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!

TiMER

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

7

Courtesy of Pinterest

Plot: A new device attached to the wrist is able to count down to when a person will meet the love of their life. Unfortunately for Oona O'Leary, her timer is blank, as her true love has not gotten his timer yet. Oona is feeling stunted as she is 30 years old and has no clue if she will meet her true love or if she's already dating him. Steph Depaul, Oona's stepsister, has a timer that isn't supposed to go off until she is 40 years old. Together the sisters try to handle their crappy love timers. Besides the two sisters, we also see how timers affect those who are against them, those who got timers very early, and how timers have possibly changed destinies. For a romantic movie I thought it was quite clever and recommend it to others.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Emma Caulfield playing Oona O'Leary: Ms. Caulfield plays a stunted and desperate character. Her character is going to be 30 years old and knows that if she is going to have kids, that he better show up fast. Oona only dates men who do not have timers to see if they are the ones that make her timer beep. Her step-sister's philosophy is to sleep around and have fun, as she will be too old to have it with her true love. Oona decides that she will try it out this philosophy with a man that is 8 years younger and feels conflicted. Ms. Caulfield does a fairly good job acting. This movie is "Made for Netflix" so I was expecting the acting to be pretty cliche. Her acting boarders on cliche but the script is to clever that it wasn't very noticeable.  

Michelle Borth playing Steph Depaul: Ms. Borth's character was more interesting that Ms. Caulfield's. Steph had a timer that worked but it was so far in the future that she became distraught and angry. She got a job in a nursing home to be around those that don't have timers and works at a bar to pick up guys that do have timers. She doesn't mind sleezing around because she feels she has been cheated. Steph has a good heart though and tries to set up her sister with good people. After meeting a guy without a timer, she learns about how people used to guess on who their loved one was and how the emotions were much higher. I can see growth with this character and really appreciated it. Well done Ms. Borth.

John Patrick Amedori playing Mikey: Man, this guy is handsome but he is also a great actor. Mr. Amedori's character is a young player. Mikey has a timer that is going to go off in four months but is discouraged that he can't date around because others consider that "cheating," even though he has never met the woman. Oona decides to see Mikey and both have a lot of fun. Later, Mikey gives us another surprising perspective on timers and why he does not agree with the idea of them. In a subliminal way he shows us why people want timers as well. I thought that Mr. Amedori's portrayal was relaxing from the stressful sisters but is also thought provoking.

Music: I really enjoyed the tune they used in this film. It was cutesy and could be changed to be a sad tone or an upbeat one. The other songs used in this film are enjoyable as well. The music was great for blending the movie together and also for keeping us up with the mood. It really completed the film.

Camera Work/Cinematography: The cinematography bordered on being tiresome but they would break it up with dreams, close-ups, or a shock of white. The camera work was pretty good as they would film from outside a window, in the street, or above their heads. The film looked alright but was close to bordering average.

RECAP:

The movie is incredibly clever, humorous, and sad and that makes it a must-see. The acting was either pretty average or pretty good. The music was wonderful and the cinematography was not that bad. This film has a great script and everything else is pretty good. Watch and see for yourself and tell me what you think. Time is slipping away you know.

Courtesy of Pinterest

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Into the Woods

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

3

Plot: This movie is a fusion of four classic fairy tales which include Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Rapunzel and the tale that links them all together is about a baker and his wife that want a child. I found this to be a pleasant idea, until all those fairy tales met a sad end, then I found it abnormally long and frankly...boring. None of the music moves the plot forward and all the fairy tales coming together just lead to this really long prolonged end. I love Disney but this is unoriginal and the only reason it was probably made was to make a buck.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Meryl Streep playing the Witch: All of the acting was quite good in this, and Ms. Streep is no exception. She was able to go from her ugly persona to her beautiful persona well. I also was impressed by how well she played such a strange character. Her singing was not bad either. In fact, I kept thinking it was Bette Midler singing! Thumbs up.

Anna Kendrick playing Cinderella: I will always see Ms. Kendrick as the girl from Twilight, but By George, she always does a great job. Excellent singing, as many know from her other movie Pitch Perfect, and her acting was not too shabby. I found her story-line especially repetitive though; the only way I didn't find her annoying was her acting and singing.

