Showing posts with label james gunn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label james gunn. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

James Gunn 1, Vance 0

Well, I loved The Suicide Squad.

Even in all my complaining about James Gunn's Twitter on this blog -- and there has been a lot, more than any one person deserves -- I have never wavered from the basic belief that he is a good filmmaker. And The Suicide Squad may be his most enjoyable film yet.

So I'll devote a full post's worth of observations about the film as a sort of mea culpa. That may not be the correct term, because I never said he wasn't a good filmmaker and I still believe he's too proud of himself on Twitter. But after this movie, he definitely deserves some good press from me.

Bringing the fun back to ultraviolence

I've been numbed by the John Wick movies. I really enjoyed the first, but I found the next two a slog, an unceasing succession of soulless murders that made me grimace more and more as the movies went on. I call them "murders" not to suggest that Wick isn't acting in self-defense most of the time, but that their sheer joylessness makes them criminal. Half the time, they are initiated by him as revenge for killing his dog, which yeah, seems sort of murdery.

The Suicide Squad is a different story. It includes all sort of fatal mayhem, but it's the kind that demonstrates a sort of creative joy that helps remind us they exist in a comic book world, and that kind of thing is okay because there is never any doubt this is pure escapism. 

Sure, it sill involves heads being sliced in half, faces being blown off, and a man's body ripped in half -- lengthwise, mind you -- by a walking shark. And you can say that any sort of violence breeds potential copycats, though I dare you to try ripping someone in half lengthwise with your bare hands.

But the walking shark is what's important here. This is clearly a fantasy world, a place where none of this stuff could clearly ever happen. Might as well have fun with it.

It was a bit of the vibe I got from a recent big budget favorite, Kong: Skull Island. That film gave me such joy that it ended up in my top ten for the year. The Suicide Squad may not be destined to land that high, but the fact that it's even a contender says something about how successfully it pulls off its tone.

How to do CGI characters

While we're on the topic of that shark, this film contains two of my favorite recent CGI characters. I guess that's no surprise from the director who brought us Rocket Raccoon. I think I like the ones in this movie even better than him.

So there's Nanaue/King Shark, a perfect Suicide Squad candidate in that he's got a loveable voice and general temperament but he is also caught in the act of trying to eat one of his fellow team members. I didn't realize Sylvester Stallone was doing the voice until the end credits, and that just made me enjoy him more, retroactively. I never knew I would want to watching a walking shark for two hours as much as I did.

But even more fun, though with considerably less screen time, is Weasel, a giant weasel who can't speak English and communicates in kind of braying yelps. He's also got crazy eyes. However, he mostly behaves himself, sitting there quietly with the rest of his crew in a kind of unassuming fashion that makes him even funnier. All the bits related to him -- including a scene where he's licking a door and examining a future teammate out of the corner of one bulged-out eye -- are just hilarious. I won't spoil what happens with him, but it is perfectly in keeping with this world, where Gunn knows instinctively never too give us too much of a good thing.

A lethal Harley Quinn

We got a decidedly softer Harley Quinn in Birds of Prey a few years ago, one that would prefer to shoot people with bean bags than snap their necks, though she was still the same crass girl we came to love, even in inferior projects. That was definitely right for that movie, which I enjoyed.

She kills people here, and it's right for this movie. 

There are a couple lethal moves she uses to get herself out of jams, when it's kill or be killed, but she's also a straight-up assassin at one point. It's an interesting commentary on the reality that exists under the fun. This is not a world where you can subdue people with beanbags. And that's okay.

Also, her role in the finale against the [won't give it away] is just awesome.

A real-life Bad Guys

My kids love this series of Australian comic books/graphic novels called Bad Guys, which feature a team of historically bad animals who try to make themselves over as the good guys. They include a wolf, a snake, a spider, a piranha, and yes, a shark.

It's really cute and clever and gives even its adult readers a laugh. But as I was watching The Suicide Squad I thought of how many similarities to this project there really are.

Of course there is the same basic setup, as an historically feared and dangerous band of associates try to slough off the prejudices against them and fight for their version of justice. 

Then there's the fact that both teams feature a shark who speaks sort of monosyllabically, in a deep voice, or at least that's how I always voiced Mr. Shark when reading the books to my kids.

