Director Report Card: James Gunn (2023)

6. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

James Gunn's career continues to defy expectations. The guy who got his start making movies at Troma, who then directed two box office failures full of gore and antisocial behavior, directing two mega-budget Marvel superhero movies about an obscure, weird team of characters was unlikely. That he got fired by Disney over a troll campaign was even crazier, immediately leading to him getting picked up by Marvel's biggest rival in the superhero movie business. Gunn was then handed the keys to the entire DC Universe, going full-steam ahead with a slate-wide reboot. You'd expect that to be the end of his relationship with Disney. Yet even the otherwise mercenary Mouse House must've recognized that Gunn's sensibilities were an important part of the success of the "Guardians of the Galaxy" series. They hired him back long enough to finish the story he started. And while superhero movies in general haven't been doing great this year, "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3" has still been acknowledged as the highlight of 2023's capeshit line-up.

Following the events of "Endgame," and having his beloved Gamora killed and replaced by a variant from a different timeline, Peter Quill is depressed. The leader of the Guardians of the Galaxy has been drinking while his teammates turn Knowhere into a proper city state. That's when a super powerful jerk named Adam Warlock flies out of the sky and body slams Rocket. Warlock is there under the orders of the High Evolutionary, a cosmic mad scientist obsessed with building perfect beings and worlds. The Evolutionary created Rocket and he wants his brilliant brain back to fine-tune his latest planet. He also built a copy protection into Rocket's body, preventing the Guardians from healing him. Thus, the team goes on another intergalactic quest to confront the High Evolutionary and save their friend. Along the way, they get back in touch with the Gamora that isn't theirs. 

What makes James Gunn an auteur, in a superhero movie landscape that runs on for-hire directors, is his need to revisit themes again and again in his movies. The "Guardians" films, "The Suicide Squad," "Peacemaker," and even parts of "Super" is the idea of misfits, people who have done awful things and believe themselves unworthy of forgiveness, coming together with other misfits to form improvised family. In its third volume, the "Guardians" story has fully embraced this element. Here, the Guardians are driven by their mutual love for Rocket and a desire to save him. All throughout, the characters call each other friends and family. They talk about love repeatedly. They bicker constantly but always come back together. The sequel's most touching moments are some of its smallest. Such as the ever-blunt Mantis erasing Drax's memory after admitting she thinks he's dumb. The always stoic Nebula breaking into tears upon learning Rocket is okay. Groot embracing his friends by extending his tendrils all the way around him. These moments are only meaningful because they re-enforce the ideas built upon in the previous movies. "Vol. 3" has earned the right to be sappy, because Gunn and his team have taken their time to develop these guys, to let us understand where they are coming from and why they act like this. They put in the work, so a climatic sequence of everyone saying they love each other is exactly as powerful as it should be and not insincere sentiment. 

Throughout the previous appearances of the Guardians of the Galaxy, we've gotten a pretty good idea of where everyone came from... Except for Rocket. The trilogy capper delves into the back story of the team's cantankerous raccoon mechanic. And it's a story full of vivisection, agonizing torture, cruel experiments, and loosing the only friends you've known. The film smartly cuts back and forth between the present story, of the gang trying to save Rocket, and his own recollections of this early life. This structure smartly keeps us hooked to both narratives, eager to see how Rocket got to be this way and whether or not he has a future. It also keeps the incredibly depressing backstory from dragging down the pacing too much, as fun action scenes and comedic dialogue are spaced between the weightier flashbacks.

Earlier this year, some questioned whether including such a violent, traumatic backstory in a film that had Happy Meal tie-ins was wise. Yet the severity of Rocket's origins tells an important story about empathy. In order for every misfit to be accepted into the Guardians' fold, it means overcoming your initial judgement of someone and understanding where they came from. You see this play out in Adam Warlock's subplot, who learns to treat other living things with respect by bonding with a fuzzy, dog-like space critter. That it's an animal that changes Adam's heart is important, as "Guardians 3" is a movie ultimately about extending empathy to animals. This is why the creatures that suffer the High Evolutionary's cruelest, most casual tortures are animals. It's why Mantis reaches out a loving hand to a fearsome monster late in the plot. It's why the film's climax centers around rescuing a whole horde of animals. It's even why the jokiest of story threads is about Cosmo, the psychic Soviet space mutt, begging for forgiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if this blockbuster flick turned some people into vegetarians. 

If animal rights is the main thing on Gunn's mind with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” it's clearly not the only thing. The intentions become apparent when he has the movie's villain refer to one of its heroes, the raccoon that motivates much of the plot, as his “intellectual property.” Gunn got fired from the franchise he made so successful and so singularly his own. In that brief interim, Disney threatened to bring in another filmmaker to film the script he had already written. High Evolutionary wants to cut out Rocket's brain and use it to make his other creations “better,” which also can't help but make you wonder if Gunn is commenting on how his style has largely been grafted to other Marvel properties, like “Thor” and “Ant-Man.” Considering how critical so many people are of Disney/Marvel's role in forging our modern age of “IPs” and “content,” this thread line throughout “Guardians 3” feels very much like Gunn is biting the hand that feeds him a bit.

But maybe that's giving the guy too much credit. The filmmaker clearly has, and continues to have, no problem working with recognizable brands. Yet Gunn's relationship with properties like Marvel and DC has always been more melancholic than many of his contemporaries. Once again, the director and his team finds something meaningful in the nostalgic, pop culture debris that litters his hero's life. Star-Lord, as always, decorates his living quarters with reminders of his youth, like ALF stickers. When the team arrives at Counter-Earth, it's modeled after America in the 1970s. Seeing a suburban neighborhood, outfitted with retro cars and fashion, populated with mildly grotesque humanoid animals causes Quill's reflection on his childhood – and our own cultural fascination with our recent past – to be seen in a new light. Maybe the past wasn't so idyllic. Maybe it was just as strange as the world is today.

While there's been lots of complaints about the generic cinematography and forgettable CGI effects, the “Guardians” movies have always been a cut above. This continues to be true in the third installment. Gunn, clearly a lover of practical creature effects, packs the movie full of as much physical costumes and sets, as well as weird make-up jobs, as possible. The half-human, half-animal residents of Counter Earth are brought to life through lovingly grotesque practical make-up effects. The vampire bat family or little goat girl the Guardians meet look more like realistic fusions of animals and people than cute, marketable stuffed toys. The true visual centerpiece of the movie is when the heroes infiltrate the High Evolutionary's corporate headquarters, a space station made of organic matter. A giant tumor-like structure floating through space or security guards wearing armor that resembles bubbly crab shells are the kind of highly imaginative visuals I don't always expect from our modern comic book movies. Gunn embraces the weird side of the Marvel universe to great effect here. 

The High Evolutionary proves to be a fascinating villain too. He presents the exterior of someone totally under control, determined to show only his most civilized side to the world. Yet that mask often cracks, such as when he comes crawling to Rocket's cage in the middle of the night, practically in tears from desperation. Or any time he displays his God-like sway over his creations, clearly relishing his power over them. Chukwudi Iwuji nicely balances these two sides. The obsession with becoming a God-like creator stems from the Evolutionary's belief that there is no god. And he intends to fill that role. He sees the universe as a chaotic, ungainly mess that has grown out of control. He intends to take it apart and put it back together into something he deems perfect, even if it means he has to destroy everything and start over again repeatedly. It's the kind of villainous motivation that is clearly at odds with the ethos of these films, which follow outsiders and misfits that clearly wouldn't fit into such an idealized worldview. 

