Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Firepower (1979) a (incredibly) belated review

4 Comments

Firepower is one of those films I saw once way, waaaaay back when it was released, perhaps in 1979 or 80 and never again.  Yet certain parts of it stuck with me and, when I learned it was going to be released to BluRay, I pre-ordered it.  On Tuesday it arrived and yesterday, for the first time in some (gulp) 35 years, I once again saw it.

How did I feel about revisiting it?  Read on, read on…

Let me start by saying I can’t really explain why the film stuck with me during all this time.  I couldn’t recall the movie’s plot but certain things remained: James Coburn’s cool machismo.  Sophia Loren’s absolute, undeniable beauty.  And yes, O. J. Simpson’s fate.

These three are the principles in the film, which to its credit begins with a couple of really BIG bangs (pardon the pun).  Which is good because after that explosive (jeeze) start, things settle down a little and the plot unfolds for a bit before we’re hit with the next wave of action.

The plot?  It goes like this: Sophia Loren is Adele Tasca and, in the movie’s opening minutes, she becomes a widow.  Afterwards Adele is eager to get revenge on the man she feels is behind the killing: Reclusive and, except for one very old photograph, unseen billionaire Karl Stenger (he’s basically a Howard Hughes type).  The U.S. Government, like Adele, are eager to get their hands on Stenger but, unfortunately, he is hiding out somewhere in the Caribbean and beyond U.S. extradition.

Adele suggests to the Feds they hire mercenary -and former flame- Jerry Fanon (James Coburn) to take up the job of bringing Stenger back to face justice.  They eventually do just that and Fanon, accompanied by right hand man Catlett (O. J. Simpson), and Adele all find themselves on Antigua and in pursuit of their prey.

I don’t want to get into too many spoilers beyond this point, but suffice it to say the film winds up being filled with double crosses, violence, and action.

As I said, I didn’t remember much of the film, but as it played out, I couldn’t help but think that the film plays out like a more violence filled episode of the original Mission: Impossible.  In fact, it plays out that way so much that it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the original script was intended for that TV show and was expanded for this feature.

The cast alone makes the case for me: Coburn is essentially Jim Phelps, Sophia Loren is the female star (Cinnamon or Lisa or Dana), and O.J. Simpson is a combination of Barney and Willy, simultaneously brains and muscle.  There is no use of disguise, but there is a…well, as I said before, I won’t get into spoilers!

The film moves reasonably well though, as with other older films, modern audiences may find the pace a little too slow.  In re-watching the film, I also came to the conclusion that Sophia Loren, rightfully considered a screen legend, was nonetheless miscast in the principle role.  Her character needed to be more of a femme fatale, but Ms. Loren was a little too aloof for this role.  I got the feeling she was simply reading her lines and moving along.  This particularly hurt toward the end of the film, which features considerable revelation and double crossing.

In conclusion, revisiting Firepower proved an interesting experience.  I don’t believe it is a particularly “great” film, but it is an entertaining bit of action that features a meaty and, to be fair, at times preposterous, plot.  Nonetheless, it is entertaining enough to spend some time with.

TRIVIA: When the film was in the works, the producers originally wanted Clint Eastwood for the Fanon role but he ultimately declined.  Charles Bronson was also considered for the role (he and director Michael Winner had worked together on many features) but supposedly dropped out because he wanted his then wife Jill Ireland in the movie but she couldn’t be accommodated into it.

Comic Books/Graphic Novels, Movies

The Flash directed by…Ingmar Bergman?!

Absolutely hilarious “trailer” for a Ingmar Bergman directed Flash show/movie.  If you don’t know who The Flash is, he’s DC Comic’s fastest man alive, a superhero capable of running faster than anyone…

…and in the hands of “Ingmar Bergman”, he becomes rather…moody:

Btw, found this video at:

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/the-flash-directed-by-1690110714

Movies

Blomkamp’s Alien in trouble…?

That was quick.

A few weeks back, the internet community was salivating at the curiously timed release of director Neill Blomkamp’s sketches regarding a possible fifth Alien film, one that features an older Ripley and, intriguingly, acid scarred Hicks.

To say I, like many others, was intrigued is an understatement.  I love the first two Alien films but felt the series made a very bad turn with Alien 3, which in the opening minutes cancelled out all the good that Aliens had accomplished by mercilessly -and, to my mind stupidly- killing off both Newt and Hicks, the only other human survivors of Aliens.  Alien Resurrection, to me, was a decent enough film which was neither terribly good or bad…but very mediocre.