But I'll go one step further: In both properties the shark tries to disguise himself. In these graphic novels, if that's what you want to call them, Mr. Shark's main attribute he contributes to the team is his ability to disguise himself. He does a hilariously small amount to change his appearance, yet everyone in the story has a genuine inability -- no nudging or winking -- to identify him as his former self when he's in disguise. It's patently ridiculous since this is a large sea creature with rows of razor sharp teeth, which is what makes it so funny.

That's not Nanaue's main characteristic in this movie -- he eats people and tears them in half lengthwise -- but in one scene when they need to go undercover, he does suggest wearing a fake moustache to mask his appearance. The team doesn't go for it though, and he has to wait in the car.

Bridging the DCEU and the MCU

We know Gunn was a defector to the DCEU from the MCU, though we also know it was not by choice. He got fired from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (before ultimately being rehired) due to past tweets that were meant as jokes but came back to haunt him. So now he has a definite foothold in both, which is apparently not a problem. 

You'd assume these rivals would be loath to share talent, but Gunn is not the only example of this in this movie. In fact, I counted four in total, which seems to me a very high amount. They're mostly in smaller roles, in one universe or the other, so maybe that's part of the explanation.

The first character we meet is Savant, an inmate who bounces a rubber ball around his cell, and is so deadly accurate with it that he can use it to kill a bird in the corner on something like the fifth rebound off one of the walls. He's played by Michael Rooker, who of course played Yondu in the Guardians movies. He's already dead in the MCU and he's not long for this one, so maybe that's not much of a conflict. 

Then there's David Dastmalchian as Polka-Dot Man. He's still ongoing in the Ant-Man movies as Kurt, one of Scott's buddies who run the security firm, and he's the kind of character who will never die because he's there for comic relief, and the Ant-Man movies aren't those kinds of movies.

Finally we get a very small role from Taika Waititi, seen only in flashbacks, playing the father of Ratcatcher 2, played very memorably by Daniela Melchior. He's already dead from the start of the movie, so we won't expect him in any future Suicide Squad movies, but he's probably the person most currently in Marvel's good graces (as director of the last and next Thor movie), and he really only would have participated with Marvel's blessing. 

Maybe in this crazy world of bitter feuds between comic book mega giants, there's hope that we really all can get along.

                                                            *************

I think I had more to say originally after watching this movie, but that was Saturday night and now it's Wednesday morning, and I can no longer remember it. It's been a busy few days.

But I'll just close by saying that The Suicide Squad is awesome, and Gunn has definitely bought himself a reprieve from my future scorn.

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Rob Zombie is the new James Gunn

No, I'm not going to rip on James Gunn again today -- I am only going to refer to past instances of me ripping on him.

And this time it's got a Halloween theme of sorts, at least.

It seems like every couple months I have to come on here and whinge (to use the Australian word) about MovieWeb and the twice- or thrice-weekly emails it sends me compiling the latest "stories" written for the site. I put "stories" in quotation marks because my biggest complaint about these "articles" is that they are about stupid things like casting speculations that are based in no reality except maybe something some fan tweeted, or some random thing some actor said they would "love to do." Because he's so active on Twitter and loves talking about himself, James Gunn has appeared in an inordinate number of these MovieWeb stories over the years.

Lately, though, it's Rob Zombie getting all the attention.

If you didn't know, Zombie is making a version of The Munsters. I know because MovieWeb has mentioned it ... (pauses to count) ... 137 times.

Here we go:

6/10/21: "Rob Zombie Reveals Munsters Logo, Confirms he's Directing"

6/19/21: "The Munsters Movie: Rob Zombie and Butch Patrick Celebrate with a Ride in the Koach"

7/15/21: "Rob Zombie is Building an Exact Replica of The Munsters House for his Movie"

7/17/21: "Rob Zombie Reveals The Munsters Bedtime Wardrobe Designs for Herman & Lily Munster"

7/22/21: "All of Mockingbird Lane is Being Built for The Munsters, Rob Zombie Shares His Plans"

7/24/21: "Herman Munster Design Teased by Rob Zombie for The Munsters Movie"

