Tag Archives: Chris Pratt

Fancy Brain Doctors Hate This One Simple Memory Test — “Jurassic World: Dominion”

There are so many ways to remake later franchise movies with the same beats as the original. Take the recent “Prey”, which acknowledges the “Predator” movies that have come before it with clever references and inversions of your expectations. It does these things without breaking immersion and with its own clear priorities. It includes franchise references in a way that serves the story it wants to tell. “Jurassic World” also does this pretty well. Just not this “Jurassic World”. The 2015 movie was a smart rehash of the original “Jurassic Park”, serving up references for fans while creating its own original tension and action…while unfortunately suffering from a cynical, antiquated opinion about women’s roles.

Now we come to “Jurassic World: Dominion”, a rehash of “Jurassic World” rehashing “Jurassic Park”. We should know by the sixth movie in the franchise that the more you clone, the more you’ve got to fill in the missing DNA gaps with frogs, wacky lizards, and probably some stuff from Australia we’d rather not know about. The storytelling gaps are cavernous and awkwardly spliced.

Say what you want about the last film, “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”, but it stuck a designer dinosaur into the role normally played by a ghost stalking a Victorian haunted mansion – complete with a child hiding a chilling secret. It was an effective riff that took the franchise into territory it had never tried. This also makes it the only one out of five sequels even interested in new genre territory.

There’s no such commitment to anything new here. There are so many chances “Jurassic World: Dominion” had to be great, too. It’s like watching beautiful scenery pass by out the window from a train as it hurtles off a cliff.

Bryce Dallas Howard’s Claire, the former operator of Jurassic World, is now an ecoterrorist busting illegal dinosaur breeding facilities. I’d love to watch a whole film about that, so at the end of the opening scene, her group breaks apart and she gives that life up.

But it’s OK, cause Chris Pratt’s Owen is in one of those old cigarette commercials where men on horses live off the plain on nothing but gumption and grit. Instead of rounding up horses or cattle, he’s rounding up Parasaurolophus and…you know what, I’m just going to describe his scenes as if they’re dialogue from his “Parks & Rec” character Andy Dwyer:

ANDY: So then I lasso the dinosaur from my horse.

RON: A Parasaurolophus weighs 8,000 pounds. That horse is 800 soaking wet. It’s going to pull you to the ground, son.

ANDY: Then I’ll just body surf along the ground and use my lightning reflexes to wrap the rope around a tree stump.

RON: That dinosaur will pull you and the tree stump behind it without even noticing.

ANDY: Not if he turns around and becomes my friend first.

Yeah, that’s a scene. Claire and Owen are taking care of Maisie, the cloned girl from “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”. They live deep in the woods with their velociraptor Blue and her new baby, Beta. Maisie resents not being allowed to go anywhere – not even into town. Ooh, is this going to be a Spielbergian movie about a fractured family brought closer together by their shared love for the baby velociraptor they raise?

Wait, why isn’t Maisie allowed to go anywhere? Because every mercenary in the world is after the cloned girl. Ah, so we’re going to get an awesome siege sequence where mercenaries with dinosaurs fight a Parasaurolophus-roping everyman, his ecoterrorist wife, their adopted clone daughter, and mom-and-baby velociraptor? I will watch that every day for the rest of my li– nope, Maisie just rides her bike directly onto the one-lane bridge a sketchy vehicle is clearly and visibly parked on. The mercenaries are just there to chauffeur Maisie and Beta to the next scene.

At least this leads us into the genre “Jurassic World: Dominion” wants to briefly try: the spy film. Welcome the half hour of the movie where dinosaurs are an afterthought. Now eventually you do plan to have dinosaurs in your dinosaur movie, right? Don’t worry, you’ll see them as they’re being trafficked at a black market in Malta that totally isn’t presented in a wildly racist way.

Wait, why are they at a black market in Malta? Cause that’s where Owen’s CIA contact (yes, really) says Maisie and Beta are being taken.

