Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Aug 17, 2020
It's possible that Inception isn't the best film of the 21st century so far, but I'm blowed if I can think of a better candidate. What starts off looking like a slick thriller with SF trimmings - expert psycho-thief takes on one last job, breaking into a businessman's subconscious mind to implant a suggestion - turns into a dizzyingly complex and astonishingly self-assured examination of memory, reality, and the medium itself, with the execution matching the strength and ambition of the concept.
Consider: the film is based around a whole series of concepts and rules created out of whole cloth, which have to be explained to the audience. Most movies would really struggle to do only this. But Christopher Nolan not only succeeds, he uses it simply as the basis for a story rich in other layers of metaphor and emotion, while also playing with the rules of cinematic grammar and genre - the dreamscapes are implicitly likened to film narratives, with the successive levels resembling increasingly outlandish thriller sub-genres (gritty urban action, Mission Impossible, Bond) the further removed from the real world they are. But what is cinema if not a chance for people to share a dream together? Dreams as good as this one are vanishingly rare, alas.
Consider: the film is based around a whole series of concepts and rules created out of whole cloth, which have to be explained to the audience. Most movies would really struggle to do only this. But Christopher Nolan not only succeeds, he uses it simply as the basis for a story rich in other layers of metaphor and emotion, while also playing with the rules of cinematic grammar and genre - the dreamscapes are implicitly likened to film narratives, with the successive levels resembling increasingly outlandish thriller sub-genres (gritty urban action, Mission Impossible, Bond) the further removed from the real world they are. But what is cinema if not a chance for people to share a dream together? Dreams as good as this one are vanishingly rare, alas.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated American Assassin (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Great, another terrorism thriller
Just what the world needs, another ill-timed terrorism-based thriller – you can almost hear the groans can’t you? It seems the movie-going public just can’t get enough of these accounts of urban terrorism.
Last year’s diabolical London Has Fallen inexplicably took over $200million at the box office and the better-received Unlocked also performed well commercially. All of this in spite of the constant threat posed by terrorism across the globe.
Now, there’s a new kid on the block. American Assassin. But does this film based on the novel of the same name do enough to be different?
When Cold War veteran Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton) takes CIA black ops recruit Mitch Rapp (Dylan O’Brien) under his wing, they receive an assignment to investigate a wave of random attacks on both military and civilian targets. After discovering a pattern of violence, Hurley and Rapp join forces with a lethal Turkish agent to stop a mysterious operative who wants to start a global war.
Michael Cuesta’s film is propped up by a nicely shot opening in which Dylan O’Brien’s Mitch comes up against Islamic terrorists while on holiday with his fiancé. Naturally, she’s brutally murdered and it becomes Mitch’s life-ambition to hunt down terrorist cells across the world.
Yes, you heard me right. That’s the plot. Ridiculous in every way and frankly, a little boring, American Assassin is a poor excuse for a film riddled with dreadful dialogue, phoned-in performances and uninspiring camerawork.
What makes it worse is that Maze Runner rising star Dylan O’Brien thought it would be a good idea to helm such a vehicle. He performs well but feels at odds with the film’s dark tone and is in serious danger of doing a post-Abduction Taylor Lautner and tanking his promising career. Michael Keaton’s bizarre effort here is the polar opposite of his genuinely menacing turn in Spider-Man: Homecoming only two months ago.
The rest of the cast might as well be made of cardboard they’re that uninteresting and while globe-trotting should evoke some visual joy, the scenery feels flat, hampered by a dull colour palette and the fact it’s been done to death already.
As American Assassin steamrolls to a 70s-esque Bond finale, we’re subjected to some torturous CGI, though Cuesta does well to ramp up the tension a little, but it’s the subject matter once again that proves a sticking point.
In a world where our fears of urban terrorism are greater than ever, should we be classing films like this as ‘entertainment’? Take the opening sequence for example, as nicely choreographed as it is, the parallels to the dreadful Tunisian beach attack of 2015 linger in the back of my mind and I find it all very much in poor taste.