7/24/21: "WWE's Kevin Nash Wants to Play Herman Munster in Rob Zombie's Munsters Movie"

9/25/21: "The Munsters Mockingbird Lane Lives Again Thanks to Rob Zombie"

10/2/21: "The Munsters House Looks Ready to Move Into as Rob Zombie Continues Set Construction"

10/14/21: "Rob Zombie is Back on The Munsters Set to Unveil Finished 1313 Mockingbird Lane"

10/21/21: "Rob Zombie Reveals First Look at The Munsters Reboot Cast"

Not 137. But 11 different times in the past four months and change, including two different "articles" on the same day back on July 24th. For a movie that does not even have a possible release date listed on IMDB. 

October 2022 would be a logical guess ... which means we really might get to 137.

Friday, July 23, 2021

James Gunn continues to not stop talking about himself

This marks the fourth time I have complained about James Gunn on my blog.

That's too much. Even I know that. 

But it's the first I've written about him in three years, so you know, I have to catch up new readers on my thoughts.

As I wrote about here, here and here, Gunn loves the sound of his own voice. Or the sound of his own thumbs on his phone. He wants to be the topic of conversation and so he comes forward with "newsworthy" bits of information that sites like Movieweb will break out into their own non-news articles. If I didn't subscribe to Movieweb I might not be half as annoyed by him as I am.

In the third one of those posts, though, I talked about how Gunn had finally been "hoisted on his own petard" -- and I just noticed I spelled "petard" wrong. (Embarrassing. I've fixed it.) Twitter was the platform Gunn had been abusing as a social media hound and attention whore, and then Twitter started abusing him by producing old tweets in which he joked about pedophelia. He was fired from his gig as director of Guardians of the Galaxy - Vol. 3. 

This did shut Gunn up. For a while.

But he's baaaAAAaaack. 

If it had been just one story I'd heard from this week, I would have kept these thoughts to myself. Gunn can come back out of his hole now, as he is director of both the upcoming The Suicide Squad and of the eventual movie from which he was fired, the third Guardians of the Galaxy. Which itself was probably more than the deserved.

And the first "story" seemed fine as promotional accompaniment to The Suicide Squad, in which he talks about how the movie "saved his life" (puh-LEEEEZE) because of its timing, as it was offered to him when he was licking his wounds over the Twitter pedophelia controversy. (I mean, it probably did save his life, but the self-pity involved in that comment is nauseating.) 

But then another bit of non-news without a non-news peg -- again courtesy of Movieweb -- came along today, and I just can't keep these fingers from typing. 

Today Gunn wants to tell all of us how he is "probably done" with the MCU after Guardians of the Galaxy - Vol. 3.

First, I don't care. You care a lot more about the future of your career than we do, James.

Second, look at the big man trying to reclaim the upper hand over the company that fired and then re-hired him. I guess once you're almost done with the new movie (not sure how far along he actually is) you can start biting the hand that feeds you, even if that hand also temporarily withdrew your food. (Because of something you did, don't forget.)

Third ... just shut up for Christ's sake.

Now, I have to say, in reading what Movieweb chose to single out from his New York Times interview in support of The Suicide Squad, this seems a lot more like a Movieweb writer desperate for content than James Gunn taking to the airwaves to give us his unsolicited thoughts on himself. I should know by now to blame the writer, not the subject, when it comes to Movieweb. 

But the fact of the matter is, no other director out there is so consistently quoted by Movieweb talking about himself as Gunn is. And after awhile, it seems like Narcissus is seeking out those reflective surfaces in which to preen at himself.

Okay, now I myself will shut up about Gunn ... for at least three more years. 

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Hoisted on his own petard

Live by the tweet, die by the tweet.

One of my most consistent hobby horses over the past couple years on this blog is how annoying I find James Gunn's Twitter personality. Now, he may no longer have one.

The news of the day when I woke up this morning was that Gunn had been fired as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 after his tweets joking about rape and pedophilia surfaced from ten years ago.

While I don't relish the news in the sense that it's a conservative hit job -- Gunn has been an outspoken Trump critic -- I do take a certain pleasure in the fact that James Gunn will finally have to shut up.