So when Mr. Blomkamp’s ideas surfaced, the idea that the studios would have the -let’s face it- balls to consider a new Alien film that (it had to, right?) effectively ignore the events of Aliens 3 and Resurrection felt daring, fascinating, and quite bold.

Fox Studios took note of the fan reaction and, in short order, Mr. Blomkamp reported that his next film would be this new Alien feature, and there was much rejoicing.

But lost in all the hoopla was the fact that Mr. Blomkamp had a new film about to come out, Chappie.

As I said above, the release of all this Alien stuff was “curiously” timed.  After all, rather than push a new project, wouldn’t Mr. Blomkamp want to push his new project and get it to succeed before he starts jumping on his next project?

Beneath the excitement over this potential new Alien film, some started to question why the director was turning the chance to promote his to be released film into a push for his next one.

There grew a feeling that Chappie, like Mr. Blomkamp’s previous film Elysium, wasn’t all that good and Mr. Blomkamp and the studios knew it and that’s why he was pushing his next work.

Well, Chappie’s been released and the critical reviews haven’t been all that good.  Rottentomatoes.com currently has the film hovering in the 30% range for critics, a pretty dreadful score.  Audiences, however, appear to like it more, giving it a far better 67% positive.

Still the word of mouth doesn’t appear all that strong and it doesn’t look like Chappie will survive too long in its release.

Which has created a noticeable shift in opinion among many regarding Mr. Blomkamp’s Alien film.  People who were clamoring for Mr. Blomkamp’s take on the Alien franchise are, quite suddenly, ambivalent regarding his involvement.  Mr. Blomkamp has made three films so far, the well received -and successful- District 9 and followed that up with Elysium and Chappie, both of which appear to be disappointments.

Has the bloom left the rose?

I think it has.

The first sign of trouble was this intriguing article from Jeremy Smith and published on Ain’t It Cool News.  Now I know there’s a lot of nonsense published on that site, but now and again they present some articles that offer you food for thought, something Mr. Smith certainly has.  Read it for yourself:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70604

Perhaps the most hard hitting lines from that article are these.  I’ve bolded the statement that really hit home:

That last bit from Blomkamp (that he feels his talents aren’t best utilized as a director) comes courtesy of an interview with Uproxx’s Mike Ryan (which was conducted before the “ALIEN 5” deal was announced), and I think it’s a huge red flag. Given that Blomkamp now admits he “fucked up” ELYSIUM, and is so enamored of his latest movie, CHAPPiE, that he spent a good chunk of the press tour promoting his involvement in a new ALIEN flick, I’m not sure he should be getting a shot at a major franchise that could give a passionate filmmaker – i.e. one who believes with absolute certainty that he/she is a director – a significant career boost.

Ouch.

If Chappie winds up being a huge bust, I wouldn’t be surprised if Fox changes their mind about doing Mr. Blomkamp’s Alien.

Given what’s gone on, perhaps, just perhaps, that’s not such a bad thing.

Still, I would love to see someone give us a Alien film that brings back Ripley, Hicks, and Newt.

As always, we’ll see.

Movies

Housebound (2014) a (mildly) belated review

Ever since (perhaps before!) Abbott & Costello bumped into Frankenstein, there has been this cinematic sub-genre which mixes horror with humor in equal doses.

Perhaps one of the most famous relatively recent successes is Evil Dead II (1987), which featured literally buckets of blood poured onto its lead character -the immortal Bruce Campbell- who, as the film moved on, became a real live cartoon character.

The New Zealand movie export Housebound exists in the same general sandbox, though the movie doesn’t feature anywhere near the amount of gore/blood or cartoonish characterization that made Evil Dead II so delightful.

But that doesn’t mean the film didn’t succeed on its own!

The lovely Morgana O’Reilly (her eyes are sooo damn expressive!) is Kylie Bucknell, a young hooligan who, at the start of the movie, attempts to steal the money in an ATM machine.  Assisted by her (it turns out very quickly) completely useless boyfriend, she manages to get the loot but is unable to make her getaway.  In short order she is arrested and sent before a judge for sentencing.