Overall, American Assassin is yet another addition to the already overstuffed terrorism thriller genre that adds absolutely nothing new. The performances are dull, the story is flat and the cinematography is uninspired. Poor Dylan O’Brien left the Maze for this?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/15/american-assassin-review/
Last year’s diabolical London Has Fallen inexplicably took over $200million at the box office and the better-received Unlocked also performed well commercially. All of this in spite of the constant threat posed by terrorism across the globe.
Now, there’s a new kid on the block. American Assassin. But does this film based on the novel of the same name do enough to be different?
When Cold War veteran Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton) takes CIA black ops recruit Mitch Rapp (Dylan O’Brien) under his wing, they receive an assignment to investigate a wave of random attacks on both military and civilian targets. After discovering a pattern of violence, Hurley and Rapp join forces with a lethal Turkish agent to stop a mysterious operative who wants to start a global war.
Michael Cuesta’s film is propped up by a nicely shot opening in which Dylan O’Brien’s Mitch comes up against Islamic terrorists while on holiday with his fiancé. Naturally, she’s brutally murdered and it becomes Mitch’s life-ambition to hunt down terrorist cells across the world.
Yes, you heard me right. That’s the plot. Ridiculous in every way and frankly, a little boring, American Assassin is a poor excuse for a film riddled with dreadful dialogue, phoned-in performances and uninspiring camerawork.
What makes it worse is that Maze Runner rising star Dylan O’Brien thought it would be a good idea to helm such a vehicle. He performs well but feels at odds with the film’s dark tone and is in serious danger of doing a post-Abduction Taylor Lautner and tanking his promising career. Michael Keaton’s bizarre effort here is the polar opposite of his genuinely menacing turn in Spider-Man: Homecoming only two months ago.
The rest of the cast might as well be made of cardboard they’re that uninteresting and while globe-trotting should evoke some visual joy, the scenery feels flat, hampered by a dull colour palette and the fact it’s been done to death already.
As American Assassin steamrolls to a 70s-esque Bond finale, we’re subjected to some torturous CGI, though Cuesta does well to ramp up the tension a little, but it’s the subject matter once again that proves a sticking point.
In a world where our fears of urban terrorism are greater than ever, should we be classing films like this as ‘entertainment’? Take the opening sequence for example, as nicely choreographed as it is, the parallels to the dreadful Tunisian beach attack of 2015 linger in the back of my mind and I find it all very much in poor taste.
Overall, American Assassin is yet another addition to the already overstuffed terrorism thriller genre that adds absolutely nothing new. The performances are dull, the story is flat and the cinematography is uninspired. Poor Dylan O’Brien left the Maze for this?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/15/american-assassin-review/
Billie Wichkan (118 KP) rated The Tall Man in Books
May 22, 2019
They went looking for a story. What they found was a nightmare.
It started as nothing, just a scary story passed around between schoolchildren. But for Sadie and her friends, the rumours soon became an unhealthy obsession - and the darkness all too real.
Years later, Sadie's teenage daughter Amber has been charged with murder, and her trial shocks the world. How could such a young girl commit such a terrible crime?
It seems the secrets of Sadie's past have come back to haunt her daughter. And the terrifying truth of what happened all those years ago is finally about to come out . . .
The heart of the novel is the urban legend about the Tall Man who comes from the shadows to take daughters away.
There are three timelines: 1990 where three young girls make a pact with a scary man who loves in the woods, 2000 where a young, new mother disappears leaving behind her baby daughter and confused partner and 2018 where a teenage girl adjusts to life with her mother back in her life. The thing that connects them all is the scary man who lives in the woods.
This is a novel about what lurks in the shadows, and what are shadows if not shades of grey?
I thought this was a brilliant thriller.
Gripping with great characters and psychological suspense.
Recommend reading.
Thank you to Netgalley and the publishers for my copy.
It started as nothing, just a scary story passed around between schoolchildren. But for Sadie and her friends, the rumours soon became an unhealthy obsession - and the darkness all too real.
Years later, Sadie's teenage daughter Amber has been charged with murder, and her trial shocks the world. How could such a young girl commit such a terrible crime?
