Colossal (2016)

Director: Nacho Vigalondo

Kind of disappointing, actually.

I finally got around to watching this, after regretting not catching it in theaters several years back. I knew of the premise, which sounded fun and intriguing, and the movie got a fair amount of positive critical acclaim. And it's not that I found it bad. Rather, it just didn't come together enough to live up to what may have been overly high expectations.

The story is mostly that of Gloria (Anne Hathaway), a trainwreck of a party girl who has to retreat from New York City after yet another wild night out that leaves a trail of drunken bodies and self-involved hedonism leads her boyfriend to break up with her. She returns to the modest little town where she grew up and begins to reconnect with childhood friend Oscar (Jason Sudeikis). Things become wildly bizarre when Gloria and Oscar discover that their actions towards each other sync up with a pair of gigantic, Godzilla-like monsters which have been periodically materializing and destroying parts of downtown Seoul, South Korea.

You have to admit - that's a premise you probably haven't heard before. And for the first 30 or 45 minutes of the film, it shows some serious potential. Gloria and Oscar are clearly damaged people, with some sort of pain from their pasts that is connected to each other. They both drink heavily to keep away whatever is eating them up, and having such repression expressed in a movie through East Asian kaiju is a fun approach. But there were two problems with this movie that never resolved themselves:

I stuck with the Oscar and Gloria story to see if the resolution
explained the issues I had with the movie. It really didn't.
It was a shame, since I really like Sudeikis and Hathaway, and
they do fine acting work in this movie. 

One was that the characters, especially Oscar, didn't seem to be fully formed enough to explain their behavior. Erratic would be one thing, and it would make sense to an extent with these characters. But Oscar's actions often showed little to no rational from one moment to the next. Within the span of a few days, he goes from being a fairly likable, if boozy, old friend, to an absolutely self-obsessed and murderous maniac. The reasons the story offers for this dramatic transformation really don't add up enough to make it satisfying.

The other issue I had was how the movie unabashedly equates the inner turmoil of two pretty run-of-the-mill white Americans with the death and suffering of thousands of East Asian people. Perhaps this was part of the greater message of the movie - that privileged people can lose sight of how their petty concerns and personal issues can have massive impacts on other societies, but that message didn't seem to be set up or explored well at all, if such was even the case. 

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(ish) Release: Godzilla (2014)

Director: Gareth Edwards

Pretty fun giant monster movie, though probably not one that would win over any newcomers to the genre.

This newest take on the classic kaiju, or "big monster," prototype is a solid one. It incorporates many of the elements of the original tale, while giving it a narrative and aesthetic update. Working under the idea that such massive creatures as the gargantuan saurian had lived and thrived tens of millions of years ago, the movie depicts their resurrection through human misuse of nuclear weaponry. The film doesn't get too terribly technical about the science part of this science fiction, nor should it. That's not what we're paying for.

What we are paying for is what the film gives you, though you have to be patient, and I was completely alright with this. It has often amazed me how few writers and directors realize the efficacy of the "slow reveal" approach in monster movies. Even after such great "monster" films as Jaws, Predator, Alien, and a handful of others, too few filmmakers give their audience credit enough to make a few demands of them, even if the film doesn't show its entire hand within the first 15, 30, or even 60 minutes of a movie. Godzilla has the confidence in itself that it doesn't need to show the beast in full force for most of the movie, which makes the last third of the film much more powerful.

If you are at all curious about the story of the movie, there's no real need to worry much. It's nothing that will insult your intelligence, even if it's not exactly the most creative of science fiction. Again, though, one doesn't turn to a kaiju film for thought-provoking, speculative science fiction. One turns to these movies to see awesomely huge creatures stomping through large cities and slugging it out with each other. This 2014 version of Godzilla completely delivers on this, though the aforementioned patience needs to be exercised. Once it all begins, though, it's a blast. It helps tremendously that the cinematography and effects are so well done that the viewer gets all the sense of scope and scale that is required. I can recall at least three excellent sequences, but I'd rather not detail them and spoil the surprise for anyone wishing to see the movie for the first time.

There are a few of these very well-constructed, H.R. Geiger-esque
sets. Unfortunately for me, they are hard to appreciate on a
smaller TV screen, despite the sharpness of blu-ray.

My great regret about watching this movie was that I didn't see it on the big screen. I did watch it on blu-ray, on my 45" TV, which has a nice picture, but it just didn't do the movie complete justice. Many key scenes take place at night or in dark caves, and it was difficult to make out the details of some scenes. And of course, the sheer size of the monsters is lost on a smaller screen.

If you've never had any interest in giant monster movies, this one won't make you a believer. I'm not a tremendous fan of the genre, but my casual interest is such that I enjoyed this one, just as I enjoyed Pacific Rim well enough. These two recent kaiju flicks make for a strong, modern double feature.

Retro Trio: Pacific Rim (2013), 13 Assassins (2010), Dark City (1998)

Pacific Rim (2013)

Director: Guillermo del Toro

This was my second viewing of this one, and I feel the same now as when I saw it on the big screen a year ago. It's certainly fun, but far from a masterpiece.

Yes, it's giant robots fighting against giant monsters, referred to as jaegers and kaiju, respectively. If you need to know more than that, then you probably won't be into this movie.

I do have to say that they do come up with a decent enough story for why we are watching a robot/monster slugfest. It's not exactly novel, but it doesn't try to get too clever for its own good, while not insulting your intelligence. Also, the notion of needing at least two "pilots" to handle the neural requirements to command the jaegers, leads to a bit more genuine empathy than you might expect.