Because of previous arrests, all involving petty criminal activities, Kylie is sentenced to house arrest.  She’s to wear an electronic monitor around her ankle and spend the next eight months at her home, a place we find she has little desire in returning to.

As it turns out, her relationship with her somewhat (!) daffy mother is very strained while her relationship with her stepfather (her father divorced and doesn’t communicate with either Kylie or her mother) is virtually nonexistent.  Worse, there’s this creepy neighbor living next door and at night she hears weird sounds…

Oh, and her mother believes the house is haunted.

What works so well for Housebound is the way the characters first appear as one note constructions yet over the course of the film become multidimensional people.  Kylie’s daft mother, for instance, turns into an interesting person who, while still daft, clearly means well.  Her stepfather’s silence is revealed to come from a pain he carries with him.  The officer in charge of monitoring Kylie’s home arrest, delightfully, is revealed to be much more than he first appears.  And even the creepy neighbor next door turns out to be not quite what you think.

But what makes the movie work is the fact that on top of the interesting characterization there’s a solid story being presented.  Is Kylie’s house haunted?  If so -or not- what secrets does it hide?  And what happened a number of years before in the house which may be the reason for all the eerie stuff happening now?

I’m being deliberately vague because I don’t want to get too deeply into spoiler territory.  Suffice it to say that I recommend the film…with some minor reservations.

Housebound does take a little time to get going and Kylie’s character, at least at the beginning, is very hard to root for.  However, by the time we get to the idea there may be ghosts in the house, the film starts to take flight and keeps you interested and surprised by its various reveals.

While it may not be the very best horror/comedy I’ve ever seen, there is plenty to like about Housebound.  If you have the patience to give it a few minutes to get started, you’re in for some great fun.

Movies

Lucy (2014) a (mildly) belated review

I’ve been intrigued by the last few features starring actress Scarlett Johansson.  She’s been on a roll, starring as the Black Widow in The Avengers, then playing a genuine black widow in intriguing (but to my mind ultimately flawed) Under The Skin.  Despite the success of the Marvel related films, as of yet there has been no indication that a Black Widow movie was in the works.  Perhaps it was because of this that Ms. Johansson decided to “take the bull by the horns” and star in her own action/adventure film.

That film, of course, is Lucy.  As directed by Luc Besson, a man who has made a fair amount of pretty damn good action films and produced/co-written a truckload more, the film concerns Lucy (duh), a woman living an aimless life in Hong Kong who, at the movie’s opening, is being implored by her current squeeze to deliver a suitcase into a building.

Lucy knows something is off by her boyfriend’s request and is very reluctant to do this for him.  That is, until the boyfriend handcuffs her to the case and tells her the key to unlocking it is inside that building.  Not being all that terribly bright (for now) Lucy does what the boyfriend wants and enters the building with said suitcase.  Turns out there are new, experimental drugs inside it and a homicidal Hong Kong crime boss with little patience waiting for them.

Poor Lucy is beaten and drugged, though her fate turns out to be better than her boyfriend’s, and awakens to find that she has been operated on and forcibly turned into a drug mule for the crime boss.  Inside her is one of the bags of drugs she had brought to him.

Fortunately/Unfortunately for her, she is beaten and nearly raped (!!!) in her cell and the bag within her ruptures.  It winds up giving her super-mind powers (what, no one experimented on this drug before hand?!?), and she effectively becomes a superhero out to stop the other drug carriers before her system burns out.

What many wound up objecting to when this film was released was the long ago disproved concept that humans only use 10% of their brain and that if they could use more, they might become like Gods.  If accepting this well discarded premise bothers you, then seeing the mighty Morgan Freeman spout that babble for most of his scenes will undoubtedly make you wince.  A lot given he’s supposed to be this highly intelligent scientist who has devoted his life to researching this nonsensical idea.  Even worse, Mr. Freeman chooses to deliver his silly dialogue soooo daaaaammn sloooowwwwly that I couldn’t help but wonder why the highly evolved Lucy, on time clock as it is, didn’t just jack into his brain and suck out what little she needed (by that point in the film she was capable of this, by the way).

Unfortunately, that is only one of the film’s sins in my eyes.  Luc Besson appears to be trying to make a La Femme Nikita-meets-Inception/2001: A Space Odyssey type film and the mix just didn’t work.  He gives us weird scenes involving predatory animals that hit you over the head with the danger Lucy is in early on, scenes that were unnecessary as we already knew exactly the danger she was in.  He goes further and gives us prehistoric scenes as well, which clues us in to our Lucy’s name being symbolically tied with the prehistoric Australopithecus Lucy.