The villain's desire to fill the void left by a non-existent god isn't a viewpoint necessarily reflected by the film around him. What role the divine plays in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has never exactly been defined, if the possible exception of "Eternals." "Guardians Vol. 3" doesn't definitively provide any answers... Yet it suggests there's a life beyond. While at the point of death, Rocket is reunited with his loved ones. He's told that his story isn't over yet. That there's more for him to do among the living. This is well-trotted narrative trope but, in a film so concerned with whether a higher power exists and what role they serve, it's an especially meaningful scene. The exact existence of God isn't answered but the script does decide that we mortals have a purpose, that there is more to life than our physical existence.

That "Guardians Vol. 3" looks towards the afterlife is fitting. This is a film all about endings, including that ultimate ending of death. This manifests in the literal sense, of Rocket confronting the trauma of the first family he ever had dying and finally learning to move pass that agony. It's answered in a more figurative sense, of Peter mourning the death of his and Gamora's love, of learning to move beyond that loss. Ultimately, as the film moves towards an ending that brings this particular trilogy to a conclusion, this message extends to us, the viewer. We have to move on from these characters too, the film bringing their journeys to a far different place than they began in. Even if, as everything does in this cinematic universe, the story must go on in some way. But it's clear that, at the very least, James Gunn has finished telling his story with these characters.

It's probably for the best that the "Guardians of the Galaxy" saga has come to an end, strictly from a practical perspective. These are ensemble movies and the ensemble has gotten bigger with every installment. Somehow, "Vol. 3" manages to stay focused on moving its story forward while still giving everyone something to do. Star-Lord gets a juicy arc of overcoming his grief over Gamora's loss, while still giving Chris Pratt a chance to show off the easy-going charm that made the character a fan favorite in the first place. Zoe Saldana essentially plays a different character, allowing Ganora to be far gruffer and more of a rogue than ever before. The script builds some wonderful interactions between Dave Bautista's Drax and Pom Klementoff's Mantis, the two's oddball comic energy enlivening quite a few smaller moments. Such as when they infiltrate OrgoCorp or the way Drax proves himself to be surprisingly useful in the last act. I guess the truth is we love these guys by now. The cast and crew has such a sturdy grasp on who they are and how they work within this group. Watching them play off each other and be themselves is still a delight, because they've been crafted with such care. It allows the movie to have moments of hugs emotion, enormous action set pieces, and little jokes about car doors or couches. 

It's a big galaxy. The film even manages to find time for cameos from Sylvester Stallone. One of the joys of this series is that each corner is filled with something weird or interesting, like a guy with a carrot for a head, a henchmen being a hideous pig monster, or Nathan Fillion as a grumpy security guard. Among the new additions, Rocket's extended family of hideously mutilated animal friends are the most touching. Lyla the Otter, Teefs the Walrus, and Floor the ugly bunny monster all prove to be so lovable and fully realizes in such a limited amount of screen time. If any new additions to the cast doesn't totally work, it's Will Poulter as Adam Warlock. Adam Warlock is a pivotal character on the cosmic side of Marvel Comics. Poulter's version, a superpowered man-child with a limited understanding of the world, doesn't resemble the 616 counterpart much. In a film with so many characters and so many moving parts, Warlock comes off as something of an afterthought. His character arc, of learning empathy through a cuddly dog-thing, isn't as well realized as the other cast members. Poulter is funny in the part. Yet this ultimately feels like a character included more because the last movie's post-credit scene promised him and less because he was necessary to the story. 

As much as Gunn is focused on telling his heartfelt story with these oddball stories amid a wide, cosmic canvas, these are still superhero movies. There are certain action movie expectations to fulfill. The same imagination that powers the movie's sci-fi universe is on display in its action scenes. Groot sprouting wings after Star-Lord takes a dive from the villain's command ship proceeds an impressive shoot-out. A fluid action sequence has the entire time ripping through a hallway of enemies, sometimes rather literally, while the Beastie Boys blare on the soundtrack. The unique powers of the Guardians are nicely utilized throughout, such as Craglin mastering Yondu's magic arrow or Mantis using her empathetic abilities to distract her opponents. There's lots of explosions and space debris but the film is determined to make each one count. 

At this point, the “Guardians of the Galaxy's” soundtracks are as important to the movies as any of the writing or directorial decisions. The "Awesome Mixtape Vol. 3" selection is more eclectic than previous collections, owing in-universe to Quill upgrading to a Zune. The songs are pulled from multiple decades of pop history, providing a wider soundscape for the film. The opening choice, of an acoustic version of "Creep," takes us right inside the melancholy and isolation Rocket feels every day. Later on, the raccoon sings along to The The's "This is the Day," providing a more hopeful sense of introspection. Overall, the mood here is a lot more contemplative, with the dreamy reflection of Flaming Lips' "Do You Realize?" being a typical example of the general feel the soundtrack provides. Spacehog's "In the Meantime" got the highly promoted trailer spot, which was a fitting choice as the song's astral quality suits the cosmic setting. Which isn't to say there aren't plenty of upbeat tracks. Several bursts of propulsive pop music energy is provided by classic songs by Heart and Rainbow. The best action beat in the movie is set to "No Sleep 'til Brooklyn," which couldn't be a better combination of visuals and music. Probably my favorite needle drop is a deep cut from Alice Cooper, a sweeping but mildly sinister track that pairs fantastically with the introduction of the darker side of Counter Earth. Overall, it seems Peter Quill has gotten pretty into alt rock and post-punk, as the Replacements, the Mowgli's, and X all put in appearance.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is clearly on the downslope in 2023, so it's hard to say what role with superhero movies will play in the near future of American blockbuster films. Yet, as we look back on this moment in pop culture history, it's clear that Gunn's "Guardians" movies will stand out from the rest of the pack. They've always been more personal, more heartfelt, and more singular than the rest of the caped lot. "Vol. 3" is as bold as the others, in some ways a more thematically ambitious and character driven experience than the other two while sacrificing none of the crowd pleasing theatrics we expect from movies of this statute. If this truly is the last time we'll see these characters, at least together like this, it's a good note to take them out on. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: John Landis (1991)

12. Oscar

In the late seventies and early eighties, John Landis directed several classic films. Then he indirectly killed three people. His career rightly took a hit after that but he still managed to finish out the decade with one more definite classic and a few mildly funny films with small cult followings. However, at the start of the nineties, he would direct “Oscar.” This is a movie that would fail with both critics and  audiences. Afterwards, Landis' name would become attached to more and more flops in the coming years. As we look back on his career as a whole, one can't help but wonder: Is “Oscar” that bad? Did it deserve to fail so soundly and begin its director's (perhaps deserved) tumble from the A-list?

Angelo “Snaps” Provolone is one of the most notorious gangsters in 1930s Chicago. As his father lays dying, he makes Angelo promise him that he'll go straight. Several weeks later, Provolone has committed to the decision to end his criminal activities and become a banker. In the course of one day, his life begins to get very complicated. An accountant working for him says he's been stealing from him and that he wants to marry his daughter. Angelo forbids it but his daughter, Lisa, then tells him she's pregnant. (Which is actually a lie, a scheme to get her out of house.) It turns out the accountant isn't in love with Angelos's actual daughter, but another girl who claimed the gangster was her father. Lisa's actual boyfriend, and the presumed father of her non-existent child, is Oscar, Snaps' chauffeur that recently enlisted in the military. This is just the beginning of the screwball entanglements that overtake Provolone's life on this very confusing day.