It seems the secrets of Sadie's past have come back to haunt her daughter. And the terrifying truth of what happened all those years ago is finally about to come out . . .
The heart of the novel is the urban legend about the Tall Man who comes from the shadows to take daughters away.
There are three timelines: 1990 where three young girls make a pact with a scary man who loves in the woods, 2000 where a young, new mother disappears leaving behind her baby daughter and confused partner and 2018 where a teenage girl adjusts to life with her mother back in her life. The thing that connects them all is the scary man who lives in the woods.
This is a novel about what lurks in the shadows, and what are shadows if not shades of grey?
I thought this was a brilliant thriller.
Gripping with great characters and psychological suspense.
Recommend reading.
Thank you to Netgalley and the publishers for my copy.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girls of Brackenhill in Books
Nov 5, 2020
As a kid, Hannah spent several summers at Brackenhill, her aunt and uncle's beautiful mansion in the Catskills. Joined by her older sister, Julia, they enjoyed a peaceful time away from their troubled mother and her boyfriend. But that final summer, Hannah made the journey home alone after Julia disappeared. Now, seventeen years later, Hannah is back at Brackenhill, accompanied by her calm and steady fiance Huck, to deal with the aftermath of her Aunt Fae's death. Her uncle Stuart is quite ill and Hannah must handle the necessary affairs. But once at Brackenhill, long buried memories flood to the surface, along with some undiscovered family secrets.
"She'd escaped Brackenhill once. She could do it again."
I read this completely captivating thriller in one breathless day. It's such a wonderfully eerie and ghostly mystery that excellently captures the spooky atmosphere of Brackenhill. I'm all for a read with a creepy castle, ghostly happenings, and a history of missing girls. Told in a then (Hannah and Julia's summers at Brackenhill) and now format, Moretti sucks you in from the beginning, making the reader feel as if they are a part of the haunted happenings at Brackenhill.
"The Ghost Girls of Brackenhill are an urban legend."
The result is a twisted and dark story--a true Gothic ghost tale. I figured out a few pieces, but still found this impossible to put down. Moretti excels at weaving in the devastation of family secrets and small town mystery. As Hannah unravels the mystery of her family history and her sister's disappearance, we do as well, and you'll share her sense of dread and the overall foreboding that sweeps across the pages.
I wished the ending offered a bit more resolution, but this is an excellent, haunting, and spooky supernatural read. You'll be madly flipping the pages (with the lights on)! 4+ stars.
"She'd escaped Brackenhill once. She could do it again."
I read this completely captivating thriller in one breathless day. It's such a wonderfully eerie and ghostly mystery that excellently captures the spooky atmosphere of Brackenhill. I'm all for a read with a creepy castle, ghostly happenings, and a history of missing girls. Told in a then (Hannah and Julia's summers at Brackenhill) and now format, Moretti sucks you in from the beginning, making the reader feel as if they are a part of the haunted happenings at Brackenhill.
"The Ghost Girls of Brackenhill are an urban legend."
The result is a twisted and dark story--a true Gothic ghost tale. I figured out a few pieces, but still found this impossible to put down. Moretti excels at weaving in the devastation of family secrets and small town mystery. As Hannah unravels the mystery of her family history and her sister's disappearance, we do as well, and you'll share her sense of dread and the overall foreboding that sweeps across the pages.
I wished the ending offered a bit more resolution, but this is an excellent, haunting, and spooky supernatural read. You'll be madly flipping the pages (with the lights on)! 4+ stars.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
JT (287 KP) rated The Hunter (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There’s something about Willem Dafoe that unnerves me a little and I’ve never been able to quite understand the reason why? Putting my bizarre fears aside for a second The Hunter is a subtle thriller set against the backdrop of the Tasmanian wilderness.
Taking that wilderness as first point of call in the film its beautifully shot, long sweeping takes across desolate bush to the panoramic visuals of mountain ranges, it’s a harsh world to which Martin (Dafoe) finds himself in.
Tasked with locating the revered Tasmanian Tiger who most believe still exists even to this day, Martin goes in search of it with an almost no questions asked mentality. Of course during his stay it’s clear that he is ruffling a few local feathers as the logging population of the town see him as just another tree hugger.