Daniel Huttlestone playing Jack: I remember watching this movie and thinking "I know that kid from somewhere..." When my aunt leaned over and stated it was the kid from Les Miserables! I found Mr. Huttlestone's performance was significantly better than his Les Mis performance, namely because his accent wasn't crazy thick. Jack is a character that is a fool, but a lovable fool. Mr. Huttlestone's performance also was impressive with his singing. I found that he could blend well and sing softly, which is again different from Les Mis, as he wasn't blaring in your ear. I found that he is much improved. 

James Corden playing Baker: I am sorry, but I was not that ecstatic about this character. He was pushy but also a push-over. I found him inconsistent about his "wish" and the way he felt about his wife. I was not that happy that he was the narrator either, as his voice made me want to fall asleep, although at the end it makes sense. His singing wasn't that fantastic either. His best skill is that he can blend with others. Casting was great, with the exception of this Mr. Corden.

Music: I think the best way to describe the music can be summed up with a sentence I heard as I left the theater, "If they say 'wish' one more time, I'm going to lose it." Stephan Sondheim wrote this musical; you may know him for his works such as West Side Story and Sweeney Todd. I guess I either love him or hate him because I was pretty sick of the music. It was repetitive, it didn't move the story forward, and it prolonged the movie. I would say that the music needs cutting and rewriting.

Camera Work/Cinematography: Visually, this movie was wonderful. It used colors and angles well. I found also that the make-up and costume department did a spectacular job. I was very impressed with how well this movie looked. Two thumbs up in this aspect.

RECAP:

Overall, the acting, camera work, make-up, and costumes were spot-on. The writing of the script and the music are so off the mark though. When I watched this in theaters, people left early and became antsy in their seats. The movie could have ended in the middle and I would have given it an 8, but since it dragged on for another hour it gets a three. Bad writing only deserves thus. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Unbroken

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

9.5

As a special note-My family went to see this on Christmas Day and it was sold out in two theatres for three showings. This movie is going to be a blockbuster hit. 

Plot: This movie is based off of a true story of Louie Zamperini. He ran in the Olympics and was going to compete in the next one in Japan, only that the world was thrown into World War II. While on a search party over the ocean, the plane went down. Louie and his friend Phil survived 56 days at sea and were saved...by the Japanese forces. The story reveals how Louie and other Ally members were treated in the Japanese POW camps, along with his story about how he went from a troubled kid, to Olympic champion. 

*Upon research I found that the movie did not derive from the book. It was been questioned if Louis Zamperini exaggerated his own facts in the book though.*

Characters/Actors of Note:

Jack O'Connel playing Louis Zamperini: I was surprised on the different aspects I got from Mr. O'Connel. He didn't come off as just one singular trait. He seemed to be pretty well-rounded. I finally got to watch someone that actually acted in a way that made sense. Most actors are either under or overwhelming in these high drama movies. I felt that Mr. O'Connel was just right. The fear, the excitement, and the sadness were great. For some reason though, I never cried during this movie. Perhaps it was for the reason that I kept thinking that this guy could have it much worse. I am not saying that this guy wasn't under extreme harshness, a lot of people died in his type of situation; I am saying that this could have been worse. I thought that this character was well-rounded and I appreciated the portrayal greatly. 

Takamasa "Miyavi" Ishihara playing Mutsushiro "The Bird" Watanabe: Again, I was surprised by this character. The reason being that most villains are portrayed as big, ugly, and overly cruel. The Bird though was about the size as the other men, even shorter. He also wasn't bad looking and he didn't go overboard with his evil attitude. I could really picture some like The Bird being in my reality. Mr. Ishihara's portrayal reminded me of someone that is more abusive than a cruel overlord and that is what made him believable. The way that this character's life intertwined with Louie's was strange and ironic. His unpredictable behavior made sense as well. I almost wanted more information on this character in the film.
Domhnall Gleeson playing Russell Allen "Phil" Phillips: I had originally not done a review on this character but I find that I keep talking about Phil. Mr. Gleeson's character is more religious than Louis. He prays more often and believes in an afterlife where he will be re-payed. Phil is a person that is closely attached to Louis, as they only have each other when they are rescued. I felt a lot of love for this character as he was such a sweet heart. He was a quiet, respectful, and faithful. He also gave some more optimism to the situation. Mr. Gleeson's care for this portrayal was lovely.