On paper, John Landis is a reasonable choice to direct a movie like “Oscar.” The film is a throwback to two genres that were popular in the thirties. That would be the screwball comedy, that type of film were goofy misunderstandings pile up in a zippy fashion, the characters constantly having to deal with more contrived silliness. This type of humor is mashed-up with the classic gangster movie, where rough customers in fedoras and fancy suits brandish Tommy gangs and speak in a particular slang. Landis is, of course, a scholar of classic cinema and has shown himself more than capable of emulating vintage film styles. While it's not the greatest joke ever told, contrasting tough guy gangsters with increasingly wacky comedy could lead to laughs.

Something, however, is off. From its opening minutes, “Oscar” informs us that it's a live action cartoon. The film's opening credits play over a stop-motion animated image of an opera singer. Elmer Bernstein's score continues this motif, playing an increasingly frenzied and obnoxious version of “The Barber of Seville” throughout the rest of the movie. The script piles on the contrivances, Angelo's day getting more hectic and more unexpected miscommunications coming his way. Yet the energy so vital to screwball comedy, the breathless zippiness that makes these kind of stories amusing, is missing. Without that sensibility, “Oscar” comes off as more manic and annoying than funny.

“Oscar'” characters are utterly cartoonish too and that is part of the problem. In the best screwball comedies, we relate to and like the characters. The events around them may be nuts and out-of-control but the protagonist are always understandable. In “Oscar,” everyone is wacky. “Snaps” Provolone is pulled between his past as a rumbling gangster and his future as a legitimate businessmen, the two not correlating. His various employees and henchmen are all equally exaggerated stereotypes of old-timey gangsters. His wife is fiery to the point of ridiculousness. The daughter is a bundle of impulsive teenage desires. So on and so forth. There's no “in” into “Oscar's” world, all the characters being too outrageous to relate to or understand.

Further causing laughs to elude “Oscar” is its frequently weak excuse for screwball antics. The movie seems enamored of lame running gags. Throughout its opening half-hour, Angelo is repeatedly called away to new meetings because it's “a matter of life and death.” In hopes of maintaining his new serious image, he repeatedly asks his mobster henchmen not to refer to him as “boss.” More times than I count, a bag that is supposed to contain jewels is overturned, only for ladies' underwear to fall out instead. Even without the limp execution, these probably wouldn't be gut busters. A running gag has to make the audience laugh the first time for it make them laugh on repeat visits, a simple fact “Oscar” can't seem to grasp. 

As I overlook my notes for “Oscar,” I find the movie made me laugh exactly twice. The first occurs after Angelo has told his accountant that the men fitting him for a suit are vicious hitmen. As they proceed to brag about their clothing business, the man assumes they are talking about murder instead. The conversation with two meanings is a reliable gag and it's well executed here, one of the few times “Oscar” builds successfully on the information it has set up before. If that seems unimpressive, the second laugh is even more underwhelming. It occurs when Angelo grabs a chicken leg from his right-hand man, mistaking it for a gun. I can only assume that made me laugh because the image of Sylvester Stallone posing with a  drumstick like it's a pistol is mildly amusing.

At the time of its release, much of the disdain that greeted “Oscar” was directed at its star. One must consider where “Oscar” appeared in Sylvester Stallone's career to understand this. Sly was one of the biggest movie stars of the eighties. The excesses of films like “Rambo III” and “Tango and Cash” were still recent memories. As the eighties started to fade, and cynical Gen-X sarcasm started to dominate the new decade, these kind of over-the-top action fantasies were starting to look rather ridiculous. Perhaps Stallone recognized this and decided to make the leap to intentional comedy. Critics, who rarely liked Stallone's turn towards campy action theatrics, were ready to attack. Mass audiences weren't ready to except the shift in Stallone's persona. (It's notable that his biggest hits that decade were “Cliffhanger” and “Demolition Man,” far more traditionally Stallonian spectacles.) This was after “Rocky V” flopped as well, meaning blood was already in the water.

Yet the truth is, Stallone is the least of “Oscar's” problems. After all, Sly could be very funny in his action movies. And it's not like a grumbly gangster is outside of the guy's wheelhouse either. “Oscar” even has the right idea, to largely utilize Stallone as a straight man against the wackier supporting cast. Yet in a world where everyone is ridiculous, “Snaps” Provolone has to be a very goofy character too. That kind of exaggerated clowning around is a harder fit for Sly, who doesn't seem entirely comfortable when performing with broad gags. (Such as when one of his enforcers removes a growing number of weapons from his jacket, a joke better suited to a Z.A.Z. style parody.) At the very least, “Oscar” doesn't resort to humiliating its star the way “Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot!” did, the even bigger comedy misfire Stallone would star in the next year.

What's stranger about the lack of laughs in “Oscar,” or how off-putting many of its characters are, is how utterly stacked the supporting cast is. There's a lot of actors in this movie that are funny people. Tim Curry plays Angelo's foppish dialect couch. Harry Shearer is one of the suit makers. Don Ameche is a priest, Kurtwood Smith is a cop spying on “Snaps,” and Marisa Tomei is the impulsive daughter. Yvonne De Carlo and Arleen Sorkin have smaller parts. Some of these performers even come close to being funny. Tim Curry is always a welcomed presence and attacks his painfully unfunny dialogue with enough gusto that it almost makes it funny. The same could be said with Smith, who is very good at reacting with bafflement to the things happening around him. (“Oscar” probably would've been funnier if it had been about those cops, honestly.) Tomei is entertaining, even if the material she's given is too wretched to be funny. The script just lets them all down.

“Oscar” is, in fact, not the first time this material was approached. The movie is a remake of a 1967 French film of the same name, which was itself adapted from a stage play. Those stage bound roots are still obvious. Much of the movie takes place in only a few in-door locations, with most of the scenes being devoted to characters talking to one another. Maybe that's part of the problem too. John Landis' films were once extremely well edited and directed, the visual presence of the film contributing to the comedy. The energy required to make zaniness of this level work is at odds with “Oscar's” built-in staginess. And Landis could have done more to make the material more cinematic.

Then again, I don't know how plugged into his films John was at this point in his career. The trademarks that define his best films – a sarcastic disregard for authority, likable bonds between male characters – are almost totally absent here. A group of greedy bankers, one of which is played by William “Dickless” Atheron, is mocked throughout several senses. If that was a bigger part of the movie, I might be able to credit “Oscar” with some anti-authority subtext. But it's really not. As for the bromances, everyone in “Oscar” is so exaggerated, you can't recognize much human emotion. Worst yet, nobody even says “See you next Wednesday!”

At the beginning of this review, I asked if “Oscar” was as bad as its reputation implies. The movie isn't really aggressively bad. It's more mediocre than anything else, with potentially funny moments and characters badly mishandled by an off-center tone. It's certainly a little less embarrassing than some of Stallone's other misfires. Then again, what bigger crime can a comedy commit than not being funny? As with some of Landis' other flops, the director has expressed some fondness for the film. (Though he also noted that Al Pacino was originally intended to star, yet I can't imagine that would have made the movie much better.) I can't share those feelings, as so much about the movie just doesn't work. [Grade: C-]

Director Report Card: James Gunn (2017)

4. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

It feels weird to refer to anything from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a billion dollar success story and the most profitable franchise in cinematic history, as “risky.” Yet the original “Guardians of the Galaxy” really did seem like a weirder, nerdier superhero film when it was first announced. That it would become a huge hit and one of the MCU’s hottest titles shows the quality of the first one and how savvy Disney’s marketing is. Thus, the sequel was hotly anticipated and work started on a part two quickly. The studio’s confidence in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” was evident when it received the plum first Friday in May release date, generally regarded as the kick-off to summer movie season. Audiences ate it up again, James Gunn’s unlikely ascent to the Hollywood A-list being ensured.

