooool. Small budget scifi that still looks good; doesn't try to push the limit of what they can cohesively accomplish, but sticks to what makes all stories compelling: the human element. Character. That's what trailer makes it out to be, anyway, and I'd love to give it a watch. Scifi always seems to be best used as a catalyst for drama and conflict instead of being the main focus itself.




Overlord
Nov 9th; R
Now this is interesting. This is the J.J. Abrams-produced WWII zombie film that was originally meant to be a part of the Cloverfield Universe. (So they say.) But the Cloverfield part has been ditched. I suspected that choice was made after The Cloverfield Paradox got such a terrible reaction. Like they didn't have confidence in this movie's quality and didn't want to keep making bad Cloverfield movies. BUT, this movie's getting great reviews so far. I wanted to see it even before I saw the trailer, but after the trailer I didn't expect this good a reaction. I guess zombies and Nazis are a pretty fun combo!




The Girl in the Spider's Web
Nov 9th; R
I've never seen a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo film before, but this is the closest I've come to wanting to see one. If they keep on making these movie (I dunno how much source material there is) they won't have to bother with trying to make James Bond a girl. I guess these movies are much more mature and thriller-y than Bond, but this trailer definitely has that kind of appeal. Also I bet Claire Foy is awesome in it. AND I caught a glimpse of the young German actress who plays the deaf girl in Dark, and it's so cool seeing actors from Dark outside of that show, even if it small roles.




Outlaw King
Nov 9th; R
I watched the trailer and was still confused about who exactly the outlaw king is. Robert the Bruce? Either I'm bad at history or he was kinda obscure. But okay, I can dig it. Medieval, Scotland, war, kings, knights. Not huge on Chris Pine, but there's plenty of other people there too. And it's Netflix, so lazy afternoon watch it is!




Time Freak
Nov 9th; PG-13
Look y'all, Asa Butterfield and Sophie Turner are doing an About Time movie, but for kids! So, extra focus on the time-travel gimmick, more traditional and cliched romance, and cheaper comedy efforts. For some reason, I still wouldn't mind watching it.




Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Nov 16th; PG-13
Haha, can you imagine if they called this "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Crimes of Grindelwald"??? They should have. Just commit to it, ya know? Anyway, I watched the first one and enjoyed it so I guess I'm in for this too. I'm not super excited about it in any particular way, but I've never been a big Harry Potter person to begin with. I liked era setting, and the character of Newt, and Jude Law as Dumbledore should be neat. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'm going to miss Colin Farrell as the bad guy though.




Widows
Nov 16th; R
This one's got a cast on it! Wowee. But I don't understand what the plot is? Some ladies' criminal husbands are killed so they decide to pull of their next planned heist? Why? Did the bad guy guy murder them because they robbed him, so they decide that's the best way to get revenge, or...? If the impression I'm getting here is right I'm not sure I'd be able to pull for our (anti?)heroines, but I guess I'll keep an eye out. What a cast.




The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Nov 16th; R
The Coen Brothers have made a Netflix film. That's it, y'all. There's no going back now. Netflix allows for different types of movies, though, you know? This isn't the sort of flick people would be rushing to the theater to see, but because of Netflix it still got to be made -- without altering to be more appealing to the theater crowd -- and I'd be surprised right out of my boots if it isn't a good, fun, western time. An anthology film apparently, of several short films, all set in the wild west. I'm all the way on board!




The Clovehitch Killer
Nov 16th; NR
Charlie Plummer is doing a "My Neighbor is a Serial Killer" movie -- but even more dramatic, because it's not his neighbor he suspects, it's his father. This trope gets done quite a lot, but rarely as well and as real-life as it looks here, and after Lean on Pete I'll watch anything that kid tries his hand at, so I'm 1000% there for this movie. Seriously, the trailer looks great. Moody and intense... human drama over excessive thrills... coming of age elements... Plummer is probably great in it too, but what else is new?




Jonathan
Nov 16th; NR
Okay, so Ansel Elgort has dissociative personalities, one good one bad. The bad one's dating a girl, but then she breaks up with him to date the good one. Hahaha, well, I guess it's not a weird as cheating on one of the personalities. Wow I can't even keep a straight face typing this I bet the movie is golden I need to see this. Reviews so far skew positive though... so maybe it's genuinely decent, who knows. The trailer's definitely taking itself seriously. I'm not sure if I can.




Ralph Breaks the Internet
Nov 21st; PG
Oh hey. This actually looks good. For some reason I was expecting immediately obvious tragedy and downgrading but now I'm on the hook until the truth is revealed. It very well could still be tragedy. But they have a solid premise going that demands world expansion, and they're playing Rick Astley so they have to be a certain level of in the know concerning the pop culture they're going to be dealing with... idk... it might be good. If I ever feel like it's not, I probably will stay away though, because I kinda loved the first one.




