Nightcrawler

On a Scale of 1 to 10 with 10 Being the Best

7.5

Plot: Holy mother of plot twists was this movie a roller coaster! The movie is about a man who is barely above the poverty line and he often steals in order to live but wants better. One day he is driving back from selling his stolen goods when he sees a car accident with paramedics near by. He pulls over to watch, when a camera crew pulls up and films. The crew calls up a station when he overhears that they are going to be paid up to $300. That is when our character Louis Bloom buys a camera and starts his own filming. The movie shows the underbelly of how news crews get their film and how far some people will go to get paid.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Jake Gyllenhaal playing Louis Bloom: I sort of got the Donnie Darko vibe from Mr. Gyllenhaal except in this film he was even more of a sociopath. I loved the build that Mr. Gyllenhaal gave this character. It was creepy, it was exciting, and just floor-stomping terrifying. The movie starts with Louis cutting a fence to sell to a construction crew and has a confrontation with a guard, keep this scene in mind as it states who Louis really is. I was pleasantly shocked by how good the writing was for this film and how well it was portrayed. 

Rene Russo playing Nina Romina: Ms. Russo plays Louis' boss and loves his film. Her contract is almost up for the company and needs the ratings to be up. She is desperate to keep her job but still keeps the appearance of being the woman in charge. The last line she has left me gaping like a fish. I loved how she owned her character. The portrayal was so believable and her energy was nice. The bite that she gives to the film is as scary as it is necessary. Nicely done. 

Riz Ahmed playing Rick: Mr. Ahmed plays Louis' apprentice who has low-confidence. His low-confidence made him appear pathetic and small. Later, when he tries to be more confident, he still has some slight struggle. The handle of his character was well understood. There was a point where I wondered how he was going to handle the climatic scene and was left gasping. I wish that the movie could have shown more into his life and the struggle he dealt with on a daily basis with Louis. What Mr. Ahmed was given was done perfectly though.

Music: The music in the movie was glued together well. The times that I noticed it I thought were perfect and blended well with the film. I was glad that there wasn't a blaring of brass but instead violins, guitars, and chimes. They used silence in the movie to their advantage. I am often surprised when I watch an action scene and was so into it, that I didn't notice the music. In this movie, I was so into the scenes that I didn't notice the silence. This was done well. 

Camera Work/Cinematography: I will start with the negatives and go to the positives. I thought the darkness was overused and could have used another color undertone. Also, the cuts were pretty sharp and sometimes too fast. I think that the camera could have lingered longer on facial expressions and the surroundings. The part I did like was how they displayed the shots that Louis did. They did not show the audience anything until it reached the news room. This built suspense and also showed me one thing. Throughout the movie, I was shocked and disgusted at what these people did but when it came to Louis' shots, I wanted to know what was happening. The director, Dan Gilroy, stated that was his purpose actually. Not to show how bad news companies are but to question why people watch it.

RECAP:

The script was interesting and the way the suspense was built in the film was jaw-dropping. I thought the acting was well done. Music was not overbearing or too loud. The color of the film was pretty dark and the editing was done too fast. Great movie to watch if you are looking for a suspense-thriller. 

Courtesy of shortlist.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Big Eyes

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

6

Courtesy of javasbachelorpad.com
Painted by Margaret Keane

Plot: A woman leaves her husband to go to the West Coast to earn a living for her daughter. On the side, she tries to sell her paintings which are typically children and animals with large eyes. One day, at an art fair, she meets a smooth talking man and they fall in love. As the story progresses, her second husband tries to sell her art but with the idea that he painted them and not her as "people don't buy lady art." This is based off the true story of Margaret Keane and her relationship with her abusive husband Walter Keane. According to my research, the movie stays true to the story. It is interesting to watch but I found the story-line predictable. The script writing could have been improved.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Amy Adams playing Margaret Keane: Ms. Adams has stated that she enjoys playing "happy characters." Margaret Keane should not have been played as a happy character. Mrs. Keane has stated that she was afraid for her life when she was around her husband and I found that Ms. Adams did not portray that well. Instead, she tried to bring her quiet nature as sort of the "brightness" of Mrs. Keane's life. I believe that a hint of darkness could have been better incorporated by Ms. Adams because frankly, the situation was pretty dark. The acting was not terrible by any means but I think that the situation was not captured well. 