In the months since the end of the first “Guardians of the Galaxy,” Peter Quill and his make-shift family has only grown more renowned. The Guardians are hired by the Sovereign, a haughty alien empire, to protect some special batteries. When Rocket instead steals the batteries, they are pursued by the Sovereign. A strange man appears to save the Guardians, whose ship is still destroyed in the attack. The man introduces himself as Ego, a living planet, and Star-Lord’s long-lost father. Peter – accompanied by Gamora, Drax, and Ego’s assistant Mantis – is taken to Ego’s world and discovers his destiny... Which is not what he expected. Meanwhile, Rocket forms an uneasy alliance with Yondu and Nebula seeks out her sister.

If the first “Guardians” was about a group of heartbroken oddballs finding solace with each other, the sequel is about the cost of that make-shift family. Rocket’s irresponsible and selfish actions kick off most of the story, the cast learning to forgive him – and Rocket forgiving himself for his self-destructive actions – is the story’s emotional core. If Peter Quill was still grappling with the death of his mother in the first film, here, he’s faced with his father and a troubling legacy. He has to grapple with the difference between the perfect father fatherless sons imagine and the grim reality... Before accepting the easily overlooked truth in front of him. This theme, forgiveness and acceptance among make-shift families, extends to every subplot. The idea is solidified with an ending scene where infant-like Baby Groot, the youngest member of the Guardians family, passes between everyone’s arms, embracing each of them.

If what Gunn has said about his own childhood is any indication, “Vol. 2” is an even more personal film than the first. Yet it also has a similar issue with having to juggle a lot of characters, each with their own subplots and history. “Guardians 2” is a heavily plotted movie, with four or five story threads viewers have to keep track of. It’s also a movie of divergent tones, whipping from wacky comedy to comic book action to quirky drama. That the movie still works extremely well is a testament to its quality. “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” comes dangerously close to shaking apart at times but somehow holds everything together in a very pleasing way.

Yet the wider scope does allow for Gunn to indulge in even more cosmic weirdness this time around. This is a mainstream blockbuster where the main antagonist is a living planet, after all. I guess if audiences accepted a tree and a raccoon as lovable characters, that's not any more outrageous. Ego only becomes a more odd character as we learn more about him, Kurt Russell's body being blown apart and reforming on camera. A giant brain puts in an appearance, along with tentacles of energy and huge, rocky faces. The Ravagers get an expanded role, the weird and ugly space-mercenaries getting even more screen time. Over the course of the film, we visit the genetically perfected world of the Sovereign and a pleasure planet occupied by robot prostitutes. When Star-Lord says “I”m going to make some weird shit” at one point, you can almost imagine Gunn saying the same thing to the Disney execs.

The film's far-out comic book concepts and outrageous humor cross over clearly in one sequence. In order to reach Ego as quickly as possible, Rocket passes Yondu's ship through fifty star-gates. This results in everyone's faces distorting wildly as they scream in agony. (That's also where Stan Lee's cameo, confirming a popular fan theory about the Watchers, is dropped.) The sequel certainly doesn't back from the original's ribald and referential humor. There's a running gag about Drax's nipples after all. There's a long, hilarious discussion about Ego's penis. One scene has Baby Groot retrieving a series of more unlikely items. A similar and even funnier moment has the big battle pausing so Star-Lord can ask around for a piece of tape. That seem irrelevance is evident in small but very successful gags, like Ayesha's royal carpet roller getting stuck for a minute. Some of the gags, like that revolving around a unripened space fruit, are so absurd they almost don't work. As with the first film, Gunn manages to make pop culture more meaningful. He derives pathos from a David Hasselhoff shout-out, turns Pac-Man into a crowdpleaser, and makes a Mary Poppins homage a delightfully sweet moment.

If “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” is densely plotted, with an overly large cast, the film was obviously aware of it. In order to balance an ensemble that is sometimes pushed in too many directions, Gunn thinks of a pretty orderly solution. The film largely pairs up its various characters in teams of two. Rocket and Yondu are teamed together for long portions of the story. Drax and Mantis end up bonding in unexpected ways. Gamora and Nebula meet up, their sisterly rival rising to a different level. This leaves Star-Lord and Ego to drive most of the plot's major beats. It's a smart decision, the movie compartmentalizing its large cast, keeping thing orderly, preventing some of the unsteady screenwriting that was present in the first.

James Gunn has said Rocket is the member of the Guardians he relates the most too. In light of recent actions, you can't help but see some parallels, in the way that Rocket's self-loathing manifests in him pushing his loved ones with bad decisions. His pairing with Yondu seems odd at first. The film does an extraordinary thing where it manages to clarify Rocket's flaws and his connection with Yondu through one monologue. That moment, where Yondu lays out his own past, is among the film's most emotional. It's also a display for Michael Rooker's acting. Rising from a small supporting role, Rooker turns the space-redneck into a surprisingly parental and sincere person.

Another lovable addition to the cast is Pom Klementieff as Mantis. An insectoid empath, Klementieff makes Mantis a lovably innocent character. Unacquainted with social interaction and human emotion – which has been largely interpreted as a metaphor for being on the spectrum – Mantis is adorable. This is a source of comedy, such as the way she bluntly explains her powers, but also for pathos. This is most clear in her unlikely pairing with Drax. Dave Bautista's ability for deadpan comedy is utilized even more this time. Yet there's also a stillness to his performance. Such as the brilliant moment where, when talking about his deceased wife and daughter, Mantis – who experiences emotions through tactile connection – touches his shoulders. She breaks down in tears but Drax, who has lived with this pain for years, simply stares off at the sun.

In the previous film, Gamora and Nebula's subplot was the only clunker. Freed of having to set up Thanos, who is referenced here but never seen, the relationship between the sisters can be focused on. Nebula grows from a typical supervillain to another wounded soul, someone traumatized by her psychotic upbringing at Thanos' hands, who resents the better loved sister. In fact, Nebula – performed by a hard-as-nails Karen Gillain, who growls most of her dialogue – eventually emerges as an unlikely member of the team. How she makes peace with Gamora near the end is especially sweet. Zoe Saldana still works best when bouncing off other characters. Such as the scenes, comedic and romantic, she shares with Peter.

In recent years, Marvel took steps to fix their perceived lack of good villains. Kurt Russell's Ego would prove to be another quality bad guy. Russell is immensely likable, of course. He's the kind of dad any boy would want, ruggedly masculine but also funny, wise, and sensitive. That's the exact kind of charm Russell has built his entire career on. This is, of course, before the extent of Ego's villainy is revealed. His plot – expand his existence to planets all over the galaxy, wiping out millions of lives – is standard comic book evil. Yet Russell and the film makes sure to clarify Ego's humanity. He's motivated by very relatable emotions. He doesn't want to be alone. He wants his life to have meaning. As Quill turns on him, as his plot falls apart, he's even shown fearing death in a very human way.