Green Book
Nov 21st; PG-13
I tire easily of movies that purposefully take on the subject of racism, simply because they tend to serve to divide more than unite -- but judging from the trailer, this movie does the opposite of that, showcasing a positive side of things that can come through the negative, by focusing on the friendship between the two characters. This looks like a really good drama, with good performances and sleek, rich look. And they'll be piano music too I expect, so that'll be nice.




Robin Hood
Nov 21st; PG-13
You know that guy on YouTube who does trick and fast archery? Practical application and close-quarter stuff? This is a take on Robin Hood inspired by him I bet. I would be fairly surprised if it turned out to be critically praised or regarded flick, but that doesn't mean I'm not interesting in watching it. Quite the opposite. Robin Hood adaptations don't need to be exceptional pieces of film. It's action/adventure entertainment, and the sooner filmmakers understand this the sooner we can have an exceptionally fun Robin Hood movie. This may not be it -- but it could be. Taron Egerton and his fun screen presence will likely at least make it not a waste of time. And then there's Ben Mendelsohn and Jamie Foxx to consider.




Anna and the Apocalypse
Nov 30th(limited); R
IT'S A CHRISTMAS. ZOMBIE. MUSICAL!!! Oh my goodness. It's probably not going to be as good as I want it to be, but okay but that's only because my imagination is running wild right now, and there's no way it's not a little bit crazy fun. No way. With that combination, it'd be impossible to be outright bad. The trailer makes it look brilliant and like a blast. Actually even if it's bad it'd still be brilliant because its a brilliant idea. Wow, I'm totally hyped for the holiday season now.

Kong: Skull Island

Kong is back, and literally bigger than ever. It's the 1970's, so you know the music is good, and the group of explorers, scientists, and soldiers that go to Skull Island is extra, extra large -- full of red shirts, and people who don't need to survive to the end of the movie. Mayhem is in the air. And it smells delicious.

And a bit like monkey breath?

The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be. 

Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal. 

Every sequence was a new array of colors and shapes and textures and immaculate focusing and sweet music...

I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.

The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.

Even though he was a little pointless. I think the movie got a few conflicting rewrites. You can almost see the plot that was removed.

John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!

In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens. 

Pretty location, pretty filming, pretty people.

There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.

Guardians of the Galaxy

 This review is spoiler-free!

The unstoppable force that is the Marvel film industry has yet again done what seemed impossible in theory, and through the hands of James Gunn, has given us a superhero epic so out there it is literally in the far reaches of space, yet so familiar and welcoming that you have laughed and cried and fallen in love even before the opening credits finish.

If you've seen the movie, I'm sure you understand what I mean. After that glorious grin-inducing moment that accompanied the film title, assuring that my highest hopes for this movie were, and would be fulfilled, I sat back, relaxed, and enjoyed the crazy awesome ride.

It's obvious they all know how awesome they are.

Meet Peter Quill, ADKA, (also debatably known as) Star-Lord, AKA, Mr. Everything-is-Awesome-Sauce himself, Chris Pratt, who is now suddenly and universally acknowledged as the greatest action-hero-with-a-sense-of-humor since Harrison Ford was young and pretty. Quill has the cool brood of Hawkeye, the care-free lifestyle of Tony Stark, and the heart of Captain America, but more than that, he has a exuberant style all his own that had me grinning from ear to ear from the moment the character made his debut. Pratt is extraordinarily perfect for the role, and not only because he can dance; he brings a laid-back charm and fun humor, retro-style sci-fi coolness, and just the right amount of underlying heart and heroism. Technically, Guardians is about all five Guardians, but understandably, the film really belongs to Star-Lord; the rest just follow his lead.

Star-Lord. Legendary outlaw.

Gamora is green, but otherwise humanoid, but she more resembles a reptile than anything else. She's lean and lithe and agile, colder than a warm blooded creature has a right to be, and she might as well be covered in spiky scales with how often she lets anyone close to her. But it's all a front that she has built up over the years of a hard life, and underneath there is evidence of life waiting to be rekindled. Zoe Saldana is veteran actor of these types of movie, and this kind of character is her forte; she portrays every detail of her character with elegant ease -- even under all that makeup.

It's not easy being green. ... Is that unoriginal?

But her makeup is nothing compared to David Bautista as the huge, intimidating Drax. He is also green, but his entire ever-shirtless torso is covered in raised red markings. Pro wrestlers aren't exactly known for compelling acting skills, but there's few who could have pulled off this bizarre role as well and honestly as Bautista did, let alone other wrestlers. The Rock? Don't make me laugh. Drax has his own tragic past and a boiling rage as a product of it, but his way of speaking very literally and properly, like an ancient, solemn warrior makes a unique blend, and Bautista controls the balance with grace, and has some killer laugh lines.

"I like your knife I'm keeping it."