Claire decides to search for Maisie by showing her daughter’s picture to exactly one random person, a woman she bumps into in the bathroom. Wildly convenient then that this is the one person who’s actually seen Maisie. I mean, they could have had a CIA character be like, “Make sure you bump into this woman”, but nope, it’s just happenstance that the one person Claire bothers to ask is the one person worth asking.

Luckily, DeWanda Wise’s Kayla also has a plane, which is perfect for when things go wrong and dinosaurs are set loose to stomp all over Malta. At least we finally get exactly what we want to see in a dinosaur movie: Chris Pratt knife-fighting a mercenary.

Sigh.

ANDY: So he comes at me with a knife, but not before a baby dinosaur eats his arm.

LESLIE: The whole thing?

ANDY: Dinosaurs are big, so a baby one can probably eat an arm.

DONNA: Can’t he just fight with his other arm?

ANDY: Not if there’s two baby dinosaurs.

At least the dinosaurs get to have a motorbike chase. Well, the dinosaurs don’t have motorbikes, but that might’ve been better. Long story short, half the cast is on Kayla’s plane to Maisie’s destination: the totally innocuously named Biosyn’s remote dinosaur park, where I’m sure nothing bad will happen.

Let’s leave them aside. What should be the highlight of “JW: Dom” is the original “Jurassic Park” trio of Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, and Sam Neill. Unfortunately, they’re woefully written, with no idea for how older generations, or humans of any sort, think and speak. Goldblum can sell it, but Dern and Neill feel like they’re acting out a soap opera on its last legs and desperate to gin up some press by getting the original pair back together. Will they or won’t they? It turns out they found the one narrow, hidden path along which I don’t care. It’s actually pretty cool that Dern’s Ellie Sattler moved on with her life as a professor, lecturer, field botanist, agricultural investigator, and parent. She’s leading a team investigating prehistoric locusts that are eating every crop except one corporation’s: Biosyn. The only man she can go to? Neill’s Alan Grant, who despite leading his own paleontology team is wallowing in loneliness as he pines for Ellie. Seems like a him problem, but “JW: Dom” says why not make it an all of our problem?

Ellie accepts an invitation from Biosyn’s in-house philosopher, Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm. She wants to get inside and prove that Biosyn has created these prehistoric locusts. Alan’s along as a witness, so now we’re all going to the same place. Locusts are located, planes plummet, and now everyone’s running around while dinosaurs look wide-eyed at their fresh chew toys.

APRIL: What are you going to do, Andy, the Dilophosaurus is about to spit poison all over your girlfriend!

ANDY: I make it submit with an awesome choke hold!

BEN: But there are three other Dilophosaurs watching its back. Did they just disappear? The whole point of this exercise is to plan ahead–

ANDY: That’s why I’ve trained as a ninja all my life, knowing one day I’d have to sneak up on a dinosaur to save the woman I love.

BEN: [sighs] Just roll initiative.

About the only one who saves the constant zipping back and forth is Bryce Dallas Howard. She’s not doing anything award-worthy, but she is the one putting forth the effort when it comes to physically throwing herself into scenes in a way that a “Jurassic [map feature]” film asks.

For every scene, it’s just a checklist. Are the characters in a jeep? Cool, let’s make sure we get the shots that remind the audience of the time a jeep drove off a road, the time a jeep fell off a cliff, the time someone hid in an upside down jeep, the time someone jumped out of the jeep with a flare. That’s just one scene about one thing. Name a reference and there’s a checklist of references that will be done for it in the most joylessly unironic way possible.

Do you remember the time a Tyrannosaurus was challenged by another apex predator and had to fight while the cast ran away, like in JPs 1 and 3, but was then saved by the interjection of a third badassosaur like in JW1? You want to see that done worse, in a more perfunctory way, complete with an unintentional slapstick ending?

Do you love seeing that one shot of someone leaping out of the way as a dinosaur’s jaws snap shut behind them? Remember that famous shot from JP1? Can we do it twice with every character, with lazier and lazier editing that makes it feel like the dinosaur’s nervous about hitting its cue, and slower and slower by the time we’re doing it to the 70 year-olds? Then this is your novocaine, because by the 10th time I just couldn’t feel it anymore.

