Retro-Trio: Two Days, One Night (2014); Kong: Skull Island (2017); In Her Shoes (2005)

Two Days, One Night (2014)

Directors: Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne

Very well-done, human drama that relies on genuine distress to remain engaging.

The story is that of Sandra (Marion Cotillard), a woman in Belgium has just gotten over the hump of a horrible depressive episode. However, she just learns that she has lost her job due to a vote held behind her back. Her coworkers were forced to choose to either keep Sandra on the staff or to accept their sizable annual bonuses. She and a friend quickly appeal to the manager to hold a re-vote the following Monday, a mere two days away. Sanda much now frantically track down as many coworkers as possible and convince them to forego their bonuses so that she can return to her job - a job that she desperately needs.

This movie is certainly not an "upper" by any means. While there is just enough humor and levity to prevent things from getting overly grim, there is a very real sense of panic as Sandra rushes about on her desperate mission. This is, of course, what makes the film strong. As she speaks with each of her coworkers, we become invested in how they will respond. Some are sympathetic and offer to vote in Sandra's favor. Others try to be understanding but admit that they need their bonus money. Still others grow angry at Sandra for even asking them to give up their bonus for her sake. It is a very human drama where the stakes feel all too real, and the excellent acting sells its reality.

My wife, who tends to enjoy this kind of movie a bit more than me, even admitted that Sandra could get a bit much at times. Her husband, a rather kindly fellow who stays by her side through the particularly rough patches, becomes a quietly sympathetic character in the movie, as he offers no end of support. By film's end, one may grow a bit tired of the emotional ups and downs. Still, the ride is pretty well worth it, as it offers genuinely touching moments of the sort that can be tough to find in movies these days.

A few nights after watching this one, I felt the urge to go for nearly the completely opposite genre...

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Somewhat to my surprise, I enjoyed this movie, even though I'm not particularly a fan of monster movies.

The second in the newly-created "Monsterverse" franchise (the first being 2014's Godzilla), Kong:Skull Island takes place in the 1970s, as the U.S. begins to pull out of Vietnam. A tiny government agency (two guys, really) convinces a congressman to fund an expedition to a mysterious island in the South Pacific. The official Bill Randa (John Goodman) and the geologist Houston Brooks (Corey Brooks) believe that the unexplored island may contain bizarre lifeforms which the U.S. would do well to obtain before any of their Cold War enemies do. With funding, they round up a team including a tracker, several scientists and observers, and an Army platoon who has just been decommissioned from the Vietnam War. But when the crew arrive on the island, known as Skull Island, they very soon come across a massive, 100-foot ape which attacks them and wipes out several of their helicopters and soldiers. Now scattered, the team must try to regroup and find their way off of the treacherous Skull Island. As they wander, they discover more dangers and wonders about the home of Kong.

This movie is solid fun. Yes, it does attempt to get a tad serious in a few spots, but it never overdoes it. Mostly, it's a well-done action romp. The cast is great, with a ton of screen veterans like the aforementioned Goodman, and also Samuel L. Jackson as the warmonger platoon captain, Tom Hiddleston as the capable tracker, and slightly lesser characters played by vets like Brie Larsen and John C. Reilly. They don't always have super sharp dialogue to work with, but they almost always sell it well.

The action is mostly great. I'm not a particular fan of monster movies, but this one did a really nice job of keeping some surprises up its sleeve as the story went along. Mostly, the fun came when a seemingly serene part of Skull Island would suddenly turn into some sort of lethal monster. There is an entertainment in realizing that literally anything in the lush landscape could come to life and start killing the humans who have encroached here. Helping keep the vibe up-tempo and heart rates racing, this movie has one of the more kick-ass soundtracks I've heard in a while, with heavy metal and rock 'n roll greats from the early '70s like Black Sabbath, The Stooges, and Credence. Pretty hard to miss with such titans of great rock music enhancing the on-screen action.

