After Moving Back to Her Old Home, a Woman Finds Connection to a Monster

Jason Sudeikis and Anne Hathaway in "Colossal"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

So far, this has been a pretty good year for movies featuring giant monsters.  Earlier in 2017, there was J.A. Bayona’s fantasy drama “A Monster Call” (technically a 2016 release, but its nationwide distribution was in January), and last month, there was Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ excursion into pure monster mayhem with “Kong: Skull Island.”  Although these two films were very different from each other, they both offered the majesty of seeing these monsters fill up the screen.

Director Nacho Vigalondo brings us the indie sci-fi comedy-drama “Colossal,” in which he offers an inventive and unconventional approach to monster movies that’s equal parts funny and surprisingly emotional.

Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is a writer living in New York City with her boyfriend (Dan Stevens).  When he kicks her out of their apartment for her irresponsibility and hard-partying ways, she moves back to her hometown to figure things out.  Soon after, Gloria reconnects with her childhood friend, Oscar (Jason Sudeikis).  When they hear startling news of a giant monster attacking Seoul, South Korea, Gloria finds out that she may have a mental connection to the beast.

Anne Hathaway displays an abundance of charm as a young woman who finds herself in the oddest of situations.  She delivers the wit and emotion of her character without going the eccentric-indie route and keeps her performance grounded, an approach that’s carefully paired alongside the strangeness of the story.

Although Jason Sudeikis is terrific in his role, I can’t say much else about his character because his arc goes in an unexpected direction, and the way his character is written allows Sudeikis to act in certain ways that are different from what we’ve seen him do before.

Vigalondo’s screenplay explores the relationship between Gloria and Oscar, and the way it plays out adds another layer to the monster aspect of the story and offers some surprise dramatic tension.  It also takes the well-worn premise of a down-on-their-luck individual moving back to their hometown and finding themselves and provides it with a delightfully strange and comical sci-fi angle, as well as a couple of neat twists.

With the mix of Vigalondo’s writing and direction, he refrains from going into cliched indie-quirk territory and gives us a wonderfully offbeat counterpart to Guillermo del Toro’s “Pacific Rim.”  Despite the film’s low budget, it has some pretty decent visual effects during its monster scenes.  However, Vigalondo doesn’t make the movie all about the appearances of the monster, but rather makes the movie thrive on the layered connection between Gloria and Oscar and the scenes where Gloria attempts to decipher the connection between her and the monster.

Although we’re heading into the summer blockbuster season, “Colossal” is a subversive and original sci-fi film that I urge you to find, as I assure you that there’s much about it to love.  Although it may not be to everyone’s taste, a film as different as this should still be given a viewing.  Once you do so, you will see that Vigalondo has a vision that deserves your attention. 

Final Grade: A

Our Favorite Drivers Return with Engines Revving

Charlize Theron and Vin Diesel in "The Fate of the Furious"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

The following review is from a guest contributor by the name of Matthew Williams, a friend of mine and fellow movie buff whom I met in Rider University’s Alternative Film Club.

Name your favorite action movies of all time.  Your boy-scout or anti-hero/heroine saves the day.  Okay, now name your favorite action movie franchises.  Why did those come up on your list?  Defined characters whose motivations and personalities are both clear and unwavering?  Movies with a cocky assuredness of what genre it is while still breaking away from that genre’s tropes just long enough to shock you past the clips in the trailer?  Does your list have as much emotion and cheesy moral values as it has scorpion kicks and napalm?  If your list has all of that, 1) good for you, you well-rounded cinephile, and 2) oh boy, do I have a movie for you. 

Without spoilers, the only succinct way to summarize “The Fate of the Furious” (the eighth installment in the “Fast and the Furious” franchise), is that it explores the idea of “family” unlike any sequel/prequel before it.  What happens if a group’s main member leaves it to fend for himself?  The villain this time, a computer terrorist (played by the always-commanding Charlize Theron) is not only threatening the world, millennial-Bond-villain style, but also threatens our favorite team of racers, sort-of officers, thieves, and hackers.  So yes, it’s safe to say that, on a few levels, “This time…it’s personal!”

For all of those who walked out of the theater when leaving “Furious 7” and thought, “Wow, there isn't anywhere else this series can go,” first off, there’s so much money to be earned, you knew that, I knew that, and you better believe that Universal Pictures knows that.  Second off, when you’re in the theater watching this newest excursion around the world, get ready for the white-knuckled New York scene to have you thinking, “Whoa, they did it again.”  This latest installment is from director F. Gary Gray (“Friday,” “The Italian Job” (2003), and “Straight Outta Compton”) and Chris Morgan, the writer of “Wanted” and the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh installments of the “Fast and the Furious” franchise.

