Last September deciding on a #1 movie for my review took all of one second. Now You See Me pleasantly surprised me last May and remained my favorite film all summer long. I still love that movie and now own it and wish I watched it more often.
Most years, picking a favorite is an almost effortless exercise for me. Either I like one movie way more than all the others (say, 2012’s The Avengers), or a couple of films stand apart from the rest (as in summer ’08 when I loved both Wall-E and The Dark Knight).
This year, though, I am really having trouble. In terms of quantity, relatively few big movies came out this summer. But quality is a different story.
The six films that have found a place in my top tier this year are (in my book) all excellent. Any one of them could rightly be called, “The summer’s best film!” To be honest, I’ve shuffled them so often I feel dizzy, and still I’m not completely sure which one of these movies I personally like the best. I guess what I’m saying is, “I’m sorry, but they’re all my favorite.”
So (despite the numbering) think of this tier as less as a countdown to the top than a big, crazy, “Congratulations! You’re one of this summer’s number #1 movies!!!” party. Don’t worry too much about the seeming oxymoron (this summer’s #1 movies). Trust me, too much thought on your part will only make me look bad. Instead just clear your head of all logic and enjoy my write-up of this diverse assortment of excellent films.
6.) X-Men: Days of Future Past (A/A+)
Why I Liked It:
I still can’t believe Bryan Singer and the others actually pulled it off! I keep expecting to wake up one morning to discover that the timeline has been reset, and Days of Future Past is still in development facing an uncertain future.
Even if you’re not a fan of the X-Men, you must admit that this installment of the franchise is a staggering cinematic achievement. Even in an ordinary X-Men movie, giving adequate time and development to every major character in the ensemble is a challenge, but in this film, most of those major characters are played by two actors, and each of those actors is a huge star.
Thankfully, there’s really only one Wolverine (Hugh Jackman)! But he’s operating in two distinct time periods to pull off a rather complicated scheme involving a ton of major players. So the movie needs to focus on a key relationship by showcasing both Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy as Professor X and both Ian McKellan and Michael Fassbender as Magneto! That’s difficult enough, but then there must be meaningful cameos for all the other famous faces of the X-Men franchise, a significant role for the insanely popular Jennifer Lawrence (as young Mystique), and even time to introduce some new players (including Evan Peters as Quicksilver and Peter Dinklage as Dr. Trask).
A fan can forgive a film for faltering when it bites off more than it can chew, but this movie doesn’t falter, and that is amazing.
Days of Future Past gives us action, excitement, humor, and heart, and makes it all look effortless. We also get spot on performances by superb actors, some playing extremely familiar (even beloved) faces, others bringing to life new additions to the ensemble.
Why You Might Not Like It:
The X-Men franchise has a lot of devoted fans, but more casual film goers have probably noticed by now that it can be a bit of a one-trick pony.
Mutants have rights, too. Mutants are different, but they are just as good as other humans. No one has the right to treat others with scorn or cruelty. Everyone deserves (or—if you prefer—inherently has) civil rights. Regular humans should not oppress or kill mutants, and (even though the regular humans can be extremely annoying and gratingly tiresome) mutants should not oppress or kill the regular humans, either.
This is the fifth X-Men movie since Bryan Singer started making them back in 2000 (if you don’t count the Wolverine spin-offs), and every one of them is about the same thing. The plots vary, of course. But every single time, no matter what the characters may be doing, this message of equality is what the movie is (emphatically) saying.
So, I mean, certain kinds of expected events take place in every X-Men outing. It’s hardly surprising when we see that Professor Xavier and Magneto aren’t seeing eye to eye on something. Of course, at some point, what they have in common will triumph for a time, and they will work together to achieve some end. But that uneasy peace will all be temporary. Similarly, Wolverine is always a loner, simultaneously wanting belonging and rejecting the strings that accompany it. He wants to unravel the secrets of his past, too, but his past keeps changing…
Basically X-Men always gives us the same lesson, and it usually gives us many of the same plot points. Now of course, one could argue that we as a society still have not learned that lesson (however basic it may seem), and one would be right. So I guess I’m the one who’s arguing that we still haven’t learned that lesson and still need to be told. I’m not saying the lesson isn’t useful, just that the movie isn’t giving us anything particularly novel.
As much as we all love the familiar, most truly great movies do something original to make themselves memorable. Days of Future Past is the best X-Men movie that I can imagine. But at the end of the day, it’s still another X-Men movie.