I had this feeling in the back of my mind that I’ve seen this movie done so much better very recently. It was a “smash two casts together in a monster movie” that actually embraces its absurdity in an endearing way. Last year’s “Godzilla vs. Kong” took a similar approach to hurling two casts together, complete with a girl who needs protecting, unearthing a corporate conspiracy, and giant beasts obsessed with one-upping each others’ Spielberg references. It was silly as hell, but satisfying because it combined smart visual gags and jokes with a streamlined, uncomplicated plot. I called it the “Animaniacs of monster movies” because its references were smart, funny, and moved so quickly you didn’t have to worry about them overstaying their welcome. “JW: Dom” is more like LeBron’s “Space Jam: A New Legacy”, obsessed with making sure you notice each and every reference, and just in case you didn’t, here’s a lingering close-up of it.

As a film of recognizing things, “Jurassic World: Dominion” sure exists. I’m not against this kind of movie, but you have to make it satisfying. The references have to be in service of something more meaningful – and that’s not a high bar. Fun is something more meaningful, but you can’t have it when the priority is just to recognize things. For something like the “Jurassic [domain name]” movies, opening up the toybox of memories can bring more unintended sadness at what’s been shorn from them and the opportunities that have been missed. Nostalgia is a pristine thing. To fold that into your recipe, you’d better know how to evoke childlike glee from it. If you don’t, you just end up with the checklist of references that is “JW: Dom”.

I recently wrote that I’d watch dinosaurs read a phone book, and this is the baseline level of acceptability for that. It entertains only because it reminds you of other things you were entertained by, and just hitting the baseline for this franchise feels like such a wasted opportunity.

The toybox metaphor makes me think to earlier this year and “The Book of Boba Fett”. Robert Rodriguez upended the whole toybox so everything spilled out, with constant recognizable elements from the Star Wars franchise. It could have been annoying, but he did it with such unbridled joy and enthusiasm that he got to play with these toys. You don’t need to fit paragraphs of thematic message into one insultingly reductive and by then meaningless line, you don’t need to have a checklist of sub-references you need to make for every reference, and you don’t need a spy movie interlude to justify Chris Pratt’s paycheck. You just need to communicate joy that we all get to be here for two hours-plus. You can sense when it’s there, and you can sense when it’s lacking.

The point of “JW: Dom” is to recognize things, as if a test to see whether 90s kids are suffering from dementia yet. No, we’re in our 30s, get off our landlord’s lawn. The story is in service to checking off these moments of recognition, rather than being the priority that enables these moments to shine. A movie can’t be a movie when it’s just trying to be a memory test. All that does is show us how much the people behind it didn’t even bother to understand in the first place.

You can watch “Jurassic World: Dominion” on Peacock, or see where to rent it.

If you enjoy articles like this, subscribe to Gabriel Valdez’s Patreon. It helps with the time and resources to write more like it.

Enough to Get the Job Done — “The Tomorrow War”

Humans from the future arrive in the midst of the World Cup. They have a message to deliver to its global audience. Humanity is at war 30 years in the future, and they’re losing. They need to recruit from the past. A draft is installed, and former Green Beret Dan Forester is recruited to fight in the future.

There are a ton of details incorporated into the fairly quick opening act of “The Tomorrow War”: time travel here only works if someone doesn’t exist on one end or the other. The only ones who can travel back in time are those who weren’t born yet. Only people who’ve died in the interceding time can travel those 30 years ahead. The film’s chock full of neat sci-fi details like this that could’ve used more time, but ultimately are never the focus. Instead, what we get is a reasonably-ish successful action movie.

I’ll be honest with you: I think the premise to “The Tomorrow War” is pretty silly. That puts it in line with a lot of big-budget sci-fi. The silliness doesn’t discount “The Tomorrow War” any more than it would “Stargate” or an “Avengers” film. What’s past that silliness? Is it something that elevates beyond its premise, or that spirals into an abyss? Yes.