The cool thing about these movies (and similar movies, lately) is that since there is so much territory that has been explored, the only way to be impressive is to do more, meaning more jokes (this movie gave me the best laughs in the theater this year), more explosions (if you think that the car chase on the ice was spoiled in the commercials, believe me, there is more to behold there), more martial arts, more espionage, more practical effects, more quips, and more slow-motion.

The best part of watching this movie was the fact that I got to watch it with a truer fan than myself who lauds every one of these movies as Best Picture contenders in his eyes.  Fans like my buddy will be most entertained, as there are so many references to the other films in this series (slight nods, certain vehicles, jokes, characters, and set pieces), and if you blink, you’ll miss them.

The “Fast and the Furious” franchise started all the way back in 2001, which is an achievement of both adaptability and a fan base that has more than shown (at least since “Fast Five”) that people will be in the seats.  From a technical standpoint, it’s an extravaganza for the eyes.  The acting gives you what you expect, such as brooding, deviousness, silliness, machismo, and unpredictability.  There’s also something to be said about the great characterization of its female characters, but that’s another conversation entirely.

Believe it or not, there is a ninth and tenth installment scheduled for April 2019 and April 2021, and given how well this series has been able to outdo itself over the last few films, it’s clear that with their let’s-make-this-one-bigger formula, it’s been working, and working really well.

Final Grade: B+

For Three Friends, You’re Never too Old for a Heist

From left: Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine
in "Going in Style"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

In 1979, screenwriter and director Martin Brest gave us his caper comedy, “Going in Style,” which told the story of three elderly men who decide to rob a bank.  While it provided plenty of laughs, thanks the on-screen bonds shared by George Burns, Art Carney, and Lee Strasberg, it also had some welcome doses of poignancy that focused on the reality of aging.  

Actor Zach Braff now brings us his third directorial feature with a remake of Brest’s film.  While the movie doesn’t have jokes that are quite as memorable as those in the original and doesn’t have the same emotional impact, it ultimately works because of the chemistry between its three talented leads.

Joe (Michael Caine), Willie (Morgan Freeman), and Albert (Alan Arkin) are senior citizens and close friends living in New York City.  When the company for which they work is bought out and their pensions are impacted, the trio are left without much money on which to fall back.  In order to get the money they need to ensure a comfortable living, the three decide to steal from a bank.  Having been law-abiding citizens their whole lives, they will have to do whatever they can to make sure their plan succeeds.

The combined work of Caine, Freeman, and Arkin is the reason why this movie works at all.  But, with all three of these actors being Oscar winners, it isn’t any surprise that they would be the best part of this movie.  They are talented enough that, even if they’re saying a joke that isn’t too funny, you still can’t help but chuckle because of the delivery of their lines.

At some points, the screenplay by Theodore Melfi falls into the trap of sentimentality, which was an issue with his 2014 comedy, “St. Vincent,” which he wrote and directed.  While the original “Going in Style” faced the concept of aging in a way that was affecting, the remake tends to go in a more crowd-pleasing direction that kind of hinders the film, particularly the way in which the end is handled.  Also, the movie doesn’t waste time in bringing the it’s-funny-because-they’re-elderly jokes, which is disheartening because a movie with actors of Caine, Freeman, and Arkin’s statures deserves something funnier.

Although this remake doesn’t reach the quality of the original, there’s still a bit of a sense of fun that Braff brings when he has these three esteemed actors work together.  Yes, given the talent that’s involved in the cast, this film should have been better, but it’s a passable comedy that’s recommendable, if only slightly, because of its skillful trio.

Final Grade: B-

Disney’s Retelling of Their Beloved Fairy-Tale Romance Can’t Capture Original’s Magic

The Beast (Dan Stevens) and Belle (Emma Watson)
in "Beauty and the Beast"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

In 1991, Walt Disney Pictures released “Beauty and the Beast,” one of the best films of the studio’s ‘90s renaissance that became the first animated film to earn an Oscar nomination for Best Picture.  Based on the French fairy tale, “La Belle et la Bête,” by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, the film followed the story of the blossoming affection between a young woman and a cursed prince.  With gorgeous animation, enchanting songs, and a legendary voice cast, Disney’s tender creation has endured in the hearts of viewers for a quarter of a century.