Another slight weakness of the film is a natural limitation of its massive scope. Days of Future Past is showing us so many people over the course of so much time that it doesn’t have the ability to show any person or thing in great depth or detail. Commendably the movie remains coherent, delivers some satisfying character arcs, and does not completely devolve into chaos. Nevertheless, it simply can’t afford to spend too much time on any one character, so the results are more shallow, superficial, and rushed than what you would find in a more in-depth examination of fewer protagonists.
Of the star characters with featured roles, Mystique in particular gets a very rushed treatment here. Jennifer Lawrence does a great job in a very showy part, but I think Matthew Vaughn used her better in X-Men: First Class.
5.) How to Train Your Dragon 2 (A/A+)
Why I Liked It:
Dreamworks has always had an edge when it comes to computer generated animation, but even by the company’s own standard, How to Train Your Dragon 2 features exceptionally rendered visuals, some of the most stunning I have ever seen.
As a casual fan of the first How to Train Your Dragon, I went to this movie expecting good things. Instead I got great things, work far exceeding my expectations.
This time around, everything is faster, more intense, more vibrant, and more resonant. The story engages us immediately, and the pacing is brisk and measured, so we’re never bored. But what matters more is how amazing Hiccup’s world now looks. And what matters more than that is how deeply this expanding world makes us feel.
Valka in particular is animated with such artistry. It’s not only the way she looks. It’s the way she moves. Her introduction is fantastic. Her body language and general look reminded me at once of both Pan’s Labyrinth and something from the Star Wars universe. And the way Cate Blanchett voices the character! Wow! Talk about perfect casting and a superlative performance! Too bad nobody made a Boyhood style film about Valka’s twenty-year stay at her current hideout. I could watch that movie all day.
John Powell’s score is the perfect complement to the high-flying animation, and one particular song deserves Academy Award consideration. In fact, based on what I’ve seen so far, the entire movie is a strong Oscar contender (for Best Animated Feature Film).
Why You Might Not Like It:
Drago is not a great villain. Well, actually, he is a great villain in the sense that being a villain is his entire raison d’être. Basically he exists only to be the bad guy (and that’s not a good thing!).
I understand we’re more emotionally invested in the protagonists of the entire franchise than in the villain of a single chapter, but seriously, Drago is like a cross between Rasputin and a plot device. He does not seem human, at all.
He seems swarthy, exotic, and frighteningly Other (because what vague evil person in a lazy children’s story isn’t?), but he’s mainly there for the inconvenience of the heroes and (thus) the convenience of the plot.
The fact that (for no apparent reason) he wants to take over the world with an evil dragon army doesn’t bother me. I mean, a devotion to evil (cinematic or otherwise) inevitably leads down one of two paths: a) the dragon army route or b) the life of Jordan Belfort as dramatized by Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street. So I don’t mind filling in what’s left unsaid there for myself.
But how did he gain control over all these dragons exactly? His explanation seems to be, “Dragons frightened me, so I thought life would be better if I had absolute power over them, and now I do.” Um. Okay. As explanations go, that’s as helpful as saying, “Plane tickets were expensive, so I thought life would be better if I could fly using only my body, so now I do,” or, “Poverty depressed me, so I thought life would be better if I had all the money in the world, so now I do.” Sorry but a sizable chunk of this person’s backstory is missing completely, and without it, the character does not make a lot of sense.
It makes me think, “Why are you so bad, Drago?” “Because…I am so evil! Bwaaa haa haa haa haa haa haaa!” Spooky for sure, but not very helpful in terms of character development.
“How did you gain the power to control that massive dragon, Drago?” “Because you dared ask that question, I will now command my massive dragon to roast you alive with his fiery breath! Bwaaa haa haa haa haa haa haa haaaaaa!”
So as you can see, though I loved the movie over all, I had a few problems with the character of Drago.
I actually think the entire ending sequence is just a little bit too convenient for everyone. Drago does something so fiendish—mainly just to make all the little kids cry and have nightmares, I think. And, wow!, isn’t that all just awful for Valka, who never gets the chance to finish her vague explanations. (“I always meant to come back to you the whole time…that’s why I’ve stayed away for twenty years without ever trying to contact you once…I mean…OH NO!”) Seriously Valka should write Drago a thank you note! That was a narrow escape for her! Now she doesn’t have to compromise anything or make any awkward changes, and she still gets the uncomplicated love and devotion of her son.
