Tag Archives: ending

Gyllenhaal Steals the Show in ‘Nightcrawler’

Leave a reply

Nightcrawlerfilm            Jake Gyllenhaal once patrolled the streets of Los Angeles as a cop in “End of Watch”; now he drives around them at night filming crime and accidents.

“Nightcrawler” is all about the people who independently film accidents and then sell them to news stations (“if it bleeds, it leads” the film makes sure to tell us a half dozen times). When Lou (Gyllenhaal) steps into this world, he begins to blur the line between observer and participant. Rene Russo and Bill Paxton costar as Dan Gilroy writes and has his directorial debut.

“Nightcrawler” is a nice looking, tense thriller that is almost completely driven by its characters. Every actor has a scene or two in which they own, but in the end this movie would be nothing without Jake Gyllenhaal.

Gyllenhaal is so creepy, unsettling and unrecognizable as Lou that it is impossible to take your eyes off of him. As the film progresses, we become more and more uneasy with every passing scene, as we know it is only a matter of time before Lou snaps; we just don’t know at what—or who—it is going to be at. Lou speaks almost completely in cliché business and motivational lingo (his motto is, “if you want to win the lottery, you have to earn the money to buy a ticket”) and it is not obvious if he is a brilliant negotiator or simply just insane.

Riz Ahmed plays Rick, a homeless young man who is hired as Lou’s assistant. Rick is too desperate for cash to turn away from Lou, or even realize what he is getting himself into, and by the time he begins to realize Lou may be a psychopath he is in too deep.

The rest of the supporting cast does a fine job as well. Russo plays a TV news director who buys Lou’s initial tape, and is equally repulsed and fascinated by him. Bill Paxton has a few fun lines as Lou’s rival, a fellow “nightcrawler”, and Kevin Rahm plays a TV executive, who serves as the voice of reason for the audience, questioning Lou’s methods and whether running certain clips is ethical, or even legal.

The film is edited and paced brilliantly, offering quick-cuts and perfectly timed scenes to keep the flow going, while never sacrificing content. The climax of the film is as tense and thrilling as anything I have seen at the movies this year, and even though while watching we have a feeling we know what is going to transpire, we just hope we are wrong.

Now there are a few points in “Nightcrawler” that feel like they were added simply to showcase Los Angeles, or try and make sure we are aware how “dedicated” Lou is to his job, and this makes the film’s narrative stray a bit and at times make the plot seem a bit aimless, but it is never anything Gyllenhaal can’t get back on track.

“Nightcrawler” is a solid thriller with a brilliant lead performance, shot in one of the most vibrant and neon-soaked cities in the world. The film is worth seeing simply because of Gyllenhaal, but the supporting characters, dark humor and exhilarating climax are a nice treat, too.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Gone Girl’ Powerfully Acted, Capably Executed Thriller

Leave a reply

Gone_Girl_Poster                Do you smell that? It’s the smell of Oscar Season returning to grace us with its presence, and it is brought upon by director David Fincher’s newest film, “Gone Girl”.

On the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick (Ben Affleck) arrives home to find his house in shambles and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. When the media begins to put the spotlight on him, the police and American public start to wonder if Nick is an innocent victim, or a killer? Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry also star.

It is hard to say why “Gone Girl” is a good film without spoiling anything. In fact it is hard to really talk at all about this film without giving away one of its many twists. But it’s my job, so here we go.

The always reliable David Fincher, who directed films ranging cult classics “Fight Club” and “Se7en” to the fantastic “Social Network” and American version of “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, directs “Gone Girl” in such a stepped-back, impartial way that at times you forget you are watching a movie. It is almost like you are simply watching events unfold, and you do not know who to trust.

Gillian Flynn, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, as well as penned the screenplay for the movie, has such a way with words that she is able to work in moments of dark humor that just feel natural. Sometimes in movies characters are deadly serious all the time and it almost takes you out of the film, but never with “Gone Girl”. It makes sure to have a little strategically placed bits of humor or lightheartedness just when a moment may be getting too serious or stale.

If you hear anything about the film, it will likely be one of two things: Rosamund Pike’s performance, or the twists. This film has more twists than a pastry from Cinnabon. At first they are small things, like the police finding a clue, but as the film goes on, they get more and more elaborate and hit harder and harder, until the ultimate punch to the stomach in the film’s final moments.

As for Pike, there is so much that could be said but I’ll keep it brief. As she narrates the film via her diary passages and flashbacks, we see at first the fairytale marriage that she and Affleck have, but then how they begin to become more and more distant, until finally she begins to fear her own husband. It is a multi-layered performance that is sure to earn her award talk.

Now as much as the film wants to front itself as a brilliant Oscar contender, there are some glaring flaws. The first act of the film, when police are collecting initial clues and samples and Affleck is doing interviews, can drag a little, as we aren’t really learning anything new or earth shattering, but still are sitting through it all. It is a little like watching a behind-the-scenes, paperwork-only edition of “Law and Order”, just with more awkward pacing. The film may also leave some viewers, including myself, craving a better delivery of the climax.

“Gone Girl” is a perfectly cast, capably directed film that just suffers from some narrative and pacing issues, as well as a possible weak finale. That being said, it is an engrossing, dark and intelligent, and may leave your brain hurting when the credits start to roll. Is “Gone Girl” as entertaining or memorable as it wants to be? No. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come close.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Spider-Man’ Sequel as Mediocre as First

The_Amazing_Spiderman_2_posterEvery now and again a film comes along that has a lot of potential but just can’t quite reach the levels it is striving for. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is such a film. A follow-up to the unnecessary 2012 reboot, this sequel follows Spidey (Andrew Garfield), as he struggles to deal with his emotions towards Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) while at the same time battling a new supervillain known as Electro (Jamie Foxx). Marc Webb directs.