He sets up camp in the home of a local family and although not wanting to at first bonds with the two children, Sass and Bike, who instantly take a liking to him, most likely as their father has gone missing mysteriously in the region that Martin explores weeks at a time.
The film lacks a certain amount of bite to it, and there isn’t really a lot in the way of thrills for the first hour at least. We follow Martin into the wild terrain watching him set traps and record data, it may sound a bit dull but Nettheim does enough to keep us intrigued.
It’s clear that Martin is not the only one after this urban legend, and when a few more sinister occurrences arise Martin starts to fear not just for his own life but for those he has grown close to.
The film has a satisfying conclusion and one that is probably expected, for all the build up has lead to it. The acting might not live up to much but the scenery certainly gives the film an absorbing contrast.
Taking that wilderness as first point of call in the film its beautifully shot, long sweeping takes across desolate bush to the panoramic visuals of mountain ranges, it’s a harsh world to which Martin (Dafoe) finds himself in.
Tasked with locating the revered Tasmanian Tiger who most believe still exists even to this day, Martin goes in search of it with an almost no questions asked mentality. Of course during his stay it’s clear that he is ruffling a few local feathers as the logging population of the town see him as just another tree hugger.
He sets up camp in the home of a local family and although not wanting to at first bonds with the two children, Sass and Bike, who instantly take a liking to him, most likely as their father has gone missing mysteriously in the region that Martin explores weeks at a time.
The film lacks a certain amount of bite to it, and there isn’t really a lot in the way of thrills for the first hour at least. We follow Martin into the wild terrain watching him set traps and record data, it may sound a bit dull but Nettheim does enough to keep us intrigued.
It’s clear that Martin is not the only one after this urban legend, and when a few more sinister occurrences arise Martin starts to fear not just for his own life but for those he has grown close to.
The film has a satisfying conclusion and one that is probably expected, for all the build up has lead to it. The acting might not live up to much but the scenery certainly gives the film an absorbing contrast.
Story: 71 starts as we see Gary Hook (O’Connell) going through his training with his regiment before they get deployed to Belfast to deal with the riot situation. In Ireland the regiment receive their instructions and onto the Catholic side of the war. When the riots get out of hand Gary finds himself on the wrong side of the barrier alone and unarmed in the Irish territory.
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
With tensions rising Gary finds himself in the middle of the battle not knowing which side to trust as both side are preparing to attack each other as Gary learns the harsh reality of what these riots are causing.
71 puts us into the middle of the Irish riots showing just one soldier’s experience behind enemy lines, this works well. My issue with the story is unless you know the history which I only know the basics you are left kind of wondering why the riots are happening in the first place. Another problem I found was telling what was going on with the supporting characters like who was on whose side which I do understand adds to the mystery but in this situation we should be able to identify them easily. As a film about survival in an urban setting this is great though.
Actor Review
Jack O’Connell: Gary Hook is the young soldier who is on his first mission on the streets on Belfast during the riots of 71, trying to receive a lost weapon he gets separated by his unit and stranded alone behind enemy lines never sure who to trust. Jack is great in this leading role in what was an outstanding year for the young actor.gary
Sam Reid: Lt. Armitage is one of the men that wants to start searching for Gary but constantly gets put down Captain Browning. Sam is solid in this role but doesn’t get enough screen time.
Sean Harris: Captain Sandy Browning is the man running the situation he knows that Gary is alive but really is playing both sides of the battle. Sean is also solid but only in a supporting role.
Killian Scott: Quinn is one of the leaders out trying to kill Gary, he takes his men and boys out on the streets on the hunt for him and will hurt anyone who gets in his way. Killian is good in what seems like one of the primary villains.
Support Cast: 71 has a large supporting cast but working out which side they are on gets confusing at times.
Director Review: Yann Demange – Yann gives us wonderfully shot sequences throughout but not enough back story to the events on the film.
Action: 71 has intensely shot action sequences involved.
Thriller: 71 keeps us on edge as we watch Gary trying to survive the warzone.