As Star-Lord, Chris Pratt still mostly plays the part as a quibbing man-child, though his pain and insecurities are still close to his chest. In order to disguise the Ego twist, Elizabeth Debicki's Ayesha was reported as the film's main villain. That wouldn't have been as interesting, though Debicki is pretty good as a regal alien with a carefully constructed outward attitude. A veneer which falls apart more and more as the Guardians continuously stymie her plans. Sean Gunn, the director's brother, gets a bigger role as Yondu's right hand man, Kraglin. In fact, Gunn even gets a few moments of genuine emotion to himself, with a well-placed cry of remorse. Another secondary villain is Taserface, played as fantastically unaware of his own ridiculousness by Chris Sullivan.

While the characters and comedy are the main reason to see “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” it is a big budget action movie. And a pretty good one at that. The opening fight with the rainbow spewing interdimensional beast is well executed, concluding with the delirious shot of Drax slashing away at the beast's inside. The chase through a quantum asteroid field, another really crazy idea, is satisfyingly intense. Since it was so cool last time, we get a longer sequence devoted to Yondu taking out tons of dudes with his magic arrow. In its final act, “Vol. 2” becomes a bit excessive with its CGI action. In the interior of Ego's planet, there's lots of energy blasts and rocky tentacles. It all becomes a bit too much, though it is certainly never hard to follow.

After the chart-topping success of the original, Gunn admitted that there was some pressure on him to replicate the success of the first film's soundtrack. There aren't as many crowd-pleasing hits here. Glenn Campbell, Sam Cooke and “Lake Shore Drive” don't make as much of an impression on the viewer. However, Gunn still makes great use of some numbers here. The dance party opening of ELO's “Mr. Blue Sky” perfectly captures the effervescent joy of Baby Groot. The team separating and Quill going off with Ego is cut around the percussion and bass of “The Chain” brilliantly. The same can be said of “Come a Little Bit Closer,” an unlikely number to score Yondu's massacre of his former team to. But the best use of songs in the film belong to “Brandy” by Looking Glass, a bit of cheese reclaimed as an emotional checkpoint for the hero, and Cat Steven's “Father and Son.” That last one is on the nose but, fuck it, it works fantastically.

Gunn clearly loves playing in this corner of the Marvel Universe. In fact, he might love it a little too much. While “Guardians Vol. 2” is steady in its story focus, the film does go a little over-the-top with the sequel hooks. The film introduces most of the original 1969 Guardians of the Galaxy team as Yondu's original Ravagers team. It casts well-known actors like Sylvester Stallone, Michelle Yeoh, and Ving Rhames in the parts, so the audience is certain these guys are important. The subplot with the Sovereign serves its purpose but was likely chosen to set up the next movie's antagonist, who happens to be a major player in cosmic Marvel history. None of this stuff bugs me. In fact, I think it's all pretty fun. Yet it's also a largely inessential addition to a story that stood well enough without all this stuff.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” on account of being a sequel, doesn't have the exact freshness of the original. While it is flawed, it might also be a better written and structured film than the first. Regardless of where it stands in your ranking of Marvel movies, the sequel is still an absolute delight. The cast is having a ball, it's hilarious, hugely imaginative, and an effectively emotional motion picture. It has all the stuff I go to movies for and a dancing tree baby. Gunn continuous to make hugely ambitious and highly personal art even within the realm of 200 million dollar superhero movies. [Grade: A-]

I had to re-write the end of this Director Report Card a few days before I started posting. For a while there, it seemed like Disney kicked James Gunn out of the director's chair for "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3," following alt-right trolls acting in bad faith and digging up some tasteless Twitter jokes Gunn made ten years ago. This threw the third "Guardians" film into crisis, Disney pulling it from its future release schedule. Some members of the cast considered walking. Some wondered if the movie itself was basically cancelled. In the turmoil, Gunn seemed to jump ship, waltzing over to Marvel's Distinguished Competition to direct the "Suicide Squad" sequel/reboot.

Instead, a week or two ago, it was announced that Disney re-hired Gunn to make "Guardians Vol. 3" again. Apparently, he had been quietly re-hired quite a while ago, the official announcement being held off until the controversy died down a bit. Amusingly, this does not mean Gunn is leaving "The Suicide Squad" behind either. Apparently, he's going to write/direct the DC ensemble superhero movie about a group of misfits – from the sounds of it, Gunn's line-up is heavy on unconventional characters, recalling "The Specials" – before going back to Marvel to write/direct an ensemble superhero movie about a group of misfits.

What a strange time to be alive. While I obviously love and enjoy Gunn's superhero works, I do hope he returns to weirder, smaller movies some day. I think he probably will, as that sensibility still directs his big budget stuff. Anyway, that concludes my latest Director Report Card. Thanks for reading.

Director Report Card: Robert Rodriguez (2003) Part One

9. Spy-Kids 3-D: Game Over

Robert Rodriguez knew that, if the “Spy Kids” series was gong to continue, he had to act quickly. Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara were already on the percipience of becoming teenagers and no longer being “kids.” So, right after wrapping up “Spy Kids 2,” work began on “Spy Kids 3.” Or, as the original posters described it, “Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over.” As the subtitle indicates, this was intended to be the end of the series. As the designation indicates, the film was also released in 3-D, a few years before that particular fad would re-establish itself. While the first two films were both critical and commercial successes, the third film would have to be satisfied with just being a commercial success. It made 190 million at the box office, the biggest moneymaker of the series, but the reviews were rotten.

Juni Cortez has retired from the Spy Kid business, according to him. Now working as a juvenile private detective, he's soon informed by the O.S.S. that his sister Carmen has disappeared. She was investigating “Game Over,” a new virtual reality video game created by a mysterious and villainous character called the Toymaker. Her mind is now trapped inside the fourth level of the game. Hoping to save his sister, Juni intentionally allows himself to be uploaded into this digital world. There he teams up with a group of beta players, working together to rescue Carmen and stop the Toymaker before he successfully sets himself free into the waking world.

While the series was sold on its zany, special effects driven comedy, the main driving force behind the “Spy Kids” franchise has always been the relationship between Juni and Carmen. Watching them gain each other's respect, and face off new challenges together, provided the first two installments with heart. “Spy Kids 3” makes a big mistake by separating the siblings for most of the run time. It turns out Juni is not a horribly compelling protagonist by himself. Especially this version, who is intermittently haughty and insecure. By the time Carmen comes back into the story, it's too little, too late.

“Spy Kids 3” ditches the primary gimmick of the series in other ways too. This movie is barely riffing on spy fiction conventions at all. Juni is no longer a secret agent. In this installment, the O.S.S. is not really doing much international spying here. Though they are chasing after a bad guy, there's little in the way of gadgets or espionage. The subtitle might make you assume “Game Over” is shifting its focus to video games. And it's sort of doing that. There’s plenty of talk about levels, lives, enemies, programmers, and power-ups. Yet “Spy Kids 3” doesn't really make fun of video game tropes the way the first two did for spy movies. While the film seems to know the gaming lingo of the time, it doesn't really use these ideas in any interesting way.