Christoph Waltz playing Walter Keane: As usual, Mr. Waltz plays a villain that is smooth as he is terrifying. Right off the bat, I knew that Mr. Waltz was going to snap just because he was cast in the film. I wish that they would have shown more of his infidelity side. He was often seen with women but I could have used a scene to actually understand his sleezy nature. They portrayed his business persona well though. To state again, the acting was not bad at all, but there was tweaking to be done.

Music: I did not notice the orchestral music much in this film to be honest. Though the songs that were included, I did enjoy. The one song I liked the best was by Lana Del Rey written specifically for the film. I think that this aspect was pretty well done. No complaints here. 

Camera Work/Cinematography: The aging and cutting in the movie was not done very well. I felt there could have been a better flow between shots and the time laps were confusing. Granted, there were years that would pop-up at the bottom of the screen but it did not feel like 10 years had passed in the movie. The look of the movie was brightly colored and withheld its sharpness. There were digitally added "big eyes" in the film at times which I felt were not done well. They looked blurry and sometimes off center. The concept was nice but the execution fell through. The editing was just done poorly.

RECAP:

I think that the story itself is interesting but the way it was written made it easily predictable. The editing was not done well. The acting was not bad but there could have been better character development. Music was pretty good. You may not be blown away by this movie but I would say watch it for the interesting true-life story-line. 

Courtesy of Time.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

9

Courtesy of Domenic Bahmann 

Plot: An aging actor, Riggan, decides to try a risky project. He will direct, write, and act in a production based off of a book but everything does not go the way he wants. Riggan also deals with his drug-addicted daughter.Throughout the movie he is badgered by a voice in his head to go back to his easy money making project of Birdman, a superhero franchise that he did several movies for. The movie is about what "real" acting is compared to Hollywood acting and what it takes to make art.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Michael Keaton playing Riggan: What can I say about Mr. Keaton? I guess I can start with that I am glad he agreed to do this film! When I watched this with my roommate, she stated that he probably saw Batman within this movie. In an interview with NPR, he even stated that he did. The acting job in this movie was incredibly hard as he had to be Riggan, then the "Actor Riggan," then the "Birdman Riggan." He also had to deal with telekinetic powers, being powerless, and being selfish. Not to mention the way the movie is filmed is unusual. They would film for 40 minutes straight and if someone messed up, they had to start the entire scene over. Talk about tough. I thought the performance was incredible and definitely Oscar worthy.

Emma Stone playing Sam: I didn't know that Ms. Stone was in this film until she appeared on screen. She gave an interesting perspective to the movie. She is able to connect the ideas of the Hollywood ideal to the real acting ideal. Her character also reminds the audience what is valuable and, to the other characters, she shows what is actually seen by the general public. She comes off so cool and she has this persona that was very different for her. I was so glad she was in this film.

Edward Norton playing Mike: This character was goofy and shocking and just what was needed. Mr. Norton's character often stated that the truth was the most exciting thing in the world. Like Ms. Stone's character, he brought up what was really seen but only according to the "real theatre people." His character was not in the movie often but when he was there he was surprising. I thought this character was well-used and well-done.

Music: Generally, I do not like the sound of the drum. I find the drum to be loud and abrasive but in this movie it was incredibly perfect. I thought it was creative and, in some scenes, surprisingly fun! Listening to the soundtrack, it does not sound like much but the music was used just so darn well. It was well tailored to the film. I was just so impressed with how innovative they were with the use of drums.

Camera Work/Cinematography: The. Directing. Style. Was. Awesome. As mentioned earlier, they would film a scene without any cuts. They would film 40 minutes at a time, which was apparently pretty hard during the improvised scenes. It appeared as if everything was happening in real time even though days would go by in the movie. They would position the camera at lights for transitions. The way the did the telekinetic powers and the Birdman paranoia parts were SO INNOVATIVE. I can't stress how great this movie looked. The director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, showed us a new artistic look without being over-top or too "artistic for regular people." Much appreciation.

RECAP:

This movie is the epitome of artistic movies that I can actually watch and enjoy. The use of music, camera angles, and cinematography is above and beyond what I expected. The script was truly interesting not to mention that the acting comes from the acting giants (in my opinion). If you are tired of the hum-drum garbage of the movie industry of today and want a breath of fresh air, please take in this incredible movie. I love it for its artistic value and how they portray the theatrical arts. I would rate it higher but it did not speak on an emotional level for me; that is the only thing they left out. Birdman is entertaining though and important to cinema. 

Courtesy of io9.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!