The Forever War

“The Tomorrow War” is long for an action movie at 2 hours, 20 minutes. The surprise here is that – if anything – it could have been longer and still worked. What makes “The Tomorrow War” most unique is that it keeps on tackling additional stories. It’s an “and then” film. One thing leads pretty naturally into another. You could say there’s a complete film here that ends under two hours and is emotionally and thematically complete. Then there’s a very relevant extra episode that’s needed to finish the story.

“And then” films are really difficult to make work on a big-budget scale. You want your three acts, which “The Tomorrow War” has, and then you want to walk out satisfied. “The Tomorrow War” just keeps piling on acts. You get a prologue, an opening act, a core movie with three compartmentalized action scenes, a dedicated montage two-thirds of the way through, an epilogue, and then another mini-movie after it that has its own three-act structure. It’s weird. It almost never works.

Here, it does. “The Tomorrow War” is a derivative movie that cobbles together from various, more successful sci-fi movies, but with this weird, good, extra bit Frankensteined onto it. That weird difference is the most valuable and unexpected thing about “The Tomorrow War”. That it works makes the movie before it work much better than it should.

Replicas

The thing about “The Tomorrow War” is that it constantly reminds me of something that did a particular idea better. An early firefight in future Miami Beach pales in comparison to the much maligned, hugely underrated, but excitingly tactical “Battle Los Angeles”. Some of what’s in here will remind you of “Starship Troopers”. One scene is very reminiscent of “World War Z”. These aren’t homages – those will come later in the form of “Alien” and “The Thing”. They’re just action elements that other films have done better.

What few films have done better is to tack a big, old mini-movie on the end that’s so fun to watch that it improves what came before. The movie’s just like, “We’re gonna pin the sequel on the end because it’s a lot tighter and it’ll soften your opinion of the previous two hours”. And they’re right.

Overall, I enjoyed it. I was never bored during the runtime, even if I could often think of other films I wanted it to be more. A lot of supporting elements help smooth the film’s progression – the creature design is superb, the production design is generally good, and there’s some solid action choreography when it isn’t undermined by the editing.

Pratt Fall

The biggest misstep “The Tomorrow War” makes is miscasting its lead. Chris Pratt is fine. He’s not bad in the role, but he’s not special in it. He gets the job done, more or less. The issue is that Chris Pratt is not an action star. He’s an action comedy star, and this is not an action comedy.

Sure, “The Tomorrow War” has its share of one liners and jokes. A lot of them land flat because the film also wants to be dire and full of loss. It never chooses a lane, and it certainly doesn’t fuse these two lanes together in a way that elevates either. What’s more, almost none of the comedic lines are spoken by Pratt. He’s not here to quip, which is why you cast yourself a Chris Pratt in the first place. He’s here to be charming (close enough), be serious and military (eh…), and be believably emotional in heart-wrenching scenes (um…)

The frustrating thing is that the film did cast the perfect lead, just not as the lead. Betty Gilpin, of “GLOW” and “Nurse Jackie” fame, plays Dan’s wife. That’s who should have been the lead here. That’s who can be winning, serious, and anchor a scene with emotion. She’s already shown with “The Hunt” that she can lead an action movie. Here, she’s miscast as the worried, supportive wife – a role she usually breaks out of with a vengeance. Turns out the role is pretty strained when she can’t.

This isn’t a more-women-leads thing either. I mean, it could be, we could have that conversation, there need to be more women leads (Yvonne Strahovski does get to be pretty badass in this), but that’s not the point I’m trying to make right now. The point is that Pratt is just OK here, and the actor who could’ve been superb was right next to him.

That said, Pratt doesn’t really send anything off the rails, either. He’s exactly who you expect him to be, which holds the film back a lot, but also gives you a known quantity.