It's pretty obvious why Robert Rodriguez would set the third “Spy Kids” movie inside a video game. He clearly saw this movie as more of a technical challenge, than a narrative one. Though he's been skirting the line for a while, with “Game Over,” the director officially pushes his love of green screen too far. The majority of the film takes place in this digital playground. While this is now common for big blockbusters, in 2003, CGI was not that convincing. So the actors weightlessly leap through computer-generated environments, never truly seemingly like they are interacting with each other or the objects around them. This cartoonish quality does not end once we re-enter the real world. The finale has characters flying through the air while fighting unconvincing robot gorillas. The focus is so keenly on the effects, the film disinterested in giving us anything else.

Rodriguez’ fascination with pushing technical boundaries manifest in another way here. Following the tradition of the “Jaws” and “Friday the 13th” franchises, this is another third installment released in 3-D. Rodriguez was actually ahead of the curve here, as another full-blown 3-D revival had begun by 2009. But this isn’t “Avatar.” The 3-D effects are crude. The film makes a point of shoving as much shit into your eyes as possible. Characters conspicuously reach toward the audience. Via pogo sticks, giant springs, and cartoon frogs, cast members fly into our faces. A racing sequence was seemingly designed primarily to shove stuff into our eyes as much as possible. At one point, a whipped cream-like substance covers the foreground. It’s all trying way too hard and is more obnoxious than entertaining.

You would think that, in a film so chocked full of special effects, surely there’s something cool or interesting here. Conceptually, some of the sequences sound fun. How can surfing down a volcanic river while a lava monster throws rocks around be boring? Surely, there’s entertainment value to be gleamed from a cowboy Bill Paxton branding a giant robot. Sadly, the excessive effects are so numbing, very little of it makes an impression. A giant robot fight is probably the film’s nadir, a lifeless and utterly humorless burst of computer generated excess. I don’t even like the few practical effects much either, as the costumes the cast wear are clunky.

In it all, there’s exactly one joke that made me laugh. Throughout the film, the beta players assume Juni to be The Guy, the prophecized video game savior that will lead them to the final level. Just as their belief in Juni is fading, a random guy proclaiming himself to be The Guy enters into the scene. Elijah Wood plays the part at his most gee-whiz, faux-heroic. The scene diffuses in a very funny way, which I won’t spoil. Otherwise, “Game Over” is low in laughs, aside from goofy in-jokes like Ricardo Montalbán mentioning Corinthian leather.

The “Spy Kids” moral about the love of family was already starting to wear thin in the second film. By the third, this note has been hammered so many times, it’s rendered totally meaningless. The only variation is that Juni realizes friends can be family as well. The sequel does include another moral. Through his adventure in the computer world, Juni develops a crush on another player named Demetra. Later, we learn Demetra is a computer program designed to mislead the players. By the end, Juni is given a chance to forgive the girl for her programmed actions. If you didn’t get that the movie was making a point about forgiveness, the climax involves Grandpa Cortez forgiving the Toymaker for his offenses against him. It’s delivered in a very ham-fisted manner, if you couldn’t have guessed.

The subtitle seems to indicate that this will be the epic conclusion for the “Spy Kids” series. The actual film doesn’t include much in the way of finality though. The only acknowledgment that this is the big ending is that nearly every important character from the first two movies returns. Ricardo Montalbán is given a much larger part. However, the plot results in his real life head awkwardly floating above a ridiculous CGI robot body for most of the film.  The climax has Juni calling on nearly every person he’s met. So his parents, grandma, Uncles Machete and Felix, the Giggle siblings, Steve Buscemi, Alan Cummings, Tony Shalhoub and, yes, Bill Paxton rather literally drop out of the sky. A huge series reunion was a nice idea but shoving everybody into the last ten minutes means most of these amount to walk-ons. Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara still seem to be taking their characters seriously, at least.

In fact, a lot of “Game Over” is focused on new characters. The plot requires Juni to meet a band of friends in the computer world. It would’ve been easy to make these returning characters but Rodriguez instead thought up new parts. Named Francis, Arnold, and Rez, these new boys are largely indistinguishable from one another. Their role in the plot is largely unimportant as well. At least Courtney Jones as Demetra is a little more memorable, striking a nice balance between tough and vulnerable. Salma Hayek once again also appears in a tiny supporting part, doing nothing of note. Also, a ten year old Selena Gomez makes her feature debut with a small part in the beginning. It’s always sort of fun to see a future star at the beginning of their careers.

These are not the flashiest additions to the film. None other than Sylvester Stallone plays the villainous Toymaker. This was before Sly successfully relaunched the “Rocky” and “Rambo” series, giving his career a much needed shot in the arm. Instead, this was after flops like “Get Carter” and “Drive” had Stallone starring in direct-to-video flicks like “Eye See You” and “Avenging Angelo.” Though his most successful film of this period, “Spy Kids 3” did not revive interest in Sly’s career. It’s a grotesquely hammy performance, Stallone shouting and mugging the whole time. Perhaps this is befitting for a cartoon super villain like the Toymaker but watching Stallone debase himself like this is embarrassing. Furthermore, the movie has Sly playing extensions of the Toymaker’s personality. I love the guy but Sylvester Stallone is not well known for his range. His attempts to play a nerdy scientist or a hippy is cringe inducing.

There is, perhaps, an explanation for why “Spy Kids 3” turned out so shoddy. The film was in production at the same time as “Once Upon a Time in Mexico.” It’s easy to imagine the director was a little more focused on ending his other trilogy when working on this one. If this was the case, maybe “Island of Lost Dreams” should’ve been the capper for the Cortez chronicles. Though the 3-D gimmick would make it a box office success, “Spy Kids 3” is a visually tedious and at times incoherent kid flick. The first two were entertaining features but maybe trying to rush out a third installment wasn’t the best idea. [Grade: D+]

THE SYLVESTER SEMESTER PART II: Creed (2015)

Rocky Balboa’s story ended in, well, “Rocky Balboa.” Even someone as sequel happy as Sylvester Stallone realized continuing the story beyond that point was ridiculous. However, sometimes unexpected things happen. Ryan Coogler, an up-and-coming director who had won acclaim for “Fruitvale Station,” was apparently a big fan of the “Rocky” series, feeling a personal connection with the films. He had an idea for a new film that was as much sequel as spin-off. In other words, “Creed” was essentially “Rocky” fan fiction that became official. Even more surprising, “Creed” would be a hit with audiences and critics. The film even took Sylvester Stallone, a creative mind who rarely gets the respect he deserves, back to the Academy Awards for the first time in forty years.

When he was ten years old, Adonis “Donnie” Johnson discovered that his father was Apollo Creed, world famous boxing champion, and that he was the result of an extramarital affair. Taken in by Creed’s widow, Adonis spends his whole life trying to live up to his late father’s legacy. While working at a comfortable office job, he competes in underground boxing matches. After quitting his job and getting rejected by his father’s gym, he flies to Philadelphia. Meeting up with Rocky Balboa, he talks the former champ into training him. Soon, an oppretunity arrives for Adonis to prove his worth.

Ryan Coogler’s admiration for the “Rocky” series is obvious in “Creed.” The film features many callbacks to the franchise’s history. Rocky is still spending most of his time at Adrian’s. He still visits his late wife’s grave all the time, with Paulie recently joining his sister. Robert Jr. is living in Vancouver with a girlfriend. Mickey’s gym is a major setting. Adonis trains by jumping rope and chasing chickens. Moreover, “Creed” clearly imitates the original “Rocky,” in story and tone. Both films concern an inexperienced boxer eager to prove himself. He gets that chance when the reigning champ asks to fight him. There’s a love story and a montage of running down the street. Something else “Creed” has in common with “Rocky” is a naturalistic tone. Coogler shoots at a street level, with lots of ambient noise and atmosphere.

