 |
| Ellen Page |
Welcome to Alternative to What: a weekly column that tries to find a great alternative to driving to the multiplexes. Based on releases of that week, the selections will either be thematically related or feature recurring cast and crew. The goal is to help you better understand the diversity of cinema and hopefully find you some favorites while saving a few bucks. At worse, this column will save you money. Expect each installment to come out on Fridays, unless specified.
THIS WEEK:
Super (2011)
- Alternative To -
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
This week marks yet another chapter in Marvel's cinematic universe as they unleash Chris Pratt and a gang of wise-cracking alien characters in Guardians of the Galaxy. It is quite a gamble, especially since the entire cast has no discernible box office credibility and special effects aside, is far removed from anything that looks immediately tangible or necessary to get behind The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron. Who are these characters and why should we care? It's not like we're expecting Captain America or The Hulk cameos. In fact, it doesn't make sense how they would fit in.
However, one of the major reasons to be excited about the film is the director: James Gunn. Marvel has been reliable when it comes to finding deviant directors to make these modern blockbusters. Imagine how dull Thor would be without the theatricality of Kenneth Branagh's direction (you get the boring Thor: The Dark World, but that's besides the point). There's a need to be brisk and engaging. In a sense, Gunn is the perfect director despite having never worked with a budget more than 10 times that of Guardians of the Galaxy. His filmography is strange, grotesque, and darkly funny with some homages to morose monsters. So essentially, he is set.
However, when considering why audiences should be more excited about this film because of Gunn, one simply must turn to Super, which was his previous film and a tirade against superhero culture. Starring Rainn Wilson as Frank, he takes on the guise of The Crimson Bolt to save his wife (Liv Tyler) from a devious jerk (Kevin Bacon) with the help of lunatic comic book shop worker Libby (Ellen Page). From there, the film creates a fascinating exploration of why individuals would WANT to become superheroes and why that isn't always the best thing. It is an honest look at mental illness with realistic consequences and a lot of weird dissections that make it almost like the Taxi Driver of superhero movies. Do we root for Frank or sympathize? Having seen it five times, I don't really have an answer.
For those that find Kick-Ass too stylistic and Defendor too dramatic, this is the perfect middle ground. It is an essay on our obsession with being the hero and why you shouldn't be. Full of dark humor, a lot of strange religious subtext (featuring a cameo by Nathan Fillion), and a bonkers performance by Page, it is sort of a vulgar film that plays scrappy. The benefit is that the film never plays out in the traditional superhero format and give us the happy ending. What does happen is more shocking and satisfying. Is it perfect? Nope, but neither are its characters, who are delightful in their anger issues.
A lot of the film's success benefits from a game cast and the fact that Gunn, on a budget of $2.5 million, managed to film everything in a renegade fashion. Using his training from his days as a Troma filmmaker, the film captures a lot of the immediacy that comes with shooting so quickly and having limited resources. Along with one of the best opening credits sequences, the film reflects a filmmaker who could take any sum of money and produce something surreal and unique. It is violent and dark, but it does have personality, which is why Gunn's renegade sensibilities seems fit for the new subject.
I will admit that it does seem funny that Gunn has chosen such a contradicting subject to follow up Super. From the budget to the concept, they couldn't be more different. Even then, Gunn has a strange obsession with supernatural beings and cocky humor. Super proved that he can paint the rebels in an interesting way. It may not be polished or as enjoyable and accessible as any Marvel film, but it is a wonderful dichotomy of what superhero culture is in real life and that the reverence should sometimes be saved for the comic book pages. Even this, this semi-exploitative film is a deliciously dark and fascinating look into mental illness and when you're not actually being the hero.
A lot of the film's success benefits from a game cast and the fact that Gunn, on a budget of $2.5 million, managed to film everything in a renegade fashion. Using his training from his days as a Troma filmmaker, the film captures a lot of the immediacy that comes with shooting so quickly and having limited resources. Along with one of the best opening credits sequences, the film reflects a filmmaker who could take any sum of money and produce something surreal and unique. It is violent and dark, but it does have personality, which is why Gunn's renegade sensibilities seems fit for the new subject.
I will admit that it does seem funny that Gunn has chosen such a contradicting subject to follow up Super. From the budget to the concept, they couldn't be more different. Even then, Gunn has a strange obsession with supernatural beings and cocky humor. Super proved that he can paint the rebels in an interesting way. It may not be polished or as enjoyable and accessible as any Marvel film, but it is a wonderful dichotomy of what superhero culture is in real life and that the reverence should sometimes be saved for the comic book pages. Even this, this semi-exploitative film is a deliciously dark and fascinating look into mental illness and when you're not actually being the hero.
Comments
Post a Comment