Why exactly?  I guess the prehistoric Lucy is meant to be the equivalent of the “next level” of evolution just as our modern Lucy will be for us in the present.  Otherwise, it is more unnecessary symbolic overkill, though I’d be the first to admit the scene where (MILD SPOILER!) the two Lucy’s sorta/kinda meet was the emotional high point of this otherwise ridiculous film.

There, I’ve said it: The film is ridiculous.

And not in a good way.

If it isn’t clear already, let me spell it out: Lucy strives mightily to be more than “just” an action film.  And while one can admire the attempt, the end result just doesn’t work for me.

Yes, there are some decent action sequences and the film looks like a million bucks and Scarlett Johansson remains an intriguing screen premise, but let’s face it: The film’s story is hard to take seriously from the get-go and with each passing minute that silliness proved harder and harder to swallow.

Alas, Lucy is a pass for me.

Movies, TV

Leonard Nimoy, R.I.P.

When I was very, very young, I would spend many hours before the television, sucking in whatever I could see and marveling at the entertainment provided.

Even today I distinctly recall the first movie I ever saw and realized told a coherent story, It was Steven Spielberg’s 1971 film Duel.  I’m not sure if I saw the first broadcast (it was a TV movie) or a rerun, but the film entranced me and, I realized many years afterwards when I found out Spielberg had directed it, further realized that it was an early “draft” of his future megahit Jaws.

I also remember watching and enjoying the hell out of shows like Get Smart, by that time in syndication and, to my eyes, one of the funniest things ever made, along with Batman, The Wild, Wild, West, Twilight Zone, Mannix, etc. etc.

Way above all those shows, in my estimation, was Star Trek.  The original series absolutely captivated me, alternately making my younger self laugh out loud and/or shiver with its action and suspense…if not outright horror!  The show presented incredibly varied themes and, I would later realize, often very cleverly held a mirror to society as it was at the time.

But the best thing about the show was that it presented what to my young eyes appeared to be a very tight knit family.  A group of diverse individuals that nonetheless helped each other and tried, always tried, to make things better.  I liked the crew of the Enterprise and it felt they liked each other just as much (contrary to future tell-all’s!).

Central to the show, of course, was the starring trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.  Though they wouldn’t appear together in all episodes, they did appear together in almost all of them.  (A bit of trivia: Leonard Nimoy’s Spock would appear in the most number of episodes of the original Star Trek series with 80.  This included the first non-Captain Kirk starring pilot.  William Shatner would appear in all 79 regular episodes, including the second pilot while DeForest Kelley’s McCoy would appear in 76 episodes, all according to IMDb.com.)

What a team these three made!

In watching the original Star Trek and the performances within, it was the first time I realized how well on-screen charisma could get.  As much as I liked other shows, there was this little extra something to be found in the interactions between the Star Trek characters that was at times lacking in other shows.  They -the actors as well as the crew behind the scenes- were that damn good.

And while I wouldn’t pick one actor’s work over the other (they worked best together anyway), I was always drawn the most to the character of Leonard Nimoy’s Spock.

There was something so incredibly…fascinating…with Mr. Nimoy’s stoic, unemotional performance, and especially when the stories had him stray from this stoicism and have a little fun with its limits.  Which explains why this scene, from the conclusion to Amok Time, is my all time favorite original Star Trek Spock moment (forgive the quality of the images…I didn’t want to provide a link to the whole episode and this featured exactly what I wanted):

In that scene, most obviously, you see Spock smile.  But what makes the whole thing work so damn well is that we are in Spock’s shoes.  We think, like he does, that he’s killed Captain Kirk, his very best friend.  Along with the absolute agony of this act is the realization that it also means his future, both with Starfleet and personally, is effectively over.  And just like that it is revealed that Spock did not kill his best friend and Leonard Nimoy’s reaction is just so perfect, moving from shocked surprise to relief to absolute elation.  And then, to make the whole thing absolutely perfect, Spock realizes he’s just shown emotion and has to clamp it down and go into his “logical” routine, knowing full well the mask has slipped.

Ah that smile.

And the smiles of the other, who realize the stoic Spock isn’t quite as stoic as he pretends to be.