So as of now, I'm on board with the Monsterverse. It's two-for-two in my book, which was much more than I could say for the big-budget DC Extended Universe after its first two movies, Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman. I may even go check out Godzilla: King of Monsters when it comes out in 2019, if I'm in the mood for a fun popcorn flick.

And then Valentine's Day came along, which swings me back in the complete opposite direction again with...

In Her Shoes (2005)

Director: Curtis Hanson

An enjoyable chick flick, even for a dude like me.

This is one of my wife's favorite movies, and Valentine's Day seemed like an appropriate time to watch it with her. It tells the story of two sisters, Maggie (Cameron Diaz) and Rose (Toni Collette), living in Manhattan. Maggie is a consummately irresponsible "party girl" and almost pathological liar, while here sister Rose is a highly responsible though rather uptight lawyer of no small means. The sisters have an established routine of Maggie getting herself into trouble, often through her drinking and/or lying, and running to seek shelter with Rose. This mildly codependent bond is shredded when Maggie is caught sleeping with Rose's current boyfriend and boss. Kicked out of Rose's apartment and with no other idea of where to go, Maggie hops a train down to Florida to find her and Rose's estranged grandmother, Ella (Shirley MacLaine). There, Maggie begins to learn more about their hidden family issues, while back up in Philadelphia, her sister deals with the fallout of her boyfriend having cheated on her.

It's easy to see why this movie is considered a pinnacle of "chick flick"-dom. It focuses on female characters, and it hits virtually every emotional mark that the genre is known for hitting; namely, relationships of several types. Relationships with one's sister. Relationships with potential boyfriends and husbands. Relationships with one's grandmother. Relationships with the family members who've gone missing. These are all handled very well in this movie, with a solid balance of humor and gravity that even a less sensitive fellow like myself can appreciate. The dynamics between the primary characters all feel quite genuine, and the parts are written and acted very well by the stars.

I also appreciate the tone of the movie. Many films in this genre are a bit too "light and fluffy" for me. I remember watching a chunk of My Best Friend's Wedding years ago, and being unable to stomach the contrivances and so-obviously cutesy nature of much of the story and gags. In Her Shoes keeps the stakes just high enough that there is some weight to the characters' thoughts and actions, while never getting too bogged down into any sort of darkness. This was not easy, as the movie does deal with learning disorder, mental instability in a parent, the need for Maggie to change her self-absorption, and similarly deeper topics. Screenwriter Susannah Grant did a really nice job adapting Jennifer Weiner's successful novel of the same name.

So I have to give this movie the highest compliment I possibly can for this type of movie: not only did I enjoy watching it, but I wouldn't mind watching it again should the wife suggest it. It's made the shortlist!

New, Spoiler-Free Release! Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

No Plot Spoilers! Have no Fear!!

In one of many entertaining twists, the god of thunder must
learn to cope without his legendary hammer, Mjolnir, as he
fights as a gladiator against a very formidable opponent.

Director: Taika Waititi

Far and away the best Thor movie, which may not be saying much. But I'll also say that this is now among my favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies.

Those of us who follow the MCU last saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) as he helped save earth from the destructive machinations of Ultron in 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron. While the other Avengers regrouped and formed a new team, Thor and the Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) disappeared without a trace. Thor: Ragnarok brings us up to speed fairly quickly, with Thor having been searching various realms around the universe for information about the cosmically powerful Infinity Stones. This search eventually puts him on the trail of his missing father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). When he and his ever-treacherous brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the god of mischief, eventually find Odin, the events that follow unleash Hela (Cate Blanchett), an immensely powerful force of destruction. Thor and Loki are inadvertently hurtled across the universe and land on a remote planet ruled by a barely sane overlord, Grandmaster, who runs a massive gladiator competition. Thor and Loki must figure out a way off the planet and get back to Asgard, which Hela means to take over as a first step towards dominating the universe.