4.) Lucy (A+)
Why I Liked It:
Lucy may not rank as high elsewhere, but I can’t put it any lower on my list because I loved watching it. I know critics are supposed to believe that Luc Besson has fallen into the cinematic equivalent of the Marianas Trench since he peaked as a director with The Professional way back in 1994, but I always enjoy his crazy movies, and as far as I’m concerned, Lucy is easily his strongest film since The Fifth Element.
This has been a great year for Scarlett Johansson. She just gave birth to a baby girl, and she’s been in what seems like half the theatrical releases of 2014. In fact, not one but two movies in which Johansson appears made this top tier of my list (and if Captain America: The Winter Solider had released a month later, that total would have jumped to three).
In the past, I would not have described myself as a Scarlett Johansson fan, but recently she’s won me over, and she definitely carries this movie. Her riveting and highly watchable central performance heightens the suspense of the first act and allows the audience to become invested in the character immediately, essential given the film’s relentlessly rapid pacing. Johansson’s gripping portrayal of a woman undergoing trauma not only makes the movie more suspenseful, but it also wins our sympathy right away.
As the story progresses, of course, Lucy becomes increasingly detached. Surprisingly the process of letting her go is fun for the audience. Once she is something more (and less) than human, Lucy is suddenly impervious to all the pain the criminals pursuing her like to dole out relentlessly. A protagonist who has won us over with her wrenching vulnerability in the beginning gradually becomes invincible as the story progresses. By the time these changes start occurring, we have already invested in Lucy deeply, and now she can’t be hurt. This new invincibility is surprisingly delightful for the audience to experience vicariously. Thinking back over Lucy’s transition later also provides fruitful material for further discussion. (For such a mad, action-packed scramble, this film offers surprising depth and insight and would definitely be a great conversation starter.)
If you don’t want to think, the movie is great for that, too. The action scenes (particularly that chase through the streets of Paris) provide a visceral rush of delight, and visuals and sound are both fantastic.
Plus, as an added bonus, Morgan Freeman is impeccably cast as the one person someone using 100 percent of her brain capacity can turn to for sage advice. (Who else could be convincing in that role?)
Amr Waked is also great as Pierre Del Rio, an everyman character who enters near the end of the story because the audience needs him as “a reminder” (of humanity) as much as Lucy does. Analeigh Tipton gets a very funny scene. But hands down, my favorite supporting character in this film is Mr. Jang (Min-sik Choi) a drug lord who has (apparently) seen everything. When he learns that there’s “a witch” causing trouble for his operation, he’s not incredulous or fearful, just annoyed. To him, women with magical powers are nothing new, I guess. (Maybe he watches a lot of Luc Besson movies.)
Why You Might Not Like It:
I know why people won’t like this movie. The ending will seem inadequate to them, maybe even silly. But I also think that people are too quick to mock in general. Sometimes when I hear people thoughtlessly laughing at some concept or book or movie or person—you know, just jeering on instinct, “That’s so stupid,”—I want to go up to them and ask politely, “Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you’re the one who is stupid?”
Of course, that tends to seem rude. (But I’d be willing to bet that it really hasn’t occurred to 90 percent of them, particularly the ones who actually are stupid.)
Now I’m not saying that the ending of the movie is brilliant. And I’m also not saying that an intelligent person couldn’t find it ridiculous. I just know that in the screening I was in, before the end credits even started to roll, one guy burst out laughing and blurted out derisively, “That’s so stupid! What a waste of time! That didn’t even make sense!”
I’m willing to bet that if you don’t spend any time thinking about what you’ve seen, then you waste your time watching anything! Imagine how many things must not make sense! (FYI, you should also be worried if everything in your world makes perfect, unproblematic sense.) But I’m not the movie theater police, so fine, whatever.
I think the ending of Lucy does make sense. It just doesn’t seem adequate. But as I watched the movie, more and more I anticipated the inadequacy of the ending because the premise has bitten off more than anyone can chew. Also, the movie seems to argue (deliberately) that what is beyond human comprehension is…well, beyond human comprehension! So once we get to that point…what do we expect? Clearly a message is not going to flash across the screen saying, “Now put on your cranial shield to be transported to the plane of higher existence where our feature presentation will conclude. Please be courteous to others and silence your cellphone, so that we can all enjoy our journey to enlightenment.”
Don’t get the wrong idea. I’m not trying to bash anyone who doesn’t like this movie. I’m sure that quite a few discerning people could easily find it not at all to their tastes. If you say that Luc Besson is a big weirdo with a twisted sense of humor, possible ADD, and an unnaturally intense obsession with magical women in peril, then you won’t get any arguments from me.