I would have no problem with the guy personally, and I like most of his movies, and I understand the joking spirit in which he made those tweets about "the time Uncle Bernie fisted me" and all that stuff. But he turned me from a supporter into a critic when he let the success of Guardians of the Galaxy go to his head and had to show up every other day on Twitter sending out some kind of non-news that drew attention to his own brand. Some examples of that were when he sent out the video of how Baby Groot's dance moves were based on his own dance moves, or revealed to us "what Groot was actually saying" every time he said "I am Groot," most annoyingly at the end of Avengers: Infinity War. Whether all these things were proof of his naked love of the spotlight or not, they came with such frequency that I began to think he needed to have his phone taken out of his hands almost as much as Trump needs to.

Now, it remains to be seen if he'll ever want to tweet anything about himself again.

It's been that kind of week on Twitter. Major league baseball pitcher Josh Hader also had his former tweets come back to haunt him. He tweeted out racist and homophobic remarks back in 2011 and 2012 when he was a teenager. Neither baseball nor his team has decided to punish him, rightly realizing that his own status as a pariah will be punishment enough.

Disney doesn't have the option not to punish Gunn. He had to go.

It does seem like too much of a punishment, at least in terms of what I wanted. I didn't want him to be professionally blacklisted, and of course wouldn't have dreamed of a scenario where he would be. I just wanted some humility. Having one of the Guardians movies tank at the box office probably would have been humbling enough.

But I do feel a bit of schadenfreude this morning as I type these words. James Gunn found a social media platform he liked, became addicted to it and to the attention it brought him, and flew too close to the sun. If he had liked Twitter a little less, maybe he wouldn't have put himself in the position to draw the ire of the conservatives who ultimately brought about the possible end of his career.

Maybe they should hire Joe and Anthony Russo to direct the third Guardians movie. Ironically, it was in the Russo-directed Infinity War that I liked the Guardians the most.

As for Gunn ... well, maybe following a period of much-needed humility he'll get to have a career again.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

The value of holding out

At this time of year, my film-watching selectivity kind of goes out the window. As you may recall from previous times I’ve discussed this, the movies I watch (and rank) in a given year are meant to comprise a representative sample of what was out in that year, meaning all genres, intended for all demographics. As the year-end crunch begins, what I watch becomes as much a function of opportunity as anything else. If something is easily accessible based on opportunity (i.e. low/no cost, only thing playing at a certain time, etc.) I will watch it. The only time I’m making qualitative choices is if all else is equal (two movies playing at the same time and I can only see one, two movies available from the kiosk and can only rent one). Or, of course, if it’s something I’m looking forward to.

But there’s a flip side to the whole “representative sample” argument. Not only do I want to see a little of everything, but I don’t want to see all of anything. A representative sample does not mean, for example, every comic book movie released in a certain year. If I can leave at least one off, I feel like I’m honoring my watching/ranking philosophy a bit better.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was to be that choice this year. There were a number of reasons for this.

      1)  I didn’t care for the first one all that much. It was okay.
      2)   I’m really, really, really sick of the social media presence of director James Gunn, and the way he luxuriates in the spotlight.
      3)  I heard this one wasn’t very good, anyway.

But then today this resolution came in direct conflict with my philosophies on accessibility and availability. As I was returning The Zookeeper’s Wife – a classic December accessibility option – to the library, I saw another “hot pick” on the “hot pick shelf” that couldn’t help catch my eye. That “hot pick” – meaning I can only rent it for one week and not renew it (as opposed to the three weeks you get for other movies) – was, as you’ve figured out, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

I had determined not to pay money for Guardians 2, as is usually my only recourse once I’ve missed seeing it in the theater with my critics card. But free? It was unexpected, and made me think twice about it.

I ultimately did walk away with it, though of course, having spent no money on it, I could always return it unwatched.

Whether I will is what I’m struggling with now, and even though this struggle is academic and of no interest to anyone but me, I will probably expend a few more paragraphs on it.

On the one hand, by watching Guardians 2 I feel like I would be rewarding James Gunn. Not financially, of course, as a free rental of the movie does not conceivably benefit Gunn in any way, or add swelling to his already large head. However, just knowing that I watched his movie after vowing to “punish him” by not watching it disturbs me on some level. It’s the principle of it. You know, kind of like how one vote in an election doesn’t matter unless you believe that it does.