Del Toro made sure that the fights looked at felt just as
titanic as they needed to be. Mindless? Yes. Fun? Hell yes!!

The fights are pretty awesome. They lose quite a bit on a small screen, it must be admitted, but they're still fun to watch, if you're not bored by that sort of thing, like my wife often is (she was fast asleep while I was happily watching Gipsy Danger body slam a Gamorrah lookalike into a Chinese skyscraper). Waiting to see just what type of bizarre powers the kaiju possess, or what kung-fu type moved the jaeger pilots will employ is plenty of fun. And there are a few noble deaths given up for admiration. The a deep-sea slugfest at the end is more than satisfying.

The weaknesses to me are few, but too obvious to ignore. The first is that the dialogue is inconsistent. There are some decent lines, including virtually all of the ones delivered by Idris Elba. However, there are plenty of cheesy duds that made me wince. When the protagonist Raleigh Beckett urges his neural partner Mako, "Let's do this! Together!!", it sounded way too much like the awful, hackneyed dialogue one might hear in a children's anime program. The other weakness to me is the romance between Raleigh and Mako. Totally unnecessary. The shame is that, for nearly all of the film, they don't fall down the Hollywood trap of cramming a romance story into an out-and-out action movie. Then, at the end, we get the cliched kiss-cut-credits sequence. I would have admired the film a bit more if they had simply kept Raleigh and Mako's relationship one of friends and colleagues.

A fun movie, nonetheless. Watch it on blu-ray, on a large screen, with a good sound system, if possible.

13 Assassins (2010)

Director: Takashi Miike

Great samurai flick. I don't watch a ton of Japanese or samurai movies, but I absolutely love them when they're done well, like 13 Assassins.

It probably helped that, just by coincidence, I had finished reading Hagakure a few weeks prior. This 18th century collection gathers the thoughts of a true feudal samurai, and it provides a fair amount of insight into the ideals of that position in Japanese social history. 13 Assassins incorporates several of the deepest sentiments and values of the samurai, both the admirable and the baffling. The primary belief is the ultimate quest for an honorable death. Essentially, a true samurai should never fear death. In fact, a true samurai should embrace the fact that he will die, and he should simply prepare and wait for the opportunity to give his life in the service of his feudal lord. It may seem like an oddly suicidal world view to most of us Westerners, but I've always been intrigued by the sense of honorable purpose conveyed by such an approach to life and death. 13 Assassins uses this idea to motivate the titular group.

But the movie is far from merely being a somber existential meditation. It starts off not unlike a Seven Samurai "let's get the band together" scenario. A middle-aged samurai, Shinzaemon, is tasked with the mission of killing the psychotic, sadistic, and homicidal Lord Matsudaira before he ascends to an esteemed place at the side of the shogun. So Shinzaemon, played with masterful gravitas and humanity by Koji Yakusho, rounds up whomever he can find to attempt what amounts to a suicide mission. The dozen fellows who join the band do so for various reasons, but they all add something to the group.

Do not get on the wrong side of this haggard-looking group.
They're just itching to give their skills and lives up for a
noble purpose.

The assault on Matsudaira is akin to the final 90 minutes of Seven Samurai, but condensed and thrown into a blood-soaked typhoon. In short, it's amazing. There is a slow-build throughout the movie, in terms of the duels and stand-offs. There are some outstanding showdowns, with steely-eyed swordsman squaring off. During the final half hour, though, it's a blizzard of violence, as Shinzaemon's band uses every scrap of cunning and trickery, as well as their considerable individual fighting skills to mow down their 200 opponents. The direction is outstanding, giving a phenomenal sense of place, purpose, and tension to all of the action.

True to the spirit outlined in Hagakure, the 13 "assassins" charge towards their noble deaths, and it's a phenomenal show.

Dark City (1998)

Director: Alex Proyas

As the title suggests, this is a dark, twisted science fiction mystery tale that I found to be excellent.

Dark City contains many shades of other, earlier artists and works: Franz Kafka, Philip K. Dick, noir in its many forms, and Clive Barker's Hellraiser are some of the most immediate that come to mind. The blending of them, though, is unique and highly engaging.

I'll refrain from writing about the plot, as the slow revelation throughout the movie is a large part of its appeal. All a first-time viewer needs to know is that the protagonist, John Murdoch, awakes in a motel bathtub, with no memories of who he is or how he got there. He very quickly finds himself pursued by shadowy, cloaked figures who possess terrifying supernatural powers. Murdoch, in constant flight, attempts to figure out who and where he is, but every answer raises many more questions about the nature of the reality that he is experiencing.

The story is so creative, and its execution is so brilliant, that I'm simply amazed that this movie isn't better known. My guess is that some of the themes and visuals were a little too bizarre or macabre, and the aesthetic - a pervasive noir darkness - was a bit off-putting to people who didn't know what to make of it. In addition, the film doesn't draw the clearest lines between good and evil, which can often disappoint and confound many viewers.

Another potential source of frustration for many viewers is likely the fact that there are certain larger questions that are not clearly answered. Without giving anything away, I can say that we are never given the grand answer to just how the entire scenario of the movie began. But this is completely fine to me. Ultimately, the way it began is immaterial, and this unanswered question allows us viewers the opportunity to engage in some imaginative speculation, based on the many details offered in the film's look and narrative.

Whatever the reasons for its lack of commercial success, it's a great science fiction movie that has rightfully built up the wider praise that it should have received from the outset.