Guardians of the Galaxy review

I had heard the name, and the names of some of the characters, but I didn't actually know anything about the Guardians of the Galaxy when the movie was announced. But Marvel was on a roll, and while I wasn't instantly invested the way I am for a movie about characters I already love, I appreciated the willingness to take a risk on lesser-known characters, so I was interested in the movie and hoped it would be good.

I found the film to be very funny, and at times quite touching. It was also very stylish, weaving action and music together into creative spectacles. It had good character work, with a motley crew of rogues who might seem antagonistic at first, but who I liked and cared about by the end.

One thing that I personally really appreciated was, well, the originality of the worlds we were shown. We've had so many superhero movies featuring extraordinary characters in ordinary environments, that watching our protagonists travel across these wonderfully alien worlds was very cool. It was a different type of sci-fi, one I don't see much of these days, and I loved it.

The cast nailed it of course. I think this is the first movie that I enjoyed Chris Pratt in. This was also the first time I saw Bautista showing off his comedic chops. Zoe Saldana and Bradley Cooper were great, and Vin Diesel's performance was surprisingly impactful for how little dialogue he had. Of course there were a lot of other seasoned actors putting in great performances in smaller roles, but I want to specifically call out Peter Serafinowicz as leaving a lasting impression on me.

I give it a solid 8/10. It's a great sci-fi adventure movie that delivers both laughs and feels, and there's nothing wrong with the action either.


This was the film that first brought James Gunn to my attention, he's earned himself a lot of faith in recent years. I also recently discovered that Dan Abnett is one of the credited writers, which is interesting to me because I quite enjoyed some of his novels and comics in the past.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie review

Let me start by saying that I unironically love the old 1993 Super Mario Bros film, so I haven't felt the "need" for a Mario movie as keenly as some. Also, while I played some Mario games as a wee lad, that was a long time ago and I've haven't really played much since then (I've barely touched the Mario Karts, Mario Parties, and Smash games), so my affection for the character is not as great as some.

Because of this, and also because I'm a jaded and joyless old man, I wasn't originally particularly interested in this movie. But I heard good things, so I decided I wanted to catch it while it was still in the local cinemas. I'm glad I did.

The movie avoids most of the many traps that the majority of adaptations seem to suffer from. First and foremost, it doesn't look down on the source material. It's sad that I need to say this, but I feel that so many film adaptations in the last few decades have been made by people who don't really care about the source material and don't bother to try to respect or stay true to it. So I was genuinely surprised to find that this movie really feels like they straight-up brought the games to life.

Part of that is the art style; it's bright, colourful, fun, and consistent with how Mario and his gang have been portrayed for decades. But it's not just the art style that captures the feel of "Mario": the movie just straight up shows worlds that work the way they do in the games. Floating blocks, moving platforms, mushroom people, winged turtles; everything is just there. The movie feels no need to explain anything, and doesn't even dwell too long on characters reacting to the more fantastical elements, which I think was the best way to approach it.

Of course some concessions have been made. Perhaps most immediately noticeable is that the titular brothers have traded the exaggeratedly stereotypical Italian accents they have sometimes sported in the past for more natural-sounding Brooklyn accents. Which I don't have a problem with; actually I'm pretty sure I would have gotten annoyed eventually with the older over-the-top accents if they had stuck with them. The movie does acknowledge the originals, for what that's worth, so it's not like it ignored their existance. And Mario does say his "Mamma Mia!" catchphrase a lot. So I feel it's a fair compromise.

Another change is Princess Peach's traditional role as a damsel in distress. She is shown here as being extremely cool and capable. I'm glad she wasn't there just to be rescued; I don't think anyone wanted to see her like that. I would argue though that they went a bit too far in the opposite direction: Mario almost didn't have anything to do for much of the movie, which is a bad look for the one who's name is on the poster. Also, as is usually the case when a character gets this treatment, she didn't actually have the chance to go through any character development as she was basically too perfect right from the start.

Of course supporting characters don't really need character development, though it's nice when they get it. What's a bit more of an issue is that Mario himself didn't really get any character development either. Oh, the movie kind of pretended that he did, but I didn't really feel like he changed at all over the course of the movie. At the start there was a thing that he wanted, and by the end he got it, but he was still the same person he had been at the start. It didn't ruin the movie, but I feel it was a missed opportunity.