Jumper

The other major issue with the “The Tomorrow War” is that it’s unrelentingly addicted to jump cuts. Or leap cuts. Characters will climb a fence and in the very next shot you’ll see them bounding across a barrier 50 yards away. Are those new characters in a different shot? Nope, same ones, the film’s just leapt us ahead a minute or two without telling us. This isn’t part of the time travel, either. It’s just how the film is edited.

At one point, characters arrive somewhere new. In the same, very brief conversation where they express this is somewhere no one’s ever been before, they then blow up an extensive series of bombs one of them has set. Obviously, there should’ve been an interstitial scene here of them waiting/eating/connecting while the explosives are planted – they could’ve had the dialogue that’s often instead shoved into the middle of action scenes. These moments are often laughably obvious.

It’s a limited quibble, and it’s easy enough to make sense of, but it happens all the time. It can jar you out of the action, but it’s a much worse filmmaking offense when it happens in dialogue scenes. We’re used to seeing contiguous dialogue and action scenes, and we’re used to seeing montages that do this kind of skipping. When the film shifts between the two of them without giving its audience separation and markers that this is what it’s doing, it makes an audience lose its orientation within a sequence. There are scenes where everything will be contiguous, we’ll skip ahead, and then everything will be contiguous again. An element within a scene will skip ahead without the other elements in that scene doing the same thing.

It doesn’t make anything difficult to follow for longer than a second or two, but if it’s happening every three or four minutes in a 2 hour, 20 minute film, that adds up to 40 times that you’re jarred into re-grounding your orientation to what’s happening or, at best, just waving it off. That’s a lot over the course of a movie. Like I said, it’s a limited quibble, but it is a repetitious one. There’s only so many times you can go, “Oh, ‘The Tomorrow War’, you’re so silly”.

That style of disorientation can have a purpose. It can be used to incredible effect in action movies – look no further than Tony Scott’s entire career. Hell, Scott even directed a time travel movie that used that approach to exquisite effect (“Deja Vu”). Yet here, it seems as if there’s already so much runtime, we’re just leaping ahead mid-scene in order to keep it under 140 minutes. That’s not a unique, intriguing film editing grammar used to paint a disorienting world. That’s just disorienting in a world that isn’t designed to communicate that way in the first place.

It’s hard to say whether this undermines the film’s atmosphere, or if it just never builds that much atmosphere to start. You can’t help but feel that another filmmaker could’ve given the scenes and characters more breathing room, and the whole world more atmosphere, without necessarily making it longer. For a film that’s so interested in efficiency in its gigantic story, taking more artistic chances and going slower in a few areas can have their own way of making other elements more efficient.

Director Chris McKay has previously helmed “The Lego Batman Movie”, and there can be a feeling at times that the broader strokes used in CGI-styled animation lack some of the specificity we look for in live action. McKay is a lot like Pratt here – very serviceable, but he leaves you wondering how much more could have been done with a film like this.

More than anything else, I look at the $200 million budget and wonder where it went. I don’t think it all shows on-screen. I can’t help but imagine how a Francis Lawrence might’ve drilled home the harrowing psychological elements of “The Tomorrow War”. Here, they’re never more than a brief flavor. What about a Gore Verbinski who leaves every dollar of that budget dripping off the screen? In some alternate universe, there’s a deeply weird, tense, nerve jangling version of this directed by a late 90s auteur making a comeback like Alex Proyas. I can’t help but think back to what Roseanne Liang did earlier this year with a very uneven but atmospherically spectacular “Shadow in the Cloud” on only $10 million.

This is a lot of negatives for something that I did like. If this is your kind of big-budget fare, dig in. Yet while I enjoyed “The Tomorrow War” and found it fun, it could have been so much more in so many different directions.

Time Lapse

One critique making the rounds that I completely disagree with is that “The Tomorrow War” hearkens back to 90s movies. It doesn’t. “Independence Day”, “Stargate”, “Total Recall”, hell – even worse movies than this like “Congo” or “Godzilla” – focused on character and elements of mystery. They took their time with reveals and revelations.