Vin Diesel never gets to show his face, but does get a very interesting character to play in the form of Groot. He's a tree. A walking tree with four limbs and a dumb smile. But most limiting is the fact that everything he says is said using three words: "I," "am," and "Groot." If he opens his mouth to speak he always uses his entire vocabulary, and always in the same order -- shortest word to longest. So Diesel, you might think, doesn't have much to do at all, but you might be surprised at how expressive inflections can be, so, combined with some high quality CG effects, he makes a surprisingly sweet and endearing and understandable oaf out of a tangle of wood.

And he has some very useful skills.

It doesn't seem possible, but Groot isn't even the strangest character of the group. That title belongs to Rocket, a raccoon who experimental cybergenetics has turned into a foul-mouthed little ball of fuzzy fury. Raccoons are already suspicious little characters, but when one has an unhealthy interest in explosives and big guns, and has the voice of Bradley Cooper coming out of him, things can get very strange very fast. But Cooper does a great job with the potentially tedious character. He's very often a source of snarky and smart-aleck-y wit, and has his humanized moments too, so we feel more of a connection to him than if he were just a cute but unusually dangerous furball.

Rocket likes the simple pleasures in life, like big guns.

Our main villain is Lee Pace as Ronan who towers over everyone in bright blue maleficence, and uses his epic deep voice to its full potential with power-crazed monologues that could have been terribly cheesy in any other less intimidating actor's hands. His hench-lady Nebula is Doctor Who's Karen Gillan, playing the creepy alien this time for an impressive change. There's no orange hair, or Scottish accent; she's only recognizable by her sarcastic attitude which is in fine form with an extra dose of bitterness in her character.

When they demonstrate how Nebula is a cyborg is super creepy and funny at the same time.

Typically for comedy, a moment is added with the sole purpose of being funny, so if it fails it's not only not funny, it's actually bad, with a pointless existence. With Guardians, the humor is a natural, inseparable part of the characters, and the story, and the ambiance of the whole film, so the "failure" of a joke never had a devastating effect, but every new successful, hilarious line or gag piled on the awesomeness. I also laughed a few times to relive the overwhelming glee from all the awesomeness.

And if there's one thing this movie just oozes with, it's awesomeness. It doesn't do anything halfway -- everything is given to us on a level that could easily overwhelm other aspects, but because everything is on that level, the movie instead soars to incredible heights. The look of the film is almost distinctly Marvel, except that it is almost exclusively set everywhere except Earth, and neither did anywhere conveniently look like Earth. The fullness of the space setting, creative sets, costumes, alien makeup, and the fantastic color scheme set this film as far away from others as it is set from them in distance.

What a view though... from all perspectives.

The plot is the one thing you could maybe say was overwhelmed by the dazzling proportions of other things. I wouldn't though -- to me the simplicity of the storyline was refreshing, and it wasn't at all lazy or predictable. Even though it was simple, it was smart; no confusing plot twists, or mind numbing mysteries, but smart and witty, and straightforward, (but not without its share of subtlety or details) and a little rough around the edges. That last one might sound like a bad thing, but it's not really. I am a firm believer that a film's qualities should mirror its heroes', and if there's one thing all the Guardians are together, it's rough around the edges. Unpolished is the exact right consistency, allowing the fun off-the-cuff feel to lead where it may.

The defining aspect of this film though, hands down, is the soundtrack. There's just something about snazzy 70's pop songs playing in background of a full-fledged modern space adventure that defies my capacity for comprehension of its groovy magnificence. And as if its being magnificent wasn't enough, the music is in the movie; we listen along with the characters, and it draws us in closer to the story. It even holds an important place in the narrative and Quill's character. His attachment to the last remnant of his life on Earth -- a Walkman with a mix tape titled "Awesome Mix Vol 1." -- is oddly profound.

Out for revenge. Also, Star-Lord's mask is the coolest thing EVER.

Now I can't very well review a Marvel film without mentioning the action. This isn't typical Marvel action though, because the biggest sequence is actually a spacecraft battle, which evokes thoughts of Star Wars more than a little, and is therefore a good thing, and also because our heroes aren't extremely super-powered, and usually fight like regular people (who are really good at fighting). Drax and Gamora are the best at hand to hand, but there's only one real hand to hand showdown, and it doesn't get much attention. Otherwise they just pummel people in neat ways. Rocket shoots and yells and Groot yells and grows wooden weapons. Interestingly, Quill is least lethal; though he can whack people with random objects with the best of them, his special weapon is diplomacy, which he uses to talk himself and others out of getting killed -- a skill that gets regular good use.

This was my favorite action sequence; it perfectly showcased everyone's strong suit.

