First of all let us establish this; Godzilla is a Godzilla movie. It is not a film about a young boy coming of age on  small New England farm. It is not the story of a blind boy in Pakistan overcoming his disability and learning to love. It is not Norma Rae. It is not The Sorrow and the Pity.

It is Godzilla.

Now that that is out of the way (it seems to need to be explained to both those who love and don't love the movie--especially a certain type of critic) Godzilla is a movie with more good than bad. It takes a while to get to the monster attacking and smashing part but that is sort of a tradition in this sort of movie. In fact, this movie gets to the monsters much faster than the old school versions.

This movie is also far more coherent than the old monster movies and certainly better paced and constructed than the dubious 1998 remake. The most valid complaints about the movie might be; a) it needed more Brian Cranston b) it needed more Juliette Binoche or c) it needed more Godzilla.

This last complaint might be valid but if you make a movie with monsters fighting for an hour and a half it might get a little repetitive. In this film some instances of fighting are cut of, and action implied. It handles this well--more extended fights are really not necessary.

Is there a lot of plot here? No but if you expected something profound or complicated you probably have never seen a giant monster movie. Most of these movies are incredibly dull with only small bits of cheesy action. You can count the good ones (old or more recent) on one hand. The Japanese Godzilla, Cloverfield and Pacific Rim.

I have a soft spot for all the old Toho Studio films but they have more of a kitsch factor rather than a "good" factor. Sure, the original 1954 Godzilla film was unique and sort of a landmark but the rest of their output was not great filmmaking for anyone over 10 years old. We remember them fondly and they remind us of a time but they are (mostly) not good movies.

This Godzilla isn't really an updating of the genre. It essentially does the same things as the original; it builds to a big conflict through smaller conflicts, it points out the hubris of humanity vis a vis nature and it has a tiny bit of a personal story to weave it all together.
Another thing is that giant monster movies are often downhill once the monster is revealed. Here they avoid that pitfall by giving little reveals right in the credits.

It is not a reinvention but is just a bigger budget version of the old formula. That is a good thing. Giant monster movies deserve big budgets every bit as much as super hero films.

Only Lovers Left Alive is a slice of life film, one of those movies that, without a well defined plot, depicts a time in the lives of its characters. Usually such films are about characters you might meet in real life. In this movie? The slice of life depicted is the lives of the undead, of vampires.

One is a world-weary music aficionado, Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and his wife of many centuries. Eve (Tilda Swinton). The roles are cast perfectly in the film. Swinton always seems otherworldly but Hiddleston is the one given the most opportunity to develop a character. He is immortal but he wants to be done with it all. He lives in Detroit, a perfect zombie hide out if there ever was one. Adam is also a music enthusiast. He listens, he collects instruments and he records his own dreary, darkwave-esgue psych rock.

This is a fantasy life for  many musicians; he has no worry about money, he has all the gear he could want and he creates music people trade like it was a drug. The only down side for him is that these same humans (or "zombies" as he names all those with a pulse) seek him out.

But it isn't enough. There is something missing and it is, in part, Swinton but his ennui is due to more than just his beloved being half way around the world.

You may read plot synopses that twist and contort to try an find an actual plot in the film. There is one but it is less important than the mood set, the slice of life (or slice of undeadness) director Jim Jarmusch creates.

Some will walk out  perplexed. The film alludes to many  possible stories and it explores and concludes virtually none of them. It is sort of like most people's lives. Maybe this is a parable about how, even if we lived eternally we would still have the same angst we have as mortals. We would still leave so much unfinished even if we had forever.

It is a thoughtful, slow paced, dark film with a wry sense of humor. There is no hilarity here at any point but a sort of low key irony. John Hurt, Mia Wasikowska and  Anton Yelchin (Mr. Chekov in the new Star Trek films) all add to the film in small roles. Yelchin's Ian is sort of Adam's Renfield in the movie but he doesn't procure virgin blood but vintage guitars. Wasikowska is a  fly in the ointment, Swinton's "sister" who shows up to mess things up.

You want to see more of these characters. You never will. But you can feel free to create the rest of the story on your own. This isn't "typical Jarmusch," if there is such a thing. It is a film that shows a director still growing and changing after decades of work.

The Amazing Spider Man 2 is another in a long line of decent, recent super hero movies. Yet there is a strange feeling here. Is this a stand alone movie or a set up for a sequel?

I keep writing the same thing about all of the super hero films; hollywood has the formula down via pacing, solid acting and decent (if not spectacular) writing. Likewise as the "franchises" progress there is less need for the often pace-killing that goes alongside back story.  The Amazing Spider Man 2 does all of this.

But the second Spider Man movie deviates from the norm here and there--and it isn't always for the best. Whenever movies like this start delving into the emotional issues of the characters--their relationships and their guilt and angst--they fall down. They may get back UP but there is at least some time spent on the proverbial canvas.  When this emotional exploration happens in Spider Man movies? I cannot say "it doesn't work" but I can say that it doesn't work well.