“The Tomorrow War” may be the most late 2010s movie we’ve had yet: it has a schedule to keep, characters speak in exposition, emotional moments are chiefly dumped into the middle of action scenes, there’s an overuse of POV, scenes need to stop regularly to present a tableau. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a way to fuse these elements well: just look at the last two “Avengers” movies.

90s big budget sci-fi was defined by a focus on character duality, an ebb-and-flow pace, and a self-effacing, dry sense of humor. “The Tomorrow War” is defined by on-rails character arcs, a more-more-more pace, and the infallible hero. This is nowhere close to a 90s throwback and the critics saying this are…look, just don’t ask them to watch your kids or make sure no one steals your laptop at the coffee shop while you go to the bathroom; they cannot be trusted.

“The Tomorrow War” works well enough, and for a movie that keeps tacking more on, that’s actually pretty impressive. The next step after that is seeing how much more it could have done, how much potential it leaves on the table just working well enough. It’s an enjoyable film, but in a strange way what’s almost as enjoyable is the giant shape it leaves in my mind of everything else it could have been. It creates an afterimage that I also find pretty fun to think about, which is a unique but exciting extra gift that makes the film more memorable than it should be.

“The Tomorrow War” is like one of those worksheets they give you in grade school, where you have to find all the mistakes in a picture. That picture’s always fun and busy and interesting, but so is circling all the mistakes in the drawing. “The Tomorrow War” is a good enough film, but where it truly excels is as a conversation piece. Take anything in it and it could have been done worse, or better. What a time to be alive.

You can watch “The Tomorrow War” on Amazon.

If you enjoy what you read on this site, subscribe to Gabriel Valdez’s Patreon. It helps with the time and resources to write articles like this one.

AC: A More Perfect “Jurassic World”

My review for Jurassic World on AC is glowing. Too many sequels think that respecting the original movie in a franchise is about emulating it endlessly. It creates watered-down copy-pastes that diminish the franchise each time. That’s the problem with The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park 3.

Jurassic World thinks the best way of respecting the original movie is to play with it, to interact with it on a meta level. If you love Jurassic Park, it seems to say, you shouldn’t put it on a pedestal and never touch it again. You should poke and prod at it, interact with it, and take all its themes and spin them on their heads just to see where they land. Jurassic World is a movie written as non-seriously as possible and then filmed at face value, a self-aware film featuring one of the most self-deprecating leads on film today in Chris Pratt. It does some things wrong, but it takes a lot more chances than I ever would’ve expected. Read my entire review on AC here:

A More Perfect “Jurassic World”

Orphans of the Sky — “Guardians of the Galaxy”

Guardians Knowhere

Beginnings. If you get those right, the rest of your film can sing. If you get them wrong, you spend two hours playing catch-up. Guardians of the Galaxy has a beautiful beginning.

Young Peter Quill is in a hospital, losing his mother. He shares a last moment with her. She slips away, and he runs. Outside, in the dark, foggy night, he is abducted by a UFO.

It evokes those two sides of the Spielbergian coin – fear of loss and the magical possibility of the unknown. Do that in the first three minutes of your film, and I’m yours. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got a gun-toting raccoon or a talking tree or a bald, robot Karen Gillan, I’m on board. Where do you want to take me?

We rejoin Peter (Chris Pratt) 26 years later. He’s now a spacefaring rogue plucking a mysterious orb from the ruins of a vanished civilization. He’s not the only party interested in the orb, though – the armies of Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) are hot on his tail, as is the fleet of his ex-partner in crime Yondu (Michael Rooker), the aforementioned pair of raccoon-and-tree bounty hunters, and the traitorous assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana).

Assassin, raccoon, tree, and Peter are captured as they fight over the orb. They’re sent to one of those high-tech space prisons that only ever seem to be able to hold protagonists for a day (I call them Kirk Specials). All four characters need each other: Gamora needs Peter for the orb, Peter needs Gamora for her buyer, and Rocket & Groot (the raccoon and tree I) need Peter for his bounty. Toss in the prisoner Drax (wrestler Dave Bautista), who wants revenge on Ronan, and you’ve got an unlikely band of heroes that makes the Avengers seem downright functional.

