Galaxy Brained

Writer-director James Gunn is off to run the DC superhero film franchise (and if Peacemaker is any indication, it'll be better for that). But first, Gunn has a goodbye to the franchise and characters that turned so many into fans, with Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3.

If you're a fan of the other Guardians movies, you're almost certain to like this one; it's very much of a piece with the first two in tone and content. It is, as expected, fairly irreverent and definitely funny. Marvel movies have shifted much more to this mode over the years, so much so that it's easy to forget that before the first Guardians movie, the MCU was a much more dour and uninviting place. Still, not all the movies are hitting this strike zone as consistently as James Gunn and this cast.

Speaking of the cast, it's fun to watch Gunn continue to collect actors. It's clear that if you do good work one of his movies, he's going to keep looking to you whenever possible. (That's why the likes of Nathan Fillion and Michael Rooker show up in so many of his films.) In the long six years since the last Guardians movie, Gunn has added to his collection. So Guardians Vol. 3 includes a broad turn from Chukwudi Iwuji (from Peacemaker) as the larger-than-life villain The High Evolutionary.

In basically every review I post of an MCU movie, I wind up complaining about the CG-laden climax that has insufficient emotional weight. It's as if pixel count and stakes are inversely proportional. But it's also as if this is part of the viewer's "contract" with the MCU, and that I should stop bringing it up. Still, I'll mention it here to say that Guardians Vol. 3 does better in this regard. The finale does indeed throw more CG on screen than the mind can process (though with its space setting and countless alien creatures, the whole movie does that) -- and yet there is a smart awareness of the problem, and so Gunn has included "something to fight for" in the script that does help give a humanist lifeline to hold on to during the spectacle.

Still, I think it's fair to say that this franchise within the larger MCU franchise is exhibiting signs of diminishing returns. I'd say each Guardians move has been slightly less good than the one before, and so to me it feels pretty good that this is set to be the last one -- I feel the "decay rate" applied to a Vol. 4 would take the movies below some notable threshold of quality, and I think a credible claim can still be made that it's "going out on top" to end now.

But if this is the end, there is one decision I don't quite understand. A minor spoiler of the first 10 minutes of the movie, but the plot here is ultimately about trying to save Rocket's life. Putting the character basically in a coma is a perplexing choice to me. Yes, he's in the movie via flashbacks (and those flashbacks are even the source of most of the movie's most emotional scenes). But to do a "final Guardians of the Galaxy" movie structured in a way that means you don't get to see all the Guardians together on one final adventure? That seems strange to me. (Especially in light of the fact that Gunn was forced by franchise decisions to write for a Gamora-who-isn't-Gamora.)

Despite a couple of reservations, though, I'd say Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was generally good. I'd give it a B. It does feel like the MCU has some losses to now make up for in losing some of these characters and the creative force behind them.