Even more than the nearly uncut entertainment that is the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Thor: Ragnarok is unadulterated fun. Purists and fans of more intense superhero movies like the Dark Knight trilogy or even Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Civil War (all of which I love, by the way) may take some umbrage to the generally silly, even campy, tone of this latest MCU offering, but I loved it. Admittedly, I am a fan of New Zealand director Taika Waititi's goofy sensibilities. Even when I could see the gags coming, they were executed so well that I always got a chuckle out of them. And anyone who's enjoyed the odd, deadpan humor of Flight of the Conchords (several episodes of which Waititi either wrote and/or directed) or the vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows will catch on and laugh heartily at the banter and comedy in Ragnarok.

My main concern going in was whether or not Waititi would be able to offer some worthy action sequences, given that he'd yet to tackle any sort of big-budget project of this sort. I was glad that he eased these worried by giving us several highly entertaining, well-executed fight and battle scenes. I won't put them on par with the best of what we saw in The Avengers or the Russo brothers' two Captain America movies, but there are more than a few spectacular displays of mythical might in the film. Many of us viewers in the theater were ooh-ing, ah-ing, and basically having fun with many of these sequences.

Cate Blanchett cuts a menacing enough figure as the blood-
thirsty Hela, even if the villain is yet another mostly one-
dimensional adversary in an MCU replete with them.

I can't say that the movie fully delivers in terms of any touching or emotional beats. Yes, there is a bit more exploration of the love/hate relationship between Thor and Loki, and the theme of vengeance and maintaining bonds with one's people. But these always take a rather distant backseat to the action and humor. Another aspect where I would say the movie falls a bit short is one that has been a blind spot for most MCU movies - not being able to conjure up a completely well-rounded, thoroughly compelling villain. Cate Blanchett plays the role of Hela just fine, and the character is certainly powerful. And her backstory does offer more than many other MCU villains, making her out to be a bit more than simply a massive force of inexplicable rage. The rage is there, but there is some explanation for it this time around. Still, she is ultimately just a baddie who wants to kill everything and everyone in her path who won't bow to her will. Far physically weaker villains like Adrian Toomes in Spider-Man: Homecoming or Helmut Zemo in Captain America: Civil War were better developed and more compelling.

A final note to those who may be wondering just how inundated with the MCU one has to be in order to enjoy this movie: you don't need to know a ton. Even if you haven't seen earlier MCU films, the key points are summarized within the movie fairly well, if briskly. While I can't call Ragnarok a complete stand-alone movie, it does quite well on its own merits. Of course, if one wants to do all of their homework, I would recommend watching the first two Thor movies, The first two Avengers movies, and maybe even Doctor Strange, which does have a minor connection here. If you've the time and inclination to take in those five films, you'll completely understand all of the main references and connections in the film.

So this one is plenty of fun. It might not be the tightest movie we'll ever get in the MCU, but it has a cheeky, high-spirited, and playful attitude that makes it a joy to watch. I already have my tickets to see it again in a few days. What other endorsement need I make?

New(ish) Releases: Snowpiercer (2014) & Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Director: Bong, Joon-ho

Sometimes, we could all use a flashy, violent allegory for the world's social ills. Snowpiercer gives it to us.

With a narrative and technique that can border on acid-trippy at times, Snowpiercer provides a fast-moving and creative commentary on class divisions. Playing the part of "the world" is a massive train, known in fact as "The World Train," which is perpetually transporting the few hundred remaining humans around an Earth which has been plunged into an unlivable Ice Age by a botched attempt to cure global warming.

This, of course, is a pretty big jump to make, as far as suspension of disbelief is concerned. But the explanation is satisfying enough, if not exactly the best science you'll find in science fiction. Once you can accept that, then the film grows more interesting as the plot builds. The primary story follows Curtis, a man who is old enough to remember life before the train, and who is relegated to the back section of it - the section designated for the lowest rung of train society. In th"the foot," as it's called, the people are treated as little better than herd animals, where they are fed only gelatinous protein bars and forced to suffer regular abuse.

Curtis and a handful of others from the rear mount a revolt towards the front of the train, in an attempt to find better treatment, as well as some children who have been taken from the rear. As the revolutionaries grit out their struggle forwards, the successive trains become both more luxurious and more horrifying and bizarre.