As Disney continues its new trend of making live-action remakes of their classic animated films, director Bill Condon brings us “Beauty and the Beast,” a movie that had a lot to live up to, given the beloved status of the original, but it ends up being inferior to its animated counterpart in many ways.

Belle (Emma Watson) lives in a French village, where she is seen as different from everyone else because of her intelligence and ambition, with only her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), providing support for her.  One day, while traveling to the market outside of town, Maurice gets lost and finds himself at a castle, which is home to a prince (Dan Stevens) who has been cursed into a beast.  After he imprisons Maurice, Belle travels there to save him and take his place.  While in the castle, Belle will find compassion for the beast and realize there is more to him than his outward appearance.

While Emma Watson does a passable job as Belle and manages to separate herself from her Hermione Granger character from the “Harry Potter” series, she has the unfortunate task of living up to the vivacity of Paige O’Hara, who provided the voice of Belle in the animated original.  Her singing isn’t as strong as O’Hara’s, and as talented as Watson is, her performance isn’t quite as memorable as one should be in a live-action retelling of one of Disney’s most classic films.

In terms of Dan Stevens, besides the opening and ending scenes when his character is human, the Beast is CGI throughout the rest of the movie.  I would have much preferred to have the Beast be an actor in makeup than one made up of CGI because having him as a special effect diminishes the humanistic qualities hiding beneath his character and lessens the emotional and romantic connections between him and Belle.  I can only imagine what gifted makeup artists (such as the team who worked on “Pan’s Labyrinth”) could have done if they were given the chance to provide makeup to Stevens, allowing him to act with the cosmetics that are applied to him and dig deep into his character.

For the voice cast of the castle objects, which includes Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, and Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, among others, it all comes down to it not being able to match up to the voice work of Jerry Orbach (Lumière), David Ogden Stiers (Cogsworth), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts), and the other cast members of the original castle-objects voice cast.  These talents immortalized their characters, while the voice actors for this remake, as fine as they are, can’t overshadow the superb work of the original voice cast.  The objects in the animated film were also superior because since they were hand-drawn, that allowed them to move their faces in certain ways and gave them a wider range of expressions.

However, a bright spot in the cast is Luke Evans as the boorish, narcissistic, and scheming Gaston, the village hunter who pines after Belle.  Despite the movie being average as a whole, I would be remiss if I didn’t say there’s a pretty great entertainment factor in his performance, as Evans is given the opportunity to show his comedic abilities, all while providing many of the film’s laughs.

The screenplay by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos has all of the scenes from the original (where they are better, but still adequately realized in this film), but also has some positive aspects as well, such as making this iteration of Belle a more progressive princess and the inclusion of some new songs, such as “Evermore” and “How Can a Moment Last Forever.”  And although the narrative offers a bit of expansion on certain aspects of the story that the original didn’t cover, like the prince’s past and what happened to Belle’s mother, it isn’t handled too well in the remake, as the prince’s past only offers a few small details, and the way we see the past with Belle’s mother is done in such a way that doesn’t seem to fit with what we’ve seen in this story’s world.  Also, at 129 minutes long, this film runs about 45 minutes longer than the original, meaning there’s quite a bit of filler involved.  While it’s understandable that the studio wanted to make this version longer, given it’s meant to be a big-screen spectacle, it still could have been about 15 minutes shorter, even with some of the few new additions that actually work.

Despite the film lacking a lot of the original’s appeal, Condon is still able to offer some gorgeous fairy-tale imagery with the help of cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler, production designing by Sarah Greenwood, and set decorating from Katie Spencer.  However, with a film that has a beautiful visual scope such as this, it should have taken better care of bringing back what made the original so great, instead of simply feeling like just a way for Disney to make another potential billion dollars from the worldwide box office.  

Over the past few years, we’ve gotten four live-action remakes of Disney’s animated classics: “Alice in Wonderland,” “Maleficent” (which is “Sleeping Beauty” told from the villain’s perspective), “Cinderella,” and “The Jungle Book.”  While “Beauty and the Beast” isn’t as shallow of an effort as “Alice in Wonderland” and “Maleficent,” it still doesn’t reach the impressiveness of “Cinderella” and “The Jungle Book.”  With the recent trend of nostalgia that seems to be going through Hollywood these days, it’s obvious to see why moviegoers would want to see this remake.  But if you’re feeling nostalgic, you’re much better off watching the original again because although this remake has enough beauty on the outside, there isn’t as much underneath as there should be.

Final Grade: C 

Video Review: "Life"

The following review is from a guest contributor by the name of Shane Conto, a friend of mine and fellow movie buff whom I met in Rider University’s Alternative Film Club.