It is curious because this is where the Sam Raimi Spider Man movies fair (and in the second two of that trilogy they fail far, far more spectacularly). It is ALSO where the comics drag. Paradoxically this is also what makes Spider Man different? His angst isn't that of Bruce Wayne, it is more complicated and nuanced. Maybe this is why it is harder to depict in comic or film? Maybe.

So I equivocate. This complaint is also, in some odd way, what is charming about the movies.

This movie has solid acting but no one is really given a chance to stand out (with one possible exception).  Andrew Garfield is an everyman superhero with wise cracks and pathos mixed together. Emma Stone is her usual reliable self. Jamie Foxx plays both the nerd and the arch villain with skill (even if his character isn't given any real depth). You sort of wish there was more screen time for Paul Giamatti because he only scratches the surface in a handful of scenery chewing scenes.

Dane DeHaan (also good in the surprising Chronicle) shows something in the film; he transcends the material delivering more than just a professional performance. He has a charisma.

Another reason this falls short of some other super hero movies are the city fight scenes. Whenever you see a super hero movie you have to suspend all logic; gods and monsters come alive, men can leap over buildings. The one thing you do need is for regular people to act like regular people. In Amazing Spider Man 2  regular people stand behind barriers and cheer as hero and villain destroy city-blocks. You cannot help but think; why aren't they RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES.  The fact it happens doesn't matter so much as you are given time to stop and realize it is happening.

Essentially the movie is an entertaining one but it doesn't stand out in the ever expanding pool of super hero movies. There is also a sense that this film is a building to a greater crescendo to come later--Amazing Spider Man 3.

Railway Man deals with big issues in a small way. The most obvious of these is the treatment of British prisoners of war held by the Japanese. It also deals with the aftermath, how this mistreatment, the torture, starvation and more continued to haunt the men held in their lives after the war. It is one of the few films to do this.

But it is also a film about redemption--through repentance, through hard work and through love.

The film dodges several mistakes that might have muddled it. It does not spend a ton of time on side characters--and especially not on their background stories. It focuses on the character played by Colin Firth and Jeremy Irvine, Eric. He is a radioman (and we find out, a Railway enthusiast) taken by the Japanese after the surrender of Singapore. The soldiers are then held in deplorable conditions. But this isn't where the movie spends most of his time. 

It is mostly concerned with Eric years later, after he meets a woman and seemingly finds happiness--decades later.  Nicole Kidman plays Patti in an understated role that reminds (again after her performance in Stoker) what a fine actress she is.

The war intrudes on Eric's happiness--even more so when he is told that one of his tormenters Takeshi Nagase (played by Hiroyuki Sanada and Tanroh Ishida) has been found--giving tours of the very railway where the British prisoners toiled and died.

What will Eric do?

This is the basis for the movie. Railway Man is not a film about geo-political aspects of war or about crimes against humanity in a broad sense. It is about the men involved and how they react. It is about Eric and his relationship with his wife vis a vis his experiences in the war. It is a small movie about a man who is trying to put the past behind him and live his life.

There are parts of the film that are designed to make you angry. But ultimately these merely serve to show that what is needed isn't anger but humanity, empathy and forgiveness. A small film, not one that will make much noise, get much notice or win piles of awards but it is moving, well-paced, beautifully shot and filled with excellent acting, even in small roles.

Under the Skin is a creepy film from beginning to end. Part of the reason for this is that, as a heterosexual male, it is easy to imagine yourself going pretty much anywhere with Scarlett Johansson. In this film you learn that it really is what's under the skin that counts.

In one way this film is heir to to the "they are among us" films of the 1950s. At some points I thought "Jodorowsky."  But mostly I just wondered where the film was going. Ultimately it becomes a movie about someone pretending to be something they are not--and coming to identify with that something. She is an alien who starts to "go native."

Johansson drives around, picking up men--some wary, some eager, and taking them with her in her van.  But over the span of the film she also seems to develop empathy with humans--an even more so with her own human form.

Director Jonathan Glazer was at the wheel for the excellent, Sexy Beast. He also worked extensively with English bands Massive Attack and Radiohead. Remember the video for Karma Police? He did it.

He hasn't done a ton of feature films (this is his third). It is to be hoped he will be at the helm again--and soon. This is a unique and thoughtful film and it there are so few like it that make it to theaters. The special effects are minimal and effective showing you need not break the bank in Sci-Fi.

In fact, some of the "special effects" sequences in the film are what really bring home the creepiness of the movie. We barely meet the men and yet we can feel for them because of these parts of the film (trying very hard not to give too much away here).

The Jodorowsky reference relates to a couple of these segments but as soon as these end you are snapped back to a rather mundane reality--something almost neo-realist. The non-alien segments of the film could be something about working people of Scotland.

Another interesting thing about the movie is that the men lured into the van were allegedly not actors but were shot on hidden cameras and only told they were in a film afterward.  It seems a risky way to make a movie--and reinforces the creepiness. Can you imagine if a director did this with the genders reversed?

These sort of creative takes on filmmaking are welcome even in films that do not succeed. Experimentation in how to make movies and what are movies are essential to move the art of filmmaking along. This film does it and succeeds in making a good and provocative film. Again, let's see more from Glazer, and soon.