Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#1 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:33 pm

One of the more bizarre-sounding films in recent memory, Anne Hathaway's giant monster movie Colossal

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#2 Post by domino harvey » Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:10 pm

Great poster:

Image

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 4)

#3 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:00 am

Someone somewhere thinks this will sell more copies than the ace poster art

Image

User avatar
soundchaser
No longer chasing skirts
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 4)

#4 Post by soundchaser » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:19 am

Anne Hathaway turned into Julia Roberts so gradually it was hard to notice.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 4)

#5 Post by The Narrator Returns » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:20 am

While Jason Sudeikis turned into Paul Giamatti rather suddenly.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 4)

#6 Post by Big Ben » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:54 am

Jesus I thought (Not) Groot was giving the Nazi salute there for a minute.

User avatar
Cameron Swift
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 4)

#7 Post by Cameron Swift » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:13 pm

Looks like Paul Rudd lost a ton of weight to play Tim Blake Nelson there.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#8 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:08 pm

Looks like Universal sort of listened: that awful cover is still on the Blu-ray, but it comes with a much better lenticular slip

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#9 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:49 pm

I admire the picture for the initial audaciousness of its premise, but that rope only gets extended so far. The first half feels like an entry 10-15 years too late for the quirky indie “revisiting the homestead” subgenre, and then it takes a hard left halfway through that may be common knowledge but which I didn’t know about going in and so I’ll spoiler the rest of my comments — and I’m not referring to the initial premise itself, ie that Anne Hathaway can, for some reason, control a monster wreaking havoc on Seoul. So don’t unspoiler if you intend to see the film…
SpoilerShow
That Jason Sudeikis is clearly crushing on Hathaway and working really hard at it makes sense, since she’s Anne Hathaway. But then the film reveals Sudeikis is a Nice Guy and was trying to buy her affections with gifts and “help” that come with unacknowledged strings, leading to a rejection with a body count higher than most action movies. Okay, there’s some intriguing social commentary in place here then, as also seen in how every man Hathaway has a relationship with, romantic or otherwise, is awful, and of course the most abusive literally has a monstrous hold on her. But I found the complete flip for Sudeikis so sudden and unearned that the film seemed to be missing a good ten minutes of connective tissue solely in service of providing a cheap “jolt” to the audience with the quick turn. Wouldn’t it have been a better film if Sudeikis, or any male character, was more than a cliche (abusive Nice Guy, passive weakling, ineffectual druggie, conceited asshole) and painted with depth that made their function resemble more than props in a lecture, which is all it ends up feeling like? The punches, literal and narrative, don’t land because the film is holding the audience up by, astonishingly, not being legitimately audacious (!) and not respecting us to “get” it without making it completely obvious. I recognize that I am asking for subtlety from what ultimately is a giant monster movie, but watching a movie like this, where the components for it to be so much better are there and unexploited in favor of cheapness, is frustrating. No one cares when a disposable romantic comedy fails to go that extra mile and rests its laurels, but we’re never going to see another movie with this premise again, why waste it on bald finger-wagging, when the same message could have been achieved through more fully-sketched means with the same material (and I say this as someone who agrees with the film’s thesis against Nice Guys, so this isn’t a Red Pill-ready critique).

Post Reply