Luigi might actually be the only character who we saw grow. I quite liked how Luigi was written, I think they got him "right" in a way that a most fan creations I've seen don't. But I didn't like how little screen-time he got: he really is pushed to the background for most of the film and doesn't really contribute much overall. It's called "The Super Mario Bros", Luigi deserved better!

I did like how well Bowser was established as a genuine threat. I thought he was quite scary - you know, within the context of the movie. However I didn't really like the way he was written, his motivations and so on, though I guess technically he's not inconsistent with how we've seen him in the original games?

Of course the voice acting was a part of what made the characters feel right. All the cast worked quite well in their roles. Peach might have been the least "traditional" sounding one, but overall her voice worked with her character. I think Jack Black was the only one who's voice I actually recognized, and I only remembered it was him when he was singing. Even knowing who it was, he sounded good as Bowser, so it didn't take me out of things.

Oh, and speaking of singing, I did enjoy some of the "period-appropriate" (read: nostalgic) muscial choices.


For me this movie was a 7/10. Not as deep or emotional as some animated features, but it was a lot of fun, and I think it will be satisfying for Mario fans.




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
At the start of the movie we see Mario step up to a much bigger guy without any hesitation. Throughout the entire movie he takes pretty much all obstacles head-on, no matter what. Peach compliments him on the fact that he never gives up.

Then, for a few seconds near the end, he gives up. Then he shakes it off, and once again steps up to a much bigger guy.

Don't get me wrong, I get it: sometimes you're chugging along full steam, then suddenly you just hit that point where you feel like you can't go on, like you've got nothing left. I understand it. But it doesn't work well in a movie. In movies, things have to be set up, or else they feel contrived. The moment when Mario almost gives up felt like it came out of nowhere. It might not be unrealistic, but it was not consistent with how the character had been established up to that point.

And when he gets over it and gets back in the fight, all he's done is returned to where he was at the start of the movie. There was no growth, no change in character. Mario ends the movie the same as he started, only now he has the thing he initially wanted: respect. Which is fine, but it's not as compelling as a character arc in which a character actually changes. Luigi overcoming his fear in order to save his brother and fight alongside him, for example.


I really liked the scene with Luigi being chased by the skeletons. I found it surprisingly intense for a kids movie, at least these days.


I didn't like that they wrote Bowser as being in love with Peach. I guess I would have preferred if he was trying to kidnap her, or even marry her, as a power-play. A way to help him bring the Mushroom Kingdom under his control; a political marriage/hostage situation. I guess it worked from a story perspective, allowing Bowser to hate Mario in a personal way despite them not actually meeting up face-to-face until the climax. But I still didn't like it, it felt off to me, and it's not how I usually think of Bowser.

On a related note, I didn't like Peach's reaction when Bowser proposed to her. I understand that she hates him, but the way she said "eww"... I dunno, I guess it felt more like she was disgusted by the idea of someone who looked like him? I just found it unpleasant is all. I would have prefered a strongly worded refusal that exhibited defiance, not disgust. Anyway, I just didn't like the whole marriage sub-plot.


Seeing as this is a kids movie based on a VERY old videogame, I was ready to go with things and not worry about questioning stuff like the floating blocks and random powerups or whatever. But at the end of the day the film did have some rather forced contrivances, a few of which I think were maybe a bit much. I don't want to get too carried away nitpicking, but I will mention a few questions I was left with.

First of all, I don't understand that one turtle suddenly turning into a blue shell. What was that? Was it a suicide attack - is the turtle dead now? Could they all do that at any time? That part was a bit weird and took me out of things a bit.

Was the super-star a one-time-use thing? Is it gone forever now?

Bowser's information network seemed to know everything that was going on. Does he have spies among the Mushrooms and Apes? Don't turtles stand out? Does he have locals who are traitors, or are his spies using magic/power-ups to stay hidden/blend into the population?

So the effect of the shrinking mushroom wears off after a single hit? Does that mean Bowser can just slap himself in the face once, or maybe run headfirst into something, and poof: he's back?

Was Peach beating the obstacle course without any powerups? Mario implied that he couldn't jump that high naturally, so in this world humans can't just jump super high? And yet Peach could? There's this crazy obstacle course in the castle, and there's fields full of flowers that let you throw fireballs etc, yet we don't see any Penguin or Mushroom people with any real combat ability? I dunno, I'm having some difficulty resolving how this world works in my head. No big deal, just saying is all.