Despite his alien blood, Spock is every bit as “human” as the rest of them and just as capable of happiness as they are.

I will always admire this scene and that wonderful bit of acting.

So Rest in Peace, Mr. Nimoy.  To the child I was back then and the grown man I am now, you did real good.

Movies

The Guest (2014) a (mildly) belated review

I heard quite a few good words regarding last year’s The Guest, a low budget suspense thriller/horror film, and was curious to see it.  Yesterday I finally had a chance.

Did it live up to what I read?

Yes…and no.

The Guest has a simple enough plot: A stranger who calls himself David (Dan Stevens, who for the most part is excellent here) appears at the front door of the Peterson family home, which is in a remote, rustic town and introduces himself to the lady of the household (Sheila Kelley) as a soldier who fought alongside her recently deceased son.

Anna Peterson is taken aback by David’s story and excuses herself to have a cry.  When she composes herself and returns to the man’s side, she finds him looking at photographs on her mantle.  One of them, David points out, shows him with her son’s squad.

David then says he has to go but Anna Peterson will not have it and invites him to stay over for at least a little while.

Big mistake.

For as the film plays out and the members of Anna’s family, including her husband, her other son and daughter, meet David and have different reactions to him, we find that the charismatic soldier may not be quite who he says he is.  All the while, things escalate out of control and the body count rises.

I’ll say this much for The Guest: It wastes very little time in delivering its premise while building up tension.  The acting, for the most part, is uniformly good and, as already mentioned, Dan Stevens delivers a terrific charismatic/creepy performance as the titular guest.

But when all is said and done, The Guest wound up leaving me with too many questions while delivering a climax that was equal parts silly, ridiculous, and sadistic.

Among the questions I had, the biggest one was this: Why did David bother going to the Peterson family in the first place?  It was made quite clear in the film that he is a self-sufficient man who thinks on his feet and is quite capable of disappearing into the woodwork.  Without going too deeply into SPOILERS, why does David tie himself down to this one place and, effectively, risk making himself known, especially (OK, MILD SPOILERS HERE!) to those who want to get at him?

It makes no real sense.

The lingering questions and your all too typical “bad guy isn’t quite killed” finale cliche (is it written in some movie making bible that every horror movie with a boogeyman type killer has to end this way?!) wind up hurting the movie just when it was about to cross the finish line.

Because of this, I can only offer a mild recommendation for The Guest.  Despite some very good acting and some effectively creepy moments, the film’s lack of answers for many questions and cliched ending hurt what is for the most part a very effective piece of work.

A special note: I loved the use of 80’s alternative electronica music in the film.  I suspect the filmmakers were going for a John Carpenter type vibe (the movie has more than a couple of nods to the original Halloween).  It worked!

Movies

New Alien movie to ignore last two…?

A short while back, director Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Elysium) made considerable waves among the movie fandom community when he presented images of an older Ripley and a disfigured Hicks, late from the movie Aliens, and noted he had worked on an idea for a sequel to that film that would complete the Alien/Aliens saga.

The images (you can see them here) clearly got peoples’ attention at Fox Studios as this film has been green-lighted and will be Mr. Blomkamp’s follow up to Chappie.

One thing that people wondered, of course, was where this film might fit in the Alien cinematic universe timeline.  Alien 3, after all, essentially took place “immediately” after the events of Aliens and clearly showed both Hicks and Newt were dead.  The images Mr. Blomkamp presented, though, had an elderly and disfigured Hicks standing alongside a more mature Ripley.

What gives?

Well, it now appears this new Alien film might well ignore the events presented in both Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection:

http://www.slashfilm.com/blomkamps-alien/

Since learning of this there have been some commentaries pro and con regarding the need -if there even is one- to follow “continuity” or ignore it.  Given the fact that few hold either Alien 3 or Alien Resurrection in as high regard as the first two films, I suspect it will be easier for audiences to accept the idea of ignoring these later two Alien films.

Continuity, I find, is a curious thing.  If you’re into comic books, continuity can be a blessing as well as a curse.  The Superman who appeared in Action Comics #1 way back in 1938 is not the same Superman as is presented today.  Sure, he still sports the Clark Kent “disguise” and has the hots for Lois Lane (both ideas present in that first Superman story) and he is from Krypton, but there are noticeable difference.  That Superman, for instance, couldn’t fly.  He jumped very far.  He was also a no-nonsense bad-ass who wasn’t adverse to “eye for an eye” type justice.  In that very first story, if memory serves, he beats a woman beater!