It's an overused word, but it applies so well, so I'm going to use it one more time, and bear in mind that I'm not using it lightly: Guardians of the Galaxy is an awesome movie. It has made a star (and Star-Lord) out of a charming goofball who couldn't deserve it more, and made serious, seriously lovable characters out of an angry raccoon and a communicatively challenged plant. It was involving and engaging throughout just by focusing on having fun, and inviting us to join in the adventurous party. The slick sci-fi and the retro are mixed to astonishing perfection. Never too serious, never too flippant. Brilliant comedy. Explosive adventure. Bursting heart. And obvious spoiler alert: the Guardians save the galaxy.

They went all the way; fooled around and I fell in love with their cherry daydream, but I'm not in love, it's even more -- it's an escape with spirit into the sky. They had their doubters, but now things are gonna get easier, cause we want them back, and there ain't no mountain high enough to keep them from coming and getting the love, because (ooga-chaka ooga ooga) I can't stop this feeling, deep inside of me...

I--I-I--I-I'm (bum bum)

Hooked on a feeling (da da-da daa)

I'm high on believing (da da-da daa)

That you're in love with me!

Wreck-it Ralph

Wreck-it Ralph

Being the "bad guy" has never been so popular. You can hardly go wrong as a baddie -- if you're a totally evil psychopath, people love to hate you, and love to see you defeated. If you're misunderstood, or have a sympathetic back-story, people fall in love with you, and wish you over to the good side. Everyone knows who their favorite villain is. Very often they get more attention than the hero. Sometimes they are the hero.

Too bad Ralph (John C. Reilly) doesn't know that. Of course for him, "bad guy" is just his job description. He works inside the video game Fix-it Felix Jr. dutifully wrecking a building so that title character Felix (Jack McBrayer) can fix it again. The other characters in the game, however, don't see it like that. To them, he is the bad guy his job says he is, and that's how they treat him. Ralph is tired of being the bad guy, and wants to fit in with the rest of the characters of his game. Thinking they'll accept him if he had a medal (something Felix is rewarded with at the end of every game) he leaves his game in search of one.

"Ralph raises the roof at a party" or, "Ralph crashes a party." I can't decide...

Such is the premise for this Disney animation, and it holds up well as the plot unfolds. It's a classic plot, so while you might find it a bit familiar, it's tried and true. Safe, but I didn't mind that. The mere fact that it's a movie about video game characters was unique enough for me. But being classic/typical Disney as it is, I can see how its safety (high-quality as it is) could easily land Wreck-it Ralph squarely into that category of movies for some viewers. "'It's great', but it eventually fades from memory." Of course, by the time this movie begins to fade, the sequel will be coming out... oh... smart move there. Anyway, I want to remember it. It made me laugh. In fact, Wreck-it Ralph wins the medal for being the very first movie to make me laugh during a potty humor sequence. Granted, I didn't exactly laugh at the actual potty humor, but still...

The point is, the humor was good, and when it wasn't making me laugh, it was still keeping me amused. And when I wasn't amused I was interested by turning plot points; never ground-breaking, but still thoughtful. And when I wasn't interested in thoughtful plot development, I was being moved by some top-notch character development... for an animated flick at any rate. Ralph's character arc was satisfying, and his relationship with Vanellope - (Sarah Silverman) of the racing game Sugar Rush - was sweet. Pun... unintended, but appropriate.

"Why are your hands so freakishly big?" "I don't know, why are you so freakishly annoying?"

Actors are usually what draws me to a particular movie, but for this movie that wasn't the case, there wasn't anyone I was especially interested in seeing, er, hearing. So when I praise the cast, I do it without bias... Though, after I decided I wanted to see this, I discovered that Alan Tudyk was in it, (playing King Candy) and got pretty excited. Ironically, I then forgot he was in it until after I watched the thing. Still, with my not remembering, he had my favorite line; after someone notes that he must like pink: "Salmon! Sal-- that's obviously salmon."... So, not much bias. With help from a clever and truly funny script, the actors delivered - on more than just punch lines too, though the punch-lines were the best. I also particularly liked Jane Lynch as Sergeant Calhoun, a tough girl from a serious sci-fi shoot-em-up game; she belts out snarky one-liners in her usual style with every breath. And it's epic.

"This is it, ladies! The kitten whispers and tickle fights end now!"

I must mention the animation, because it was pretty wonderful. With the varying arcade characters, the style of animation changed as well, according to the quality and style of the game that character is from - definitely one of my favorite of the tons of little details in the movie. But shiny bells and whistles aside, at game over, Wreck-it Ralph has what it needs; the hallmark message and feel of classic Disney animation, a little bit of retro, a little originality, and a memorable, funny script. All these elements put together, it actually lived up to its potential and turned out to be what it was meant to be; a good movie. And that is not bad. Not bad at all.

-- 3.5/5 stars.

And I must add one more thing; a Owl City/Wreck-it Ralph music video! "When Can I See You Again?" The song plays during the movie credits. It's also very catchy.