Peach seems surprised at the idea of turtles that aren't evil. OK, I mean, yes, in games you have X enemy type who is evil etc. But that's... something that's a little harder to get away with these days. I can accept it in an adaptation of an older property, but I do prefer more nuanced approaches to "good vs evil" nowadays. Anyway, it wasn't a big deal for me, just thought it was worth mentioning.

John Wick Chapter 4 review

If you haven't watched chapters one, two, or three, you should obviously watch them all in sequence first. And if you've made it through all three, I assume that means you enjoyed them. And if you enjoyed them, you will absolutely enjoy this one too.

This series has always been about the action. And I will say right off the bat: the action in Chapter 4 is amazing, perhaps the best in the series yet. I quickly lost count of how many really good gunfights, martial arts battles, and mixes of the two this movie has. I enjoyed pretty much all of it, though worthy of special mention are two extended action sequences that I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like before, I absolutely loved them. I would call this movie a must-see for action fans for those two scenes alone.

While the movie is full of action, it does take the time between battles to allow us to enjoy the stylish locations and characterful personalities that fill this world. The atmosphere is great, the heroes are cool and the villains are fun. The world of John Wick is just full of flavour.

Of course it's a great cast bringing that world to life. The movie is so stuffed with talent that Keanu himself doesn't actually get very much to do outside of the action scenes - but of course he really delivers in said action scenes. When he wasn't busy delivering pain to those in need, he was playing the title character in a quiet, introspective fashion. After all John has been through I think the anger is gone, leaving behind a grim determination to see things through.

I was very happy to see the late Lance Reddick again. His role was brief but in that time he delivered one of the most touching scenes of the movie. He will be missed. Of course it helped that he was playing alongside Ian McShane, who brought a sense of class and importance to his scenes. It was also nice to see Laurence Fishburne return to chew up the scenery; he definitely seemed to be enjoying himself.

Donnie Yen might have just stolen the whole movie as the blind hitman Caine; I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he ends up with his own spinoff prequel movie or something. Hiroyuki Sanada is great, I enjoyed him as Shimazu, the last honourable man in the world. Scott Adkins was quite entertaining as the cartoon-villain Killa. Clancy Brown worked well as the ominous Harbinger.

Rina Sawayama brought an intensity to her role as Akira that provided a good contrast to most of the other older, more world-weary characters. I liked Shamier Anderson's mysterious Tracker, he brought a touch of levity to the film. Marko Zaror was physically intimidating as Chidi. Bill Skarsgård was great as primary antagonist the Marquis: pretentious, self-important, and definitely someone you want to see dead.


I do have a couple of complaints about this film. The first is that the movie doesn't really do a good job of establishing John's motivation, what's driving him. This is an issue I've mentioned in previous reviews; after the first film, I just never really felt like I knew what John really wanted. Revenge? Freedom? Simple survival? I couldn't tell you.

My second complaint is not a new one for the series. It's common for action movies to build up an antagonist such that the audience enjoys a sense of satisfaction and closure when they are defeated. Funnily enough I think Chapter 2 was probably the only John Wick film so far to actually pull that off. Sadly Chapter 4 also stumbles here; while the ending was pretty good overall, I personally didn't find the conclusion to the film's main conflict to be all that satisfying.


I'm giving this movie 8/10. I was actually tempted to give it a 9; while it has it's flaws, it's a lot of fun and damn is the action good!




#####SPOILER WARNING#####
In Chapter 3 there was a big battle at the end of the movie where the opponents were armoured, which created gunfights with a different dynamic: just shooting an opponent wasn't enough, John had to either deliver repeated shots to the same area or find ways around the armour, leading to a mix of hand-to-hand combat and gunplay. It was new and interesting, adding to the variety of the action and elevating the challenge.

The first real action scene in Chapter 4 follows on from this, pitting two groups against each other where one side is armoured and so resistant to bullets. This time it didn't work for me as well though; I felt it wasn't obvious how effective any given attack was, and when they got hit or went down it wasn't clear how much damage they had taken and whether they remained a threat or not. It wasn't clear if John Wick was constantly fighting new faceless goons, or the same ones who had gotten back up.

