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
Leave Her to Beaver
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
Swift
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

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

#7 Post by 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).

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#10 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun May 03, 2020 8:31 pm

SpoilerShow
I think we saw different films, as Sudeikis' "switch" felt authentic to me as the capacity for "hurt people to hurt people" when rejected, and the facade of the "no strings attached" attitude to those niceties. It's a film that acknowledges the expectations that drive people to narcissistic harmful places, and I think that showing a more cinematically fluid external transformation would be audience handholding and inauthentic to the jarring shift between two sides of a character this realistic. Those changes don't happen slowly or through a form of visible rationality, they occur inwardly when emotions are bruised and psyches are triggers, which is when people react via harm.

And that is what this film is about of course: how we harm others - unconsciously or with intent, through complacency or riding on the backs of our wills, the natural harm that occurs when we simply exist and reject advances or the avoidable harm that comes from selfishly self-destructing which causes outward destruction. This film also begs the question of when and to who are we accountable? Isn't Hathaway allowed to drink alcoholically - is it her fault that people stay with her and are affected by her behavior? I think the film does a wonderful job at showing how complex this idea is: the struggle of any alcoholic who isn't ready to get sober. Her self-destruction absolutely harms other people and she is responsible, but for Sudeikis whose character dangerously walks the tightrope of allegorical sexual assault via coercion, she is not responsible for her participation in that relationship. So she is and isn't responsible for other people's expectations of her. Or is it actually not that simple?

His character strongly shows how expectations destroy us, bottle up and threaten us with solipsism and resentment that will destroy ourselves and others. Her awareness to the people she's indirectly harming without meaning to is a perfect metaphor for entering the contemplation stage of change when addicts realize the effects of their behavior as unmanageable once the blinders come off. But what of the people she has harmed, and that he has? The dissonance in examples above highlights how there are two sides to every situation, and while the film is on the surface pretty clear about where it sides on each respective issue, it leaves room open for the idea that responsibility and accountability are different, and someone can harm another without being fully accountable for that person's position.
I don't know, there's so much more to say about this film, including the insane ending and reveal which highlights the chips on our soldiers and deep-rooted resentments and traumatic pain from childhood that manifest as gigantic conditioned personalities that affect others (regardless of whether one is an addict or not). It's a film that by design will repel so many viewers and I can't fault anyone for disliking it. For me and a lot of people who have struggled with addiction though, it's a hit, so it must be doing something right even if I can't and won't speak for all people who have gone through it. I do think the film engages with the therapeutic outcomes from stepwork in 12-step fellowships better than most, which is maybe why it hits so well with those I know in those communities.

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

Re: Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#11 Post by domino harvey » Sun May 03, 2020 9:11 pm

I find it curious that you refute the extremely obvious reading of Sudeikis’ character, who is ultimately
SpoilerShow
a cartoon representation of a “Nice Guy”, with all the depth of an email forwarded meme. I often commend your ability to find emotional depth in quite a few films where I find little to none, but this one note characterization rang absolutely false for me (as did the other supporting roles, though they shoulder less weight). To my eyes, his character tells us nothing interesting or convincing about damaged people because he is a phony screenplay construct meant to represent a specific brand of male entitlement. I found no depth in Sudeikis’ character. None.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2017)

#12 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun May 03, 2020 9:44 pm

I don't refute that reading at all, and maybe I didn't explain myself well
SpoilerShow
I don't think Sudeikis’ character is "deep" so much as this film audaciously exposes the facade that these people deserve to be provided depth. One expects his character to be given the same emotional arc that Hathaway's does, but he isn't, and the mirror even turns toward her as a question of- is she "deserving" of an "emotional arc"? I think the film slyly asks if actions or reasons/intent are what define us, and is bold for making Sudeikis into the characterization that he would present as to any actual person who encounters him, and conversely to expectations of cinema by preventing that internal eye into any complexity that may exist thus robbing him of any value (and that "validation" he is so eagerly looking for) of whatever that may be. Simply put, does it really matter what makes him tick if he's an angry reactive rapist-in-the-making? And does it really matter what 'happened' to Hathaway to make her so destructive?

I think that in doing this the film argues that what does matter is self-awareness, the reflective process that leads to humility, acceptance, and eventually if harnassed, change. If life is about being a constant learner and growing and rehabilitation, which I believe it is, then self-reflective practice is the key to life. This is a story of Hathaway who is faced with this growth, and so she is deserving of such an arc but Sudeikis is not because she cares about what 'happened' to her through empathizing with others around her (which is what makes it matter) while he only cares about what 'happened' to him in a solipsistic bubble of self-pity, so he is treated as importantly as he is a worthy participant in this world: nil. It's a bitter pill to swallow, and not exactly a humanist approach, but it asks questions about when to give rope toward that lens and when to pull back, and for that I think it's genius for an uncomfortably realist exposure through fantasy.

But no, while we may disagree on the merits of the film, I don't particularly think we read Sudeikis' character any differently, other than the motives for why the filmmaker painted him as the cartoon that he is. However, I think Sudeikis does a terrific job at committing to that Nice Guy's darkness in a way that another actor might try to find wiggle room for empathy, and just because we don't give him that and he doesn't "deserve" it doesn't mean that we can't see the emotional pain that drives him. It's quite the slap in the face to be able to relate to that vague concept of rejection and emotional triggering and then slam in the door on him because of his actions, not something we expect from movies as "empathy machines" but realistic to the truth that actions matter.

Post Reply