Music: I thought this music was well put together. It was strong and supporting of the film. I also loved that none of the dialogue was drowned out by the music. (Sorry for the foul language in the link.) Quite good.

Camera Work/Cinematography: This movie looked like it was in SUPER HIGH-DEFINITION. It so was impeccably sharp that it was almost distracting. There was also a lot of colors. There was yellow, black, gray, blue, green, and white. I do have to say that the make-up was just stunning in this film though. The burns, cuts, and coal that were applied were just on-spot. Overall, great make-up and the high-definition was okay but over-the-top.

RECAP:

This movie is wonderfully scripted, shot, and acted. I wish the music was more catchy and the super high-def was distracting. It's great to watch with your family and I don't doubt that this movie will be up for the Oscar. 

Courtesy of Bing

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Shadow on the Wall (1950)

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

8

Plot: A father gets remarried and finds out that his new wife has been cheating on him. He has a gun in his hand and charges at her, only to be knocked-out cold. The wife's sister comes to confront her about the cheating, grabs the gun off the floor, and kills her. She let's her brother-in-law take the blame but finds out his little girl saw the entire thing but has blocked it from her memory. A child psychiatrist tries to find out the truth, meanwhile the murderer tries to rid of the young witness.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Gigi Perreau playing Susan Starrling: Ms. Perreau is the little girl in the film and does a mark-up job. I find that young actors have issues with defining their characters, often just playing themselves, but this person was great. Susie starts off bubbly, happy, and excited then turns into a somber and non-energetic little girl. Her catchphrase when she is happy is "I love you twice as much!" While her somber catchphrase is, "If you want me to..." The way she is able to define her happy and sad self are evident and great to watch. Either this girl takes direction well or is spot-on awesome. 

Ann Sothern as Dell Faring: Apparently Ms. Sothern is a predominately comedic actress, which I would have never guessed. Dell is a complex character as the murderer. She is caring towards the family but also does not want to go to jail...or worse the electric chair.  It was unnerving to see how close she could get with the daughter and to know what she wanted to do. I appreciated how Ms. Sothern decided not to be overly hysterical, which often happens in these 1950s movies, but showed us that fear is what motivated her to take the actions that she did. I felt that this character was well-thought out by Ms. Sothern and carefully assessed. Nicely done.

Nancy (Davis) Reagan playing Dr. Caroline Canford: Ms. Reagan (Yes, as in First Lady Reagan) plays the psychiatrist of the film. Her demeanor reminds me of the psychiatrist in Sybil, as she was calm, calculating, and determined. She was also very caring, which is shown with how well she took to being called "Aunt Caroline" by Susie. Doctor Caroline was wonderfully kind and I think the watchers of this film will be cheering her on. 

PS I appreciated how well they portrayed the way they treated mental illnesses during this time, I felt it was quite accurate. 

Zachary Scott playing David I. Starrling: I loved this character, which means a lot coming from a character that did not speak much in the movie. I was surprised to learn that Mr. Scott usually plays villains! He was such a loving father in this movie that I would not have thought of it. He portrays his caring-self well but his hopeless-self...not so much. I felt that he could have been more depressed, as he was on death row and losing his daughter. I also have issue with one another thing. He was very angry at his wife, had a gun in his hand, and was coming at her...I wonder if he would have killed her. I suppose we will never know. Watch the film yourself and get back to me on this!

Music: The sound of the film has the typical 50s celluloid sound. Lots of violins and flutes that sound similar to bells when they were happy, and the brass section was used for the more frightening parts. It was not overused though but I won't be downloading the music anytime soon.

Camera Work/Cinematography: The movie is in black and white. The use of lights and shadows have to be used. I found that in the movie, they highlighted their faces, while the rest of their bodies were dark. Of course the movie is called Shadow on the Wall so perhaps that was appropriate. I do feel more textures and levels of gray could have been used. In the film they spoke of wearing brown and yellow, but come on...we can't see it so who knows if they actually did wear those colors. Camera work was usually the same focus. Not many close-ups or zoom shots were used. The excellent filming they did was when Susie tries to