Plus, somehow knives were stabbing right through these bulletproof suits? Overall it was just hard to tell what was going on and the battle, despite having some great choreography and stunts, was leaving me cold. With this being the first real fight of the film, I was starting to feel worried.

Turns out I had nothing to fear. Practically every other action scene was great. The shootout with the dragon's breath shotguns in the old building? Amazing, one of the best action scenes I've ever seen. The big fight between the traffic around the Arc De Triomphe? It was so intense, I loved it. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like those two, but even the slightly less original action sequences were usually still great. The battle up the steps before dawn for example was incredibly tense, and it was agonizing (albeit funny) to see John get knocked all the way back down again. I honestly could not see how he could come back from that, but was desperately hoping that he would.


I danced around this in the main body of the review, but the way the "Table" was built up as this ever-present all-powerful entity, it would be very hard to write the story in such a way that John Wick would be able to take them down himself. And yet that seemed to be exactly the direction that the series was heading ever since John sided with Winston against the Table in the third movie, with Chapter 4 only reinforcing that by showing the Table killing John's remaining friends - or forcing them to turn against him.

But the writers didn't seem to actually have a way for John to take the Table down - it seems to me they pretty much wrote themselves into a corner in Chapter 3 (I'm not surprised; I've complained in previous reviews about how I think the sequels over-exaggerated the criminal underworld, losing their grounding). Instead they created a new figurehead to serve as the proxy antagonist in this film. And yes, I did want him to die. But the thing is, he was never the real antagonist. He was never the one who was really behind it all. His death should always have been just a stepping stone towards ending the Table.

The movie even tells us, straight up, that his death would be meaningless, that the Table could easily replace him. And yet the film ends with his death, presenting as though John had won in the end. But he hadn't: he died to kill a replaceable pawn. That is not a satisfying ending. And with John's death, the goal that he had somehow ended up spending half the film working towards again - earning his freedom by killing the Marquis in a duel, which didn't really make sense to me since he seemed to have moved past that - was nullified. So all John had was the Marquis' death: the exact thing the film told us was meaningless.

Yes, Caine had earned his freedom, that part was satisfying and a big part of why the ending wasn't too bad overall, but remember Caine spent most of the movie as an antagonist, and he killed Shimazu (even if it was against his will). I don't feel sufficiently invested in Caine's happiness for it to be a completely satisfying ending.

OK, Winston got his hotel back. But Winston, much as I like him, is still a supporting character and his happiness is not all that important to me. Plus did betray John at the end of Chapter 3, so him getting his hotel back isn't the payoff I was after either.

And yes, I do believe Winston betrayed John; the argument that "he shot John in the chest even though he knew John was wearing a bulletproof suit" does not hold water with me because:
A) Shooting someone in the head is NOT easy AT ALL, aiming for center of mass is natural and we had no reason to believe Winston had the skill to pull off a quick headshot. On the contrary, he sat in a saferoom drinking while John and Charon fought off the attackers.
B) He shot John OFF THE ROOF; there was no reason for him to believe John would survive, and neither Chapter 3 nor 4 address the issue with any kind of an explanation for why Winston could possibly expect John to survive the fall.

OK, the films didn't expressely state that Winston DID betray John either, theoretically leaving it ambiguous, and John doesn't seem preocupied with revenge against Winston, but... I just can't see any way for Winston to expect John to survive. I'm sorry, but I'm trying to read between the lines, and what I'm reading is that Winston sold John out. Remember that, while Winston had delayed the kill-order against John in Chapter 2, he did ultimately sign it, so he has consigned John to death before.

Oh, did the Bowery King get his... "Bowery" back, or however that works?


I'm very disappointed that we never got to enjoy the death of the Adjudicator from Chapter 3.


Initially I was not sold on John's bulletproof suit; I felt it let him get away with too much, if that makes sense. And it wasn't very realistic, for bullets to just bounce off this thin fabric without doing noticeably harm to the body underneath. But ultimately I think it enabled the action scenes, allowing them to flow in a way that would have felt more forced otherwise. So overall I think it worked.


I guess the film does foreshadow John's death. My friend mentioned a poster in the subway for an anime in which the protagonist dies at the end. Thinking back I seem to recall Caine calling John "brother" at one point; in the Bible of course Caine killed his brother. I noticed in the poster his tie seems to be an hourglass full of bullets; is that trying to tell us the John's time is running out?