War: 71 puts us into a warzone as we see Gary trying to avoid conflict seemingly around every single corner.
Settings: 71 puts us in the warzone of the Belfast streets which really works to pull us into the story.
Special Effects: 71 has great effects when needed without having to just go overboard with them.
Suggestion: 71 is one for fans of the genre but otherwise people might find it slightly hard to keep up with. (War Film Fans Watch)
Best Part: Bomb shock.
Worst Part: Not enough history of the events.
Believability: The riots were real but story is fictional.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Behind Enemy Lines
Awards: Nominated for One BAFTA.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Trivia: Most scenes within the film were shot in Northern England, not in the film’s setting of Belfast.
Overall: Good history war thriller that is intense but never fully drags you into believing everything.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/08/71-2014/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Nightcrawler (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The concept of the American dream is generally thought of as ascending to great heights of success. For some, that means creating something out of nothing. They can do this either through lots of hard work, or by having a stroke of good luck.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
“Nightcrawler” centers around Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a young man who is attempting to do just that – create something out of nothing and ascend to great heights of success.
Truly a schmuck by every definition of the word, Louis is a contemptible character. He lies, steals, and bends every rule in pursuit of the almighty dollar. This makes for a character that people will love to hate.
Louis discovers a grand opportunity to make money by essentially playing paparazzi to the world of crime. A skill in high demand in a news industry which sensationalizes violence and crime in order to gain ratings.
The film portrays the workings of the news media as somewhat twisted. The industry plays off of the naivety of the American public.
This theme builds throughout the movie, becoming more and more apparent. It hints at an uncertainty of the ethics of crime news coverage. This message is perhaps intended to extend beyond the silver screen and into the real world.
A thriller with depth, “Nightcrawler” is one hell of a debut for director Dan Gilroy. In addition to the unique and complex plot line, the cast is expertly selected.
Each character achieves a raw realness that turns the audience into witnesses rather than movie goers.
Gyllenhaal, who lost 20 pounds for the role, has mastered the art of portraying madness. His eyes communicate a certain detached sadness, yet at the same time he appears egotistical. His expression exudes an inner dialogue which is fleeting and somewhat absent from reality. He is the main character in the movie, as well as in his own mind.
The evolution which his character, Louis, exhibits is electrifying. He is a man in constant motion – doing whatever it takes to succeed, and sinking deeper into the dark side of a news media that lives off of ratings.
The film starts to resemble a gory train wreck which one cannot resist but to stare at as it follows Louis. In order to get the perfect shot, he pushes the line of morality further and further. His morally questionable character begins to blur into the realm of psychotic.
Human lives begin to be something of a commodity when on the other side of a lens. Nina (Rene Russo), a news director desperate to stay in demand is determined to stay focused on theme of urban crime creeping into suburban neighborhoods. She knows this is what grabs attention, and despite reality, she intends to deliver a particular story to viewers.
Russo’s tired eyes add to the realness of the dramatic story. She is just one of the characters which may confuse the audience in regards to who is “good” and who is “bad.” The interplay between characters who cannot be defined as good or bad creates a massively entertaining drama.
The deeper message of the film is left up for interpretation. Perhaps many people are just “not so good,” then there’s Louis who most people won’t be able to help but loath.
A true statement piece, “Nightcrawler” delivers a nauseating cinematic rush.
I give “Nightcrawler” 5 out of 5 stars.
Writing (3 more)
Characters
Inconsistencies
Not a horror book, as marketed
What if a powerful virus was released in the air? What if you had to be tested for it every time you tried to walk into a building? Does this sound a little familiar? What if I told you this scenario was written about back in 2010?
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.
In her novel Feed, writer Mira Grant gives readers this very scenario of an airborne, blood transferred virus; something that seems very familiar in today's environment and day-to-day living- - - just minus the zombies.
Grant started out as an urban fantasy writer known as Seanan McGuire, with her first full-length novel being Rosemary and Rue. She received the 2010 John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, as well as many other awards for her work in fiction. There are four books in the Newsflash series (Feed being the first of these).