But then I think, what if I like this movie precisely because I did not like the first one? One of the big pop culture talking points this fall seems to be that people who didn’t so much care for the original Blade Runner really like Blade Runner 2049, and vice versa. Maybe what fans of the original Guardians of the Galaxy didn’t like about the sequel was that it changed in some essential way from what they originally liked. And since I didn’t like that, maybe I would like this.

Then I learned that Cat Stevens’ classic song “Father and Son,” a personal favorite, figures into the climax of this film. While that doesn’t sound particularly promising in terms of the film’s erratic tone, which was one of my problems with the first one, it is one of my favorite songs, and I’m on a bit of a Cat Stevens high right now, having seen him in concert last week. (He played 32 songs, mostly classics!)

Then I think “I’m going to see Guardians of the Galaxy 2 eventually. Why postpone the inevitable?”

I guess it will depend on how my viewing week shakes out. I’ve got a couple nights already committed to other viewings, but I’ve also got some open nights, including my weekend nights, for which a Guardians viewing would be ideally suited.

In other words, I’m probably going to watch it.

Damn you James Gunn. 

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

I continue to be so over James Gunn

You may recall that when the first Guardians of the Galaxy came out and was a huge success, and
director James Gunn started showing up everywhere to "humbly" accept the praise and to poke his head into the spotlight, I got really annoyed with the guy. I posted about it here. (You can't see the hyperlink? That's because I was sure I posted about this, but apparently never did. Maybe I just complained about it loudly in my Flickcharters Facebook group.)

During the run of the sequel, I hadn't had occasion to notice the same kind of behavior from the director, maybe because the sequel is not as much of a hit with critics (though still a massive hit financially), or maybe just because my head is a bit more in the sand in general these days.

But you can't keep a narcissistic man down, so it figured that Gunn would eventually show up to take credit for something again.

Perhaps the most conversation-worthy element of the sequel, if it's not Kurt Russell, is Baby Groot. You know, the re-growing tree man who was reduced to a bunch of kindling at the end of the first movie. There may be other conversation-worthy elements, but I still haven't seen the movie, so I'm not a part of that conversation.

Anyway, Twitter was James Gunn's favorite outlet of "humble" self-promotion, so it shouldn't surprise me that he took to Twitter to post this video:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/871082570691350529

For those who don't want to follow the link, it's a GIF of Gunn dancing. The exact dance moves were then used to animate Baby Groot dancing.

I can see why he posted this GIF, which is kind of the epitome of the way people use Twitter. And I'm sure there are a lot of Guardians fans who eat this up.

But I am not a Guardians fan, so I can be more critical.

To me this video says "Not only am I the man with the unique combination of instincts and characteristics to make two great Guardians of the Galaxy movies, but I can even choreograph dance moves."

Or even "No one can interpret the potential dance moves of Baby Groot like I can."

Or even "My dance moves are so great that the only possible outlet I could think of that would showcase just how great they are is having this adorable regrowing version of Groot dance them."

Never mind that adult Groot never danced, so there's really no explanation for why Baby Groot would. (Or maybe there is. As I said, I haven't seen the movie.)

When I went on ad nauseum about why James Gunn bothered me three years ago when the first movie came out, my Flickcharters Facebook group -- most of whom loved the movie -- were not a very receptive audience. They thought I was "jealous," or something -- which is a bit ridiculous, as I don't aspire to the same things James Gunn aspires to, and am not operating within the same arena. And if I'm looking at it objectively, I'm sure Gunn's version of social media savvy self-promotion is not very different from that of dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of other Twitter-using celebrities. What's more, the studio surely loves that kind of promotion of its product.

But sometimes a person just strikes you as fatuous, as insufferable, as hogging the spotlight under the guise of some kind of "aw shucks" modesty. For me, James Gunn is that person.

Gunn ends the tweet by telling his followers to go see Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 "again," making another arrogant (though probably correct) assumption that they've already seen it once.

People like Gunn make me not want to see their movies the first time.