This is one of the earliest obstacles that Curtis and his rebels
encounter on their revolution towards the front of the train.
Things only get wilder and more insane as they go.

These basic concepts make for a solid framework, but it's a framework that could easily have been mishandled and resulted in a far weaker film. Not so, thanks to director Joon-ho Bong and the other writers. While there are certainly some elements that are strange merely for strangeness' sake, most of the oddities or seeming non-sequiters do represent grander ideas. These make for some curious food for thought, and many of the outlandish questions that we viewers may ask ourselves are, in fact, answered by movie's end.

The cast is excellent, featuring U.S. and British A-listers such as John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Ed Harris and even Chris Evans (far better known as Captain America). The non-English speaking actors are just as good, with an especially great turn by Kang-ho Song. There's a great balance between manic caricature and appropriate gravity, which seems tough for so stylish a picture.

Snowpiercer is nothing if not gutsy. It might not surprise astute viewers as much as it thinks it should, but any lack of surprise from attempted plot twists are made up for by the execution of the tale. It tries a lot of things, and though some of them fall a bit short of the mark, most of them fly true and are sure to entertain.

You won't see most movie vampires doing this.

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Director: Jim Jarmusch

From the modern purveyor of cinematic cool, we get a very "Jarmusch" vampire movie. I even hesitate to use the director's name as an adjective, given that his style is not easy to pin down, except that his films are all very confident, more than a little off-beat, and always take an interesting approach to well-worn cinematic story conventions. Only Lovers Left Alive keeps this tradition well alive. With the undead.

You will most likely not enjoy this film if you are a fan of the following: Anne Rice vampire tales, The Twilight Saga, or any vampire stories that rely on the gothic romantic, bloodier, more carnal aspects of the mythical creatures of the night. Only Lovers assumes that you are aware of the basic mythology of vampires, and it narrows its focus to two of their kind - Eve and Adam, who may, as their names imply, be literally thousands of years old. The two are married, and yet they live thousands of miles apart, Eve in Morocco and Adam in Detroit. When Eve receives a call from her husband, she senses that he is going through one of his periodic and deep bout of melancholy over the human race, and she heads over the Atlantic (on red-eye flights, of course) to see him.

The interactions between Adam and Eve are hypnotic in many ways. Their supernatural powers are rarely displayed directly, and we are often left to marvel over their implied abilities. There are more than a few of the cliched references to famous historical people who the two have known over their millenia, but they are still amusing. What is most powerful is what they have seen and the perspectives that they have. Having observed human behavior for countless generations, the pair have alternating respect, anger, despair, and love for people. And one gets the sense that Jarmusch actually captured the attitudes of such creatures with incredible accuracy, and makes them endearing to boot. Adam is eminently musical, constantly composing and performing dark and alluring rock music to sooth himself. Eve consumes books at lightning speed, gaining an almost sexual satisfaction from drinking in the endless perspectives of humans. Undead they may be, but in most ways they do more living than people. And Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton (yes, her again) play every subtlety perfectly.

The title pair can make you envious of their wisdom and love
for each other, but just as sad for the sorrow at the human
condition which they have witnessed for so long.

While much of the movie is far slower than your typical vampire movie, with Eve and Adam lounging around Adam's dilapidated and remote Detroit home, there are moments of horror and action. Much of the dynamic energy is provided when Eve's "sister" arrives from California, bringing her hedonistic impishness along to spoil Adam and Eve's serene contemplation. Blood is let, arguments are had, and there is some vampire-on-vampire verbal abuse. These moments keep things lively enough, but I found myself just as relieved as Adam when the nuisance of his sister-in-law was banished.

Most definitely not your typical vampire movie, but certainly a great addition to the historical canon of such films. I'm sure plenty of horror film aficionados will despise the measured pace and meditative tone of the movie, but those who are willing to meet the characters halfway are bound to be rewarded.