We meet our main characters, Georgia and Shaun, while they're out in the 'field' filming some zombies for their blog. Shaun is the more careless one, as we witness him poking at zombies with his hockey stick. The two suddenly have to leave when the zombies become a pack. This is where it gets a little strange- - -Georgia explains to the readers that when zombies are in a pack, they become stronger and somehow smarter, but throughout the rest of the book, it's never really explained how this happens.
In this world, blogging and your view count determines your quality of life. Georgia and Shaun have spent years making their blog- - - After the End Times- - - into a popular blog. Every blogger's dream is to be picked to follow the campaign trail of any upcoming politician, and that is exactly what happens to our main characters. Unfortunately, this is when the book turns into a political thriller- - - this happens within the first fifty pages. Zombies end up taking a backseat from here-on-out.
We still get to learn about the virus (Kellis-Amberlee) throughout the book. We're told that any animal that weighs more than 40 pounds is capable of having the virus, and that some people are even born with a dormant-type of the virus inside of them, but this is also never explained in the entire story, at least in book one. Georgia makes it quite clear throughout the novel that she is completely against anyone owning pets that weigh over 40 pounds, but this is due-to her family having lost their younger son to a pet that went viral. This becomes extremely repetitive. Every time that an animal is brought up or seen, Georgia has to retell her stance on owning pets, when once or twice was enough to let the readers know where she stands on the subject.
There are moments of zombie attacks- - - such as after a political rally in a small town where Georgia and her crew are following Senator Ryman on his race to become President, when bodyguards are attacked by a small group of the undead, and Georgia and Shaun become cornered by a few of them- - - these scenes read as if to just keep the zombie trope going, not to actually make the story better. Grant continually repeats herself throughout the book, and because of this, the story didn't have to be as long as it is. Such as with these few zombie attacks, the reader never feels much danger for the characters. And I found that the characters turn out to just not be that likable.
One such character that had potential is Buffy; the backbone of the After the End Times blog. Scenes that were meant to make the reader care for her fell short. Unlike scenes with Georgia and Shaun, including the bond between them, is not felt with Buffy's scenes; she merely seems like a filler character to make certain parts of the story make sense by constantly disappearing and reappearing wherever need be.
Georgia does have an interesting quirk in the book. She harbors the dormant Kellis-Amberlee virus, which has effected her eyes. She can't be in bright lights because they give her blinding headaches, so she wears sunglasses nearly everywhere: " I collapsed onto our bed at the local four-star hotel a little after dawn, my aching eyes already squeezed shut. Shaun was a bit steadier on his feet and he stayed upright long enough to make sure the room's blackout curtains were drawn. "
The technical side of the story - - - the computer world and the electronic usage- - - in Feed is done pretty well. It's like the movie Nightcrawler meets 28 Days Later, but with a lot less zombies. We get to see the seedy underbelly of journalism- - - where bloggers are willing to do anything to get their view count high. Readers also get to witness how life is like living in a world held hostage by a virus - - -something that is very relatable today.
Georgia constantly reminds readers that she doesn't care about other people, and that Shaun is the only person she cares for- - - and, of course, the view count. She continually blames her lack of empathy on their adoptive parents, stating that they only took them in for the their own blog view counts. Oddly after such information, Shaun doesn't seem to be the immature one in the duo.
I haven't read the other three books, one which is a republishing of Feed, but from a different point-of-view. This story was disguised as a horror novel, but just ended up being a political thriller with some zombies thrown in for a much wider reading audience. The book skims over what life would be like after a devastating virus takes over, but focuses on what politics would be like. I can't recommend Feed as a horror novel; the tagline is also misleading: " 'The good news: we survived. The bad news: so did they. " Unless Grant was talking about politicians....
I didn't give the story a low rating because it wasn't exactly a horror book, but instead for these reasons: throughout the story, Grant repeats a lot of information that was explained earlier in the book (and only needed to be explained once); she also had inconsistencies throughout, sometimes even in the very next sentence. Adding things that needed to be explained which weren't, and the afterthoughts that broke up the flow of the story, I just couldn't enjoy it. But, if you like political thrillers, then you might like this one. I won't be continuing this series.