Guardians of the Galaxy 2

(warning: contains spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2)

Ahhhh, that difficult second film...
After the surprise runaway hit of Guardians of the Galaxy (3 years ago.  Can you believe that?), Marvel have brought back the eponymous heroes for another film which hits the same high beats as the last one, while not getting drawn into the quagmire of "now we know the audience likes these people, let's bog them down in convoluted backstory and exposition".  The second Avengers film suffered from this ailment, and it's good to see that Marvel have side-stepped this time because this film is just fun. 

Yaaaaaaay!  Kaboom!  Pow!

The film opens with the same confident reliance on Starlord's Awesome Mix Tape (vol.2), and continues in a vein of nostalgia and pop culture references (Pac-Man, David Hasselhoff and Knight Rider to mention but three).  The plot is relatively light (Sovereign Race accept batteries in exchange for Nebula as hostage, Rocket steals batteries, chase ensues.  Meanwhile, Kurt Russell appears as Chris Pratt's estranged father... - yeah, written down that sounds weird)

The pop culture references are interesting ones.  I wonder about contemporary references, because its difficult to know how they will date a film.  If I was watching this film in 20 years time, will I necessarily recall the what is being referred to?  This is less of an issue in this film, because the references are already dated, but current culture is for nostalgia and retro, which may be part of the reason why the reaction to this film has been so joyous.  The opening scenes of the gang fighting over ELO's Mr Blue Sky was as confident and effective as Chris Pratt's dancing introduction to Redbone's Come and Get Your Love in the first film.  The audience reaction to this scene was one of utter delight in the screening I saw.

The main theme, as far as I could tell, was not a new one but it's telling was still engaging.  It was the ongoing struggle of defining what family is - family can be your biological relations, but they can also be the people that you gather around you.  Nature vs nurture.  Fate vs choice.  Biology vs circumstance.  It's a theme that plays out in a number of different ways: Gamora and Nebula are very cagey around each other due to events of the last film (and events of their entire lives together), and they both struggle to acknowledge each other as sisters, but by the end of the film they have tentatively begun to look at ways of changing their relationship with each other.  Starlord explores a relationship with Ego (his biological father), before realising that Yondu had been attempting to parent him throughout his life.  Drax continues to come to terms with the death of his family, and is looking for a replacement.  There are various endeavours to parent Baby Groot - from Gamora's nurturing of him, to Rocket's ill-advised life lessons, to Drax's constant watchfulness of him.  The characters that we already know are developed in small but significant ways as the film progresses.

Hey Baby Groot.  You are going to be very popular in merchandising...

I wasn't particularly convinced by the introduction to new character, Mantis.  An empath who can intuit the emotions of those around her by touch, she adds little to the plot although she did have some nice scenes.  The one where Drax mentioned his deceased family, and Mantis just cries in direct response, was particularly touching.  But short of helping the audience understand the characters a little better (and in no massive way that we wouldn't have guessed on our own), this character needs a little more work (especially given that she sounds pretty cool - read here)

For a film about a group of disparate individuals who are the Guardians of the Galaxy, it seems that the Galaxy doesn't need a lot of guarding.  Half the plot (the pursuit by the Sovereign Race) was an issue entirely of their own making.  That said, this was a welcome relief from the increasingly heavy world of Marvel - no mentions of politics, Infinity Stones, or the "everyone's turning against each other" plot devices of the Avengers crew.  Some films are a meal, and some films are just candyfloss - colourful, inconsequential, but tremendous fun.  Guess which one this is...

Enjoy...

Passengers

(Warning: contains spoilers for Passengers)

If this picture doesn't go here, the thumbnail for the link will be of T2 which would be very confusing.

I wish trailers could develop the art of showing less.  Over the past year (in particular, for some reason), I've seen a joke, an action sequence, a reveal that would have packed a huge punch if I had been watching it "fresh" for the first time, rather than for the 15th because of trailers.  Here are three examples off the top of my head:

1.  Doctor Strange
Chiwetel Ejiofor's character gives Benedict Cumberbatch's a piece of paper with an unfamiliar word on it. 
"Is this my mantra?" wonders Cumberbatch. 
"No," says Ejiofor "it's the Wifi password.  We're not barbarians."
Nice line the first time.  Diminishing returns.