Guardians Assemble

There’s an easier way to understand these five characters as they race across the galaxy – they’re all orphans. We saw Peter’s mother die in the first scene, and he never knew his father. Gamora’s parents were killed. Rocket the Raccoon was seized from earth, torn apart, and reassembled with cybernetics as someone’s cruel experiment. As a sentient tree who can grow limbs at will, Groot is the last of his kind. Drax might not technically be an orphan, but his family was murdered and we strongly suspect he’s the last of his kind as well.

Bands of misfits aren’t anything new to adventure filmmaking, but what makes this group feel unique is that none of them has a particularly good moral compass…until they’re stuck together. They bring out expectations in each other that they’ve never had in themselves. Guardians shares some good habits with Star Wars (including colorful world building and intricate spaceship battles), but if there’s a film Guardians really takes after, it’s 80s classic The Goonies. They’re both centered on a group of wisecracking, immature kids. It’s just, in Guardians, the kids are older and never grew up. How could they? There was never anyone to teach them how.

Even before the adventure starts, their circumstances are dire. In The Goonies, it was their families’ financial desperation – fear of loss –  that drove them to seek out the mythical and magical for an answer. Here, the Guardians are aimless, tortured, or desperate because of loss they couldn’t stop as children. Beginnings…if you get those right, your film can sing. It’s only in each other that they finally find some guidance. They’re not people (or trees, or raccoons) who will ever amount to much apart. In finding others who’ve been jettisoned from their families, each is finally able to identify with someone beyond him or herself.

Guardians Saldana

None of them is courageous enough in themselves to do what’s right, but they each have the courage missing in the person next to them. It’s a remarkable idea for a film like this, and credit should be given to writer-director James Gunn and writer Nicole Perlman for calling on these notions. This is the year that comic book movies need to be seriously considered for best screenplay Oscar nominations.

Inevitably, you have to compare it to Marvel’s other films. Guardians is hilarious, surpassing Thor: The Dark World as Marvel’s funniest movie. It may lack the grittier spirit and social commentary that Captain America: The Winter Soldier possessed, but Marvel’s success lies in allowing its various franchises to take on different tones and inhabit other genres (be warned as you toy around with your 50 Shades of Blue versions of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, Zack Snyder).

The closest Marvel comparison to Guardians is Joss Whedon’s The Avengers and, honestly, Guardians is the better movie. Its action isn’t as elaborate – in fact, the action in Guardians has to be a bit deliberate in order to include so many jokes and sight gags – but it’s the more poignant science-fiction film, a more colorful adventure, and a better comedy.

Guardians Gillan

While it lacks the Robert Downey Jr/Scarlett Johansson/Samuel L. Jackson triumvirate of star power, Guardians offers Marvel’s best Easter eggs yet for the practiced cinephile. If you’re familiar with the supporting players, you’re in for a treat. Lee Pace (Pushing Daisies; The Fall) is an absolute joy to watch in full-throated villain mode as Ronan. I mentioned a bald Karen Gillan (popular, redheaded companion Amy Pond in Doctor Who), who is nearly unrecognizable as fractious robot assassin Nebula. Benicio Del Toro’s overacting as The Collector simultaneously makes you laugh as he makes your skin crawl. Josh Brolin (a former Goonie himself) voices the ubervillain Thanos, while Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel voice Rocket and Groot. John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Djimon Honsou, and Gregg Henry feature in prominent roles, not to mention blink-and-you’ll-miss-them cameos from Whedon alum Nathan Fillion, Seth Green, and Alexis Denisoff, heavy metal rocker Rob Zombie, and of course Stan Lee.

Just…go see it. If you’ve been staying away from the theater, then you’ve been missing the best summer for movies since before this reviewer was born. Guardians is one of those films so full of event, color, and joyous spectacle, it’s meant to be seen 50 feet tall. Stop reading, leave work, call your friends, ditch school*, whatever, just go see it.

*Stay in school, you guys. There are evening shows.