And I agree that the ending is the weakest part of the movie. (I do think it makes plenty of sense within the context of the film, though. Plus—given the challenges of the premise—I was actually pleasantly surprised that the ending wasn’t far more incoherent.)
Lucy has its weak points, but I enjoyed watching the movie so much that its flaws didn’t bother me at all.
3.) Boyhood (A+)
Why I Liked It:
This movie could win Best Picture or Best Director or both, and when something like that comes out in the summer, of course, it gets my attention. (Don’t misunderstand. I’m not predicting that Boyhood will win those honors—I haven’t seen any of the fall movies yet!—but at this point, nominations seem far more likely than not.)
At the risk of making myself sound totally crazy, I will now confess that I have always wanted to find out about a movie like this. You have no idea how fervently I’ve hoped that secret footage will surface, a movie made as a hobby by some huge star over the course of a lifetime! Wouldn’t that be so amazing to find? (I think it would. If I ever become a huge movie star, I’m totally doing that.) (Don’t hold your breath. I don’t even act.)
Boyhood isn’t exactly like that (although if Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette keep secretly working on it into their twilight years, it certainly could be). But it is pretty unique. Filmed over a span of twelve years, Richard Linklater’s passion project (I mean, it must be, right?) lets us watch a boy named Mason grow up (as young actor Ellar Coltrane actually ages over the course of production).
Another plus (for me) is that Mason is growing up in Texas (where I live), and spends a long time late in the movie wandering around Austin near the UT campus (where I went to grad school). I find that we’re increasingly getting (reasonably) high profile movies set in or near Austin (which is very encouraging to me because I have a book series set in or near Austin that I’m hoping to make high profile).
Both Hawke and Arquette could realistically get supporting acting nominations. Hawke’s character is more captivating and gets more development, but Arquette brings quite a bit to a character who is glaringly underwritten, so determining which of them gives the superior performance could easily lead to a twelve-year argument. I do expect to see (at least) one (and probably only one) of them nominated, though.
Coltrane also does a great job bringing Mason to life. He does seem very real. (I don’t expect any Oscar recognition for him, though, because it’s too easy to argue that playing an unremarkable boy is not much of a stretch for an unremarkable boy. I think Coltrane does a great job, but nobody cares what I think.) Linklater’s daughter Lorelei is also fantastic as Mason’s sister Samantha (a character who aggravated me so consistently that if I ever see Lorelei Linklater on the street, I’ll probably attack her as a reflex).
One of the great things about the movie is that some of the characters do seem grating, frustrating, irrational, exasperating. That’s extremely true-to-life and brings to the movie the exact authenticity that the director is clearly trying to cultivate.
Why You Might Not Like It:
This movie is a three-hour look at the ordinary life of one Texan boy from the ages of about 6 to 18. To be honest, your immediate reaction to that sentence says a lot. Based on that sentence alone, of course, there’s no way to guarantee that you will like the movie. But if you read that sentence and surmised, “That sounds like it would bore me to tears,” you would probably be right.
For an actor, being available each year for filming over the course of a twelve year period is an enormous commitment. But for an ordinary person, deciding to spend precious free time watching a three hour movie is a pretty huge commitment, too.
And if you fail to connect to Mason within the first ten to fifteen minutes, you might consider leaving. I never walk out of movies myself (unless a companion becomes unduly appalled or physically ill), but I’ll tell you right now, if you don’t find Mason interesting at six, you probably won’t like him any better when he’s a teenager.
This movie is all about a boy growing up with his family. And if you’re not immediately sympathetic to the boy and at least mildly curious about the family, then it doesn’t take a psychic to predict that you’re not going to enjoy watching the movie.
One frustrating thing about Boyhood is that the little boy in question grows up…into an older boy. He’s really not finished growing and developing as a person at the end of the movie. (Does any of us ever finish growing and developing as a person?) The adolescent Mason is so typically adolescent that it’s scary. (At times, I found myself thinking, “I knew so many eighteen-year-old guys like that!” At other times, I wondered in horror, “Did Richard Linklater read my diary?”) Since the movie is most concerned with Mason’s view of his world, the tone of the film changes a bit during this late sequence. It’s too bad that we can’t follow Mason any further because I’m positive the tonal changes in the last act are deliberate and meant to reflect changes within the protagonist. Watching the film’s tone change again as Mason grows out of adolescence might make that point a bit more clearly.