2.  Trainspotting 2
Spud appears to fall off a high rise building in Edinburgh, before being caught by Renton just before he hits the ground.

What I assume to be a beautiful moment of tension, which I'm now anticipating.

3.  Passengers
Jennifer Lawrence tells Michael Sheen that she and Chris Pratt are on a date.  The camera pans down to show that he is an android, human from the waist up, metal from the waist down.

I mention this, because Sheen's entrance in the film is a surprise and confusion.  Pratt's character, Jim, wakes up on the Avalon, a spaceship on a 120-year mission to reach Homestead II where the 5000 passengers and 247 crew will set up their new home.  A computer glitch leads to Jim's hibernation pod awakening him.  He realises he is 30 years into the journey, no one else is awake, and he has no way of going back to sleep.  In his befuddled state he wanders round this state of the art deck seeing no one until he catches sight of Arthur (Sheen), bartending to nobody.  Conversation ensues, and Arthur doesn't give any clues that the situation is anything less than normal.  Until he goes to pour Jim a drink, and we (and Jim) realise that Arthur is not human.  That would have been a great reveal, had the trailers not told me.
"Just don't watch trailers, then" is the obvious solution.  The problem is that trailers are everywhere.  I saw the trailer for this film, for example, during advert breaks on television, before YouTube videos downloaded, at the cinema waiting for other films to start, on giant screens in the middle of city centres.  It was a trailer that was impossible for me to miss.  Conversely, it also made the film intriguing enough that I wanted to watch it.  No win situation.
The flip of this is that I saw the trailer for La La Land repeatedly since August.  I knew it excited me, I knew wanted to see it, I hadn't a clue what it was about. 
Conclusions:
1.  It is possible to give a spoiler free gist of a film to whet the appetite.
2.  For some reason, the majority of film companies don't like this approach.

Back to Passengers.  I'll be honest, I liked this film a lot more than I was expecting to.  The main criticism I had heard about it was it's ethical dilemma, and I was unsure what to make of it myself.  Jim, after a year by himself, happens upon the hibernation pod of Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence).  He likes the look of her, reads her files and profiles, and then spends a considerable amount of time wrestling with the decision of whether to wake her too and condemn her to the same lonely death as him.  It's not a decision taken lightly, the tipping point coming when Jim finds himself considering suicide.  It is not good for man to be alone.  He wakes her.  I understand that there's been some criticism of this decision.  There are arguments that it's a "bit stalkery" at best, or another example of a man exerting his authority over a passive woman.  I don't think it's an issue because I think the film resolves it. 

Aurora and Jim have a really good time together, until she discovers what he has done and goes berserk.  She challenges what he has done, physically attacks him, and refuses to engage with him further, thus condemning him back to his lonely life.  And for Jim's part?  He agrees with her.  He accepts her response.  He doesn't even try to explain what he's done.  He knows it was - for want of a better phrase - an assault, and not her choice.  He knows he was wrong.  Horrible circumstances led him to make a horrible choice, which has horrible consequences for her - but I think this film and these characters come to resolution about this, which does not excuse his actions.

Yeah, the reason is that you woke her up.
Idiot.

Overall, it's an interesting film and not (in my opinion) deserving of the criticism it got.  It poses a number of interesting questions and ideas - what would you do in similar circumstances, how AI is almost human (but not quite), can anything actually replace human interaction?  Worth seeing, and (as with most space films) worth seeing on a big screen.


Additional thoughts, comments and questions.
1.  The division in passenger types is an interesting gimmick.  Jim is a discounted passenger who can have basic amenities because he has paid for a lower ticket.  Even in his year by himself, he cannot access any of the higher class passenger amenities.

2.  The spaceship malfunctions and tried to kill them.  This seems to happen a lot with spaceships in films.  Maybe we stay on Earth, people.

3.  How well would any of us do if left without company for a year.  Not very well, according to this study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/people-would-rather-be-electrically-shocked-left-alone-their-thoughts