The film is named “Creed,” instead of “Adonis,” not just for commercial reasons. Throughout the film, Donnie struggles with his relationship with his deceased father. On one hand, he idolizes him, his bloodline initially driving him to become a boxer. After entering the ring, and his true parentage being revealed to the world, he starts to resent the name. That everyone assumes he’s a “Fake Creed” or a “Baby Creed,” someone coasting on his father’s legacy and unworthy of that name. By the end, he’s come to peace with it, during an especially touching sequence. Michael B. Jordan’s performance is excellent, as someone struggling with his birthright and fighting to prove himself.

“Rocky” and “Creed” both feature their titular boxer falling in love. But Tessa Thompson’s Bianca is very different from Adrien. A would-be R&B star, Bianca has a promising musical career. She also has progressive hearing loss, already using a hearing aide in one ear, that will eventually rob her of her hearing altogether. At first, she is resistant to Adonis’ advances. However, he slowly charms her. Their first date – getting Philly cheese steaks at a local restaurant – is an awfully sweet moment. When he visits her apartment, goofing around with her musical equipment, is another stand-out sequence. The film isn’t without its trumped up melodrama, such as when Adonis picks a fight at a club were Bianca is singing, but it’s also good at defusing moments like that. Such as Adonis not revealing his true last name to her sooner, which dissolves in a really sweet scene. The romance is the secret heart of “Creed,” Jordan and Thompson’s chemistry making the film better then it otherwise would’ve been.

“Creed” is about Donnie but the film still continues Rocky’s storyline. Balboa has settled into retirement, happily running his restaurant, his fighting days long behind him. He’s reluctant to train the younger Creed, as everyone he loves has left him, but is eventually talked into it. During filming, Stallone was the same age Burgess Meredith was during “Rocky,” making his transition into trainer a natural choice. This makes the training montages especially joyous. Yet the film gives Rocky a juicier arc then that. Midway through the film, he collapses suddenly. A trip to the doctor reveals that Rocky has cancer. At first, he’s disinterested in treatment, deciding he’s had enough of a life already. Soon, Creed convinces him otherwise. The film happily makes the comparison that both Rocky and Donnie are fighting. One in the ring, one for his life. Stallone’s Oscar nominated performance is restrained, lived-in, relaxed, but quietly touching.

Like the original “Rocky,” “Creed” doesn’t feature very many boxing matches. There’s a few brief scuffles in the beginning, a major fight at the mid point, and the championship bout at the end. Over these few scenes, Coogler shows a definite aptitude for action direction. For Creed’s first major fight, Coogler takes the camera inside the ring. During an impressive single shot, the camera zips in-between the two fighters, around the punches, whipping in and out of their corners. It’s the action high-light of the film. However, the final fight is still highly cinematic, an exciting sequence determined to make the audience feel the impact of the blows and the power of the punches. (The director’s handle on action is certainly good news for Coogler’s upcoming gig in the Marvel universe.)

“Creed” is clearly derivative of the very first “Rocky.” Both films even have similar endings. Then again, “Rocky” was derivative of other inspirational sports movie before it. With a strong directorial arm and a fantastic cast, Coogler, Stallone, and the rest of the team have created a worthy new addition to the franchise and a film that stands fantastically on its own. The odds seem good that “Creed” will launch a new franchise. Sly is eager to play his iconic role well into retirement age. Maybe Adonis can fight Ivan Drago Jr. in part two? That’d be cool. [8/10]

[THE STALLOWNAGE OF SLY: 2 outta 5]
[] Frank Stallone or Frank Stallone-esque Inspirational Music
[] Incapacitates or Kills Someone With His Body
[] Shows Off Buffness
[X] Social Outcast [Lonely Old Man]
[X] Sweaty, Veiny Yelling

Before Sylvester Stallone nearly won an Academy Award for "Creed," he seemed ready and eager to continue to ride his action movie legacy. Further sequels to "Rambo" and "The Expendables" were planned. After Sly's brush with Oscar gold, the veteran star's future plans seem to have changed. He's only currently announced future projects is a supporting role in the "Guardians of the Galaxy" sequel. While a "Creed" sequels seems a likely proposition, perhaps Sly is finally starting to slow down in his old age? He's more then earned it. Whatever the old guy gets up to next, I'm intrigued.

Thus concludes the Sylvester Semester Part II. Thanks for reading. I'll return soon, I promise.

THE SYLVESTER SEMESTER PART II: Escape Plan (2013)

Once upon a time, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger were bitter rivals. As the two biggest action stars of the eighties, they was naturally some competition between them. Stallone himself has commented on how much he resented the Austrian superstar’s success. Eventually, that animosity would cool and the two would become friends. After all, they did launch Planet Hollywood together. Arnold even appeared in supporting roles in Sly’s “Expendables” series. With “Escape Plan,” the two nostalgic titans of action co-starred in a film together. Like many of the throwback action flicks in recent years, the film would flop domestically before becoming a big hit overseas.

Ray Breslin has spent his entire life in prison. On purpose. Breslin is placed into various prisons by the government and is paid to break out of them, exposing exploitable flaws in the system. Thus far, he has managed to escape from every prison he’s been in. For his latest mission, he’s abducted by masked men, placed in a helicopter and wakes up in a seemingly inescapable fortress called the Tomb. The Tomb is a prison based off Breslin's own designs. Teaming up with a fellow in-mate called Emil Rottmayer, Ray faces his greatest challenge, trying to escape the Tomb and avoid its sadistic warden.

It goes to show how astray the movie-going public has gone when a movie starring Sly and Arnold, formerly two of the biggest stars in the world, can underperform domestically. For action nerds, seeing the two stars together is a dream come true. “Escape Plan” acknowledges its leads' mythic status. Stallone’s Breslin is introduced being an intellectual badass. Arnold’s Emil gets a grand introduction. More then once, the film finds an excuse so the two guys can fight. Yet the stars aren’t just cashing paychecks. Sly is engaged with the material, making Breslin a likable guy who is always thinking and scheming. Arnold, meanwhile, is exhilarating. He’s all grins, bringing an impressive energy to the part. A moment, where he rants in German while locked in solitary confinement, is electrifying. (It’s also one of the few times Arnold spoke his native language on-screen.) Moreover, the two are great together, like in the scene where they give humiliating nicknames to the various faceless guards. It’s not high art but it’s clear both performers are having a blast, elevating a screenplay that was already pretty good.

That’s right, “Escape Plan” is surprisingly well written. Oh, it’s ridiculous. You can guess early on which one of Breslin’s associates has betrayed him. The various methods Ray uses to escape are as unlikely as the ones used to imprison him. You have to accept these things. Yet “Escape Plan” is shockingly well structured and paced. Watching the heroes figure out ways around and out of these seemingly inescapable scenarios is compelling. Probably my favorite scene in “Escape Plan” has Ray enacting a convoluted series of events to escape from solitary confinement, pumping bolts with a hand mirror and climbing up the insides of the prison's wall. The reveal about where the Tomb is located is pulled off fantastically. I was half expecting the place to be on the moon or something. Though goofy on its face, “Escape Plan” handles its story seriously, drawing the audience in.