The first “Amazing Spider-Man” was simply alright. There were a lot of creative ideas and potential, however it was weighed down by numerous similarities to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, as well as a very underwhelming villain. This sequel manages to fix some mistakes that bogged down the original film, however many issues still linger.

First things first, Andrew Garfield is a very good Peter Parker. He nails Spider-Man’s sarcastic attitude, even in the middle of conflict, and has solid chemistry with Stone, as well as Sally Field, who plays Aunt May.

Speaking of character chemistry, that is by and far the strong point of “Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Marc Webb, who directed the rom-com “500 Days of Summer”, is very good at directing emotional scenes, making them feel genuine and human. The film has plenty of funny pieces of dialogue, and there are a few lump-in-the-throat inducing moments as well.

Unfortunately, the film did not learn from the first go around in the villain department. The Lizard was underdeveloped and lacked any real motive in the first film, not to mention his design wasn’t too impressive either. Here the film goes 0 for 3, missing with Electro, Rhino (Paul Giamatti) and Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan). All three have no true motives for their actions, are underwritten and not one of them affects the plot; I’m not even kidding, except for the end battle, the movie would be completely unchanged if none of the villains were in the film.

A superhero film should be driven BY the villain, not simply FEATURING one. Look at “Spider-Man 2”: Peter has his own issues and is fighting the choices he has to make, but Doc Ock is featured as a fleshed-out character and is ultimately the reason Peter decides that he has to be Spider-Man. None of that is present here. Rhino is essentially a cameo, Electro is cliché (think of Jim Carrey’s Riddler story arc from “Batman Forever”) and the Goblin is shoehorned in to fill a plot point and set up a spin-off film. I also wasn’t a fan of the design of Goblin and Rhino, but that is purely personal opinion.

The battles are well-shot (although most every action scene is shown in the trailer) and the interactions between Gwen and Peter are entertaining, but “Amazing Spider-Man 2” cannot overcome the cluttered plot and indecisive narrative. I almost feel bad for kids who have this as their staple Spider-Man. When the Raimi films came out, I remember how much everyone in my school loved them, and I distinctly remember seeing “Spider-Man 2” and being blown away (it’ll be the 10 year anniversary next month). Unfortunately there’s just nothing awe-inspiring or memorable about this new series.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is at its best when Spider-Man isn’t on screen, and in a film with the word “Spider-Man” in the title, I’m not sure how much of a positive that is. The film is entertaining, for sure, and I was never bored, but at more than on occasion I was sitting in my seat thinking “why does this movie exist?”. There’s a point in the film when Electro says, “I will show everyone what it’s like to live in a world without Spider-Man”. If only he could actually make that happen…

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is Slow and Gloomy

Leave a reply

Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster

There are some people in the movie industry whose films you just can never seem to like. There people like Adam Sandler who are understandably disliked because they are lazy and consistently put out subpar products. However for me, the person, or persons, whose films I can never seem to enjoy, no matter how hard I may try, are Joel and Ethan Coen. And their new film, “Inside Llewyn Davis” does not help change my opinion very much.

The film follows folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Issac) and the struggles he faces as he tries to make it in 1961 New York City. Carrey Mulligan and Justin Timberlake also star. The Coens wrote the script and direct.

The movie is just about a lot of depressed, angry and/or confused people struggling to make it in the world. There is no real joy to be found, and by the end of the movie Llewyn is no better off than he was at the beginning of the film. If you are going to make a movie that follows one main character, some sort of development, characterization or at the very least resolution is expected. But instead the Coens just travel from scene to scene in an effort to include as many of their trademark abstract characters as they can.

That is one of the reasons I don’t like the Coens. With the exception of “No Country for Old Men”, every one of their movies is about characters who have these quirky or dark personalities, a lot of which are unlike any person you would find in the real world. I just have never been a fan of their awkward and dry humor.

Not everything about the movie is negative, however. The main actor, Oscar Issac, is great. He is the only reason the film is watchable, to be honest. We aren’t sure if we should be rooting for Llewyn or not, because for as sympathetic as we feel for him, we also come to realize he may have dug his hole for himself, but Issac has a sense of charisma that is just too much to overlook.

But my favorite part of the film is John Goodman. In his ten minutes of screen time he has some very funny lines of dialogue and when he showed up I thought maybe the movie would get better but nope. They just abandon him and move on with the film; literally.

The music in the movie is very good; I have to give them that credit. I’m not the biggest folk song fan in the world but my foot started tapping whenever a character would pick up a guitar and start to play. All but one of the songs was recorded and sung live (Les Mis style) and it showed; it didn’t feel forced or fake.

I really cannot recommend “Inside Llewyn Davis”. One great performance and some catchy songs were not enough to overcome a dull script and a plot that doesn’t go anywhere. The highlights of Oscar Issac’s performance will be all over the place come Oscar season and you can look up the songs on iTunes or YouTube, so there is really no reason to see the movie.

I wish the Coens had broken their form and made a coherent, enjoyable movie about music, and instead of this depressing and gloomy picture. There is the patented Coen ending that will leave you confused and rethinking the movie, but unlike their other films, you don’t care if you figure out what it all means.

Critics Rating: 5/10