I also truly do wish we got a closer, deeper look at Mason’s mother and what makes her tick. Patricia Arquette gives a performance good enough to get some Oscar attention, but her character is frustratingly underwritten and shown to us only through Mason’s eyes. I understand why that’s necessary, but still, it’s frustrating to watch someone age twelve real years in three hours without really getting to know her at all.
2.) Chef (A+)
Why I Liked It:
Boyhood is a more ambitious project than Chef, and it may even win an Oscar for picture or director, but I still liked Chef better. That’s why I’m giving it the edge in these rankings. When I think back on Boyhood, I appreciate how well Linklater recreated the experience of growing up (male in the 2000s in Texas, though that doesn’t necessarily matter). But when I think back on Chef, I smile. Its storyline may be more contrived and less realistic, but there’s still something achingly real about the movie.
Chef is the kind of movie I could watch again and again. I might even enjoy having it on in the background while I do something else (and ordinarily I prefer to work in silence).
Jon Favreau studied with a real chef to give authenticity to the (many, loving) scenes of food preparation, and it shows. Watching him use his fingers to make his son a grilled cheese is surprisingly pleasurable.
“You just love grilled cheese sandwiches!” you say?
No, the thing is, it’s not really about the sandwich. As we hear the buttery bread sizzle and watch it brown, we feel we’re being nourished, participating in the meal, like we’re a part of the family, too. It’s less about the food than the idea that the food is lovingly prepared for real people. (Full disclosure: I do love grilled cheese sandwiches, though at this stage of life, I prefer preparing them to eating them.)
In the film, Favreau’s character finds success with his food truck version of a Cubano sandwich. This sandwich doesn’t come from nowhere. (Self-evidently, it comes from Cuba.) For Carl Casper, it comes from a rich history of meaningful family life with his son, ex-wife, and ex-father-in-law in Miami.
I watched a special screening of the film with a simulcast Q&A with the director, and the interview with Favreau only made me like the movie more. The analogy the film makes (and Favreau called out) between cooking and the creative arts (filmmaking, writing, etc.) works for me. And as a writer (though a much less successful one than Favreau), I found elements of the story particularly resonant and useful.
More than anything, I love the film’s “hands dirty” feel. This isn’t the cinematic fast food or prepackaged garbage we risk getting every time we buy a movie ticket. Chef easily distinguishes itself from other films. It offers something commonplace and yet truly fresh and different. I love the way the soundtrack and the visuals revel in flavorful specificity, so we feel that we’ve actually experienced something real by the time the end credits roll.
And in fact, because the protagonist ends up driving a food truck around the country, Chef literally does take us places, real places. I’m from Austin, as I’ve mentioned, so seeing things I recognize on the screen probably raises the movie in my estimation, too. Then again, I’ve never even been to Miami, and most of my favorite scenes take place there.
The acting is also fantastic. In a small role, Robert Downey Jr., tries to steal the movie and does make off with its most hilarious scene. Sofía Vergara gets a chance to show that she’s more than just a comedienne. And talented child actor Emjay Anthony gives a career making performance as Casper’s son Percy.
Why You Might Not Like It:
I loved Chef and enjoyed watching it and smile to myself when I think back on the experience, but even I think the movie is too long and (ever-so-slightly) self-indulgent. Now granted, that totally makes sense given the movie’s emphasis on the fact that artists are happier and do better work when they’re given greater control and autonomy. But still, it’s too long.
Also the ending—while satisfying—is not exactly realistic. I mean, you watch and think, “Hmm…I guess this could happen. After all, it did happen…in Ratatouille, remember?” (That Ratatouille comparison is not a serious criticism, though. Almost every cooking movie out there has some prominent elements in common with Ratatouille. And maybe that’s partially a reflection on Ratatouille. I mean, Pixar does great work but has not exactly established itself as a font of originality!)
The thing is, Carl Casper’s initial predicament is very much of our time, and I think most people (in this country, at least) can probably relate. Lots of us have frustrating jobs that don’t let us explore our true potential and limit our creativity and drive. But how many of us have rich ex-wives who look like Sofía Vergara and want to give us the means to start our dream job if we will only agree? And how many of us enjoy the admiration of someone as young and attractive as Scarlett Johansson who wants nothing more than to give us praise and encouragement and always thinks first not of herself, but of our relationship with our son?