For most of its run time, “Escape Plan” functions more like a thriller, acting solidly within the expected boundaries of the prison genre. There’s the evil warden, the sadistic guards, the rivalries within the block, gang members, and a prison riot before it’s over. In its last act though, “Escape Plan” becomes a joyous homage to the eighties action movies that made Sly and Arnie famous. Stallone is running and gunning through the innards of the prison. He beats up Vinnie Jones. The absolutely best moment in the film occurs when Schwarzenegger picks up a giant machine gun and starts mowing down bad guys. By the end, Sly is cracking one-liners and causing giant explosions. It’s a lot of fun.

Stallone and Schwarzenegger are clearly the stars of the show. However, “Escape Plan” puts together a solid supporting cast. Jim Caviezel plays Hobbes, the warden with a clear grudge against Breslin. Adapting a vocal pattern reminiscent of Christopher Walken, Caviezel has a sinister twinkle in his eye as a comic book-style villain. Vinnie Jones’ guard is introduced beating an in-mate to death. Jones, who has made a career of playing heavies, certainly has no problem playing another vicious psychopath. Sam Neill has a surprise appearance as the prison’s doctor, bringing some gravitas to a nothing part. Vincent D’Onofrio plays another sleazy businessman type, happily hamming it up. The only distracting supporting player is Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, cast against type as a computer hacker. Fiddy mugs furiously, facially and vocally, totally taking the audience out of the film every time he appears.

Maybe one of the reasons why I like “Escape Plan” so much is because I really didn’t expect it to be good. Plopped down in a non-extraordinary October release, with few positive reviews to its name, it’s not surprising it did poor business here in the States. Going in with few expectations revealed a movie that mixes smart and dumb in the best way, a ridiculous if compelling thriller that transforms into a supremely entertaining action flick. That’s a good thing. It’s less winking then “The Expendables” flicks and clearly isn’t a passion project like Sly’s “Rocky” or “Rambo” revivals. The middle ground between those axises – a really fun pop corn muncher – is an alright place to be. [7/10]

[THE STALLOWNAGE OF SLY: 3 outta 5]
[] Frank Stallone or Frank Stallone-esque Inspirational Music
[X] Incapacitates or Kills Someone With His Body
[] Shows Off Buffness
[X] Social Outcast [New Prison Inmate]
[X] Sweaty, Veiny Yelling


 

THE SYLVESTER SEMESTER PART II: Bullet to the Head (2012)

With the come back success of “Rocky Balboa,” “Rambo,” and the “Expendables” films, Sylvester Stallone was suddenly back in the position of getting films greenlit with just his star power. At least, the kind of throw back action flicks that get released in January and February. “Bullet to the Head” could’ve been a comeback story for another familiar face. Walter Hill was behind such action classics as “Hard Times,” “The Driver,” “The Warriors,” “Southern Comfort” and “48 Hrs.” Though still active as a producer, Hill hadn’t directed a film since 2002’s mix martial arts minor classic “Undisputed.” Based off a French graphic novel series and greeted with a decent bit of hype, “Bullet to the Head” would disappoint critics and garner little attention from audience. How mediocre must a movie be to alienate the people its tailor made for?

The improbably named Jimmy “Bobo” Bonomo is a hitman based out of Baton Rouge. Though he operates with a moral code of his own, he’s generally an off-putting, tough customer. After he spares the life of a prostitute during a standard hit, his long-time partner is murdered by a rival hitman. Their target, it turns out, was a dirty cop with information on shady local businessmen. Kwon, the partner to the dead man, arrives to investigate. Soon, Bobo and Kwon are working together to untangle what’s gone down. Meanwhile, the psychotic hitman is soon targeting Bobo personally.

“Bullet to the Head” feels a lot like the undistinguished flicks Stallone made simply for the paycheck back in the late eighties. In other words, if it had come out around the same time as “Tango and Cash” or “Over the Top,” action fans would consider it a classic. Of course, the eighties and the distinct qualities that decade brought to film ended a long time ago. “Bullet to the Head” isn’t that funny or charming. Mostly, the comparison is seen in Sly’s character. Jimmy Bobo is a hard man. An ex-con, he figures the people he assassinates have it coming, approaching wanton murder with no further thought. When he speaks at all, it’s usually in smart-ass quibs to his various partners or opponents. Despite being a simplistic sketch, the script still gives Bobo an unnecessary and overly verbose narration. This is the kind of thing Sly has done many times before. He doesn’t appear bored but he can’t make Bobo a compelling character.

Walter Hill basically invented the buddy cop subgenre, by writing “Hickey and Boggs” and directing “48 Hrs.” (For further bonus points, Joel Silver, who also produced “48 Hrs.” and “Lethal Weapon,” produced this one as well.) These clichés are also woven into “Bullet to the Head.” Sung Kang plays Detective Kwon. Kwon and Bobo are tossed together by fate, the hitman making a split-second decision to save the cop. Soon, the two are working together, albeit roughly. Kwon uses his cellphone to dig up clues and information. Bobo prefers to beat info out of people. Kwon is by the book, Bobo plays by his own rules. “Bullet to the Head” does break from buddy movie tradition. Though a mutual respect eventually forms, the two still kind of hate each other by the movie’s end. Stallone and Kang don’t have much in the way of chemistry.

The movie’s plot, about corrupt land developers trying to cover up evidence of their criminal connections, is totally disposable. The collection of bad dudes the movie presents aren’t very memorable. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje plays a South African sleaze, who accentuates his performance by waving a cane around. Christian Slater does seem to be having some fun as one of the primary crooks involved. The film’s real main villain is Jason Momoa’s Keegan. Casting a future action star – albeit one who still hasn’t produced an iconic character – to play against Stallone seems like an intentional move. Momoa plays Keegan as an indistinct psycho. He enjoys killing and does it with finesse but there’s no personable meat on this character’s bones. He’s a preening, murderous bad guy, totally lacking in heart or soul.

All right, so the hero’s nothing special, the script is disposable, and the supporting players don’t make an impression. Does “Bullet to the Head” at least feature some cool action scene? Sadly, even that aspect is mostly forgettable. Walter Hill’s attempt to adapt to modern day action movie conventions are awkward. A shoot-out in a parking garage, and a car chase that follows, is overly shaky and difficult to follow. A tussle between Sly and a random bad guy inside a Turkish bath is cool in conception but, once again, not smoothly executed. Momoa’s presence seems to center the film a little. A fight between Bobo and Keegan in a bar bathroom is alright. Momoa executing a tattoo parlor full of people features some solid action beats, such as a guy getting flipped into a jukebox machine. The final fight has the hero and villain dueling with fire axe, a clever choice the movie needed more of. Too often though, the shoot-outs degrade into uninspired sequences of gun going off and people falling down.

“Bullet to the Head” certainly isn’t the throwback to bad ass action cinema that it was hyped as. The pairing of a legendary action director like Hill and a legendary action star like Sly should’ve produced something great. Instead, “Bullet to the Head” is a middling, forgettable affair. Its pleasures are fleeting and the film seems designed to leave the viewer’s head as soon as it enters. The reviews were largely negative and the box office was uninspiring, even in the competition lacking month of February. It seems, only a few years out from his latest come back, Sly was already squandering his potential again. [5/10]

[THE STALLOWNAGE OF SLY: 3 outta 5]
[] Frank Stallone or Frank Stallone-esque Inspirational Music
[] Incapacitates or Kills Someone With His Body
[X] Shows Off Buffness
[X] Social Outcast [Asshole Hitman]
[X] Sweaty, Veiny Yelling