In movies, too, there have been series that featured continuity “glitches”.  In the James Bond film You Only Live Twice (1967) Sean Connery’s Bond comes face to face with Blofeld (played by Donald Pleasance), his S.P.E.C.T.R.E. nemesis.  Yet in the film that follow this one, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, not only is Connery replaced with actor George Lazenby, but Bond once again comes face to face with Blofeld (this time played by Telly Savalas) yet the two do not appear to recognize each other!

Then there’s the fact that the original Star Wars, before George Lucas made all the big and little changes to it, clearly had Luke Skywalker fall instantly head over heels for Princess Leia who, in the very next film, is revealed to be his twin sister!

The bottom line for me is that I don’t have much of a problem ignoring either Alien 3 or Resurrection.  While I felt neither film was “horrible”, considering what came immediately before, these last two films in the series were much weaker.  I’m curious to see what Mr. Blomkamp is up to, though having seen his first two films he’s only batting 500.  I enjoyed District 9 but didn’t like Elysium much at all.

Hopefully, his Alien film will be more in line with District 9.

Movies

Last night’s Oscars….

I didn’t catch it in its entirety and it occurs to me that I’ve never watched the entire telecast from start to finish, even in the years that I was most curious/had the time to do so.

One of the nice things about the internet is that the next day you can pretty much catch everything of importance that occurred in the form of clips and the plentiful articles.

I know I’m not stating anything revolutionary here, but it sure saves time!

Books/Literature, General, Movies

In praise of…artistic theft?!

Interesting, to say the least, article by Alex McCown regarding the above:

http://www.avclub.com/article/praise-artistic-theft-214962

I’ve grappled long and hard with the line which separates artistic “inspiration” from outright “theft.”

In the above article, poet T. S. Eliot is quoted in what I believe is one of the great descriptions of artistic works, and what distinguishes a good artist from a bad one regarding their “inspiration”:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.

Let me repeat the quote’s most pertinent lines: “A good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn.”

The term “poet” as mentioned above can easily be replaced with artist, film maker, script writer, novelist, musician, etc.

When Star Wars came out in 1977, and as I’ve mentioned many times before, I wasn’t all that impressed.  I believe this was at least partly due to the fact that many of the tropes within the film were recognizable to me.  Even on that first viewing I detected elements from, among others, Flash Gordon, Edgar Rice Burroughs, the cliffhanger serials of the 1940’s, and Jack Kirby comic books.  Yes, I was a nerdy kid, one who had immersed himself in these various works.  Later on, with the advent of the home video market, I came to realize Star Wars also lifted ideas from films by Akira Kurosawa, in particular The Hidden Fortress.

Having said all that, and while acknowledging (once again!) that Star Wars never did much for me, I will now come to the movie’s defense and say that what Lucas did was take elements of many works and, as Eliot notes, “weld(ed) it into something better, or at least something different.”

The same, to my mind, could not be said for the immensely popular Guardians of the Galaxy, a movie that, unlike Star Wars, I wound up loathing.  For Star Wars, the inspirations were from (no pun intended) long ago and general audiences were not as familiar with the sources (A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest).  Add to that the fact that while Mr. Lucas appropriated elements here and there, the story presented within the movie, of an evil Empire with a fearsome planet-sized weapon threatening innocents, was relatively original.

So for me Star Wars, flaws and all in my eyes, was a film that nonetheless did well with its inspirations.  Guardians of the Galaxy, however, stepped over the line of inspiration and into, in my opinion, outright creative theft.

The bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.

This was exactly my feelings regarding Guardians of the Galaxy.  They took the plot of Star Wars, changed only a few elements, and essentially re-created that film but with far less cohesion (again, in my humble opinion and, obviously, I was in a VERY big minority).

So, what can we conclude with all this?

That it is all about opinion.

For me, personally, I recognize the influences of other works on my novels.  I will come right out and say that they were inspired by many things.  But I will then go on to say that I try very hard to take those elements that inspire me and make something new and interesting with them.  Sure, the end result may not be completely original -you’d have to look far and wide to find any work of art that is- but I can at least look myself in the mirror and say that I’m trying to create something that may use familiar (or not so familiar) elements and make something relatively “new” with them.

At least I hope so!