Everybody has problems like Carl Casper, but not everybody has such an attractive way out. If we did, nobody would be complaining about minimum wage, and everybody would own a flourishing food truck on the streets of downtown Austin (clearly the nation’s most desirable place to live).
1.) Guardians of the Galaxy (A+)
Why I Liked It:
I…am Groot.
That’s what I keep writing as I try to come up with an end to that first sentence. Since I’ve done it fifty times now, I think I’ll just let “I am Groot” stick. (Get it? Stick?) “I am Groot” does, after all, sum up what’s best about Guardians of the Galaxy pretty well.
If you’re looking for the best action-packed, hilarious, effects-laden blockbuster of the summer, it’s hard to argue that X:Men: Days of Future Past doesn’t deserve that designation. I anticipated the release of Days of Future Past more than any other movie this summer, and for once, I was not bitterly disappointed with the results.
But here’s the thing. Guardians of the Galaxy is also action-packed, hilarious, and effects-laden. And it offers something than no X-Men movie (no matter how well made) ever can.
Novelty.
It’s new. It’s different. It’s unexpected. Unless you’re a fan of the comics, you’ve really never heard of these characters before, and they’re not really like anybody else out there.
Well, okay, Peter Quill is a lot like Han Solo (though mostly in his own mind), but that’s anxiety of influence (on the part of the character, not the Marvel writers. I’m using the term anxiety of influence extremely loosely, by the way. I’d come up with some more accurate, original phrase myself, but it’s so hard not to be derivative.)
Continuing his trend of rising in my estimation, the thoroughly likable Chris Pratt is even better here than in The Lego Movie (probably because a greater range of facial expression is open to you when your head is not a Lego). He has wonderful comedic timing but also brings a sweetness to the character that makes the audience sigh and fret and cheer at all the right moments.
Bradley Cooper handily pulls off Rocket the Raccoon (a tricky character to sell to a jaded audience). Zoe Saldana actually gets to do cool stuff as Gamora. (She gets to do cool stuff in all her movies, come to think of it. She’s obviously great at choosing material.) And Dave Bautista as Drax really, really surprised me.
(To be brutally honest, I have not read the comics and kept forgetting that Drax was even in the ensemble. While I was watching, I thought, Wow this guy is hanging around for a long time. Of course, I think I like him better than any of the others. I hope he keeps hanging around.) Bautista gives a great performance as a very memorable, likable character.
Then there’s Vin Diesel as Groot. Everybody loves Groot. (When it comes to sci-fi action films, just about everybody loves Vin Diesel, too.)
Actually the universal appeal of Groot is one of the biggest reason Guardians of the Galaxy ends up at number one for me. My five-year-old loved Groot and was so responsive to him on screen. She was not alone. All of the kids in the theater responded (vocally) to Groot, and, as far as I can tell, most adults liked him, too.
Summer needs more movies like this, a true action blockbuster that children and adults can enjoy equally. This reminds me of some of the more successful summer blockbusters of my day. It’s like watching an Indiana Jones movie, silly good fun for all ages. (Silly, but well-acted with high production value.)
Hopefully John C. Reilly and Glenn Close will be back for the next installment, too. It’s very exciting to see a new, unexplored franchise burst onto the summer screen.
Why You Might Not Like It:
When I saw this movie, I was completely drained emotionally because of a series of unexpected crises in real life, so I fear I may be overcompensating for my own emotional fatigue by ranking Guardians of the Galaxy this high.
It does have some definite weak points.
For me, the biggest drawback was the lack of high stakes. Sure Ronan threatens to do something that would result in the deaths of millions of people (at least), but how many of us in the audience actually believe for even one second that he has the slightest chance of succeeding?
I don’t know. Maybe the intensity in my own life just made the film’s events seem trivial, but I had a hard time taking Ronan seriously as a threat. I also think that Thanos has been disappointingly without menace so far, but I’m aware that they have pretty awesome plans in store for him, so I’ll withhold judgment for now.
I will say that Karen Gillan’s Nebula made a pretty compelling villain. I would have been happy to see a lot more of her, particularly because her backstory seems fascinating, and her ties to Gamora could make for an interesting subplot.
To me, Lee Pace was a lot creepier playing that spooky elf in The Hobbit than he was as Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy. I’m still ranking the movie #1 though, largely because in ten years when we look back on the summer of 2014, I expect that we’ll all say, “Oh yeah! That’s the year Guardians of the Galaxy came out.”
As far as I’m concerned, however, every film in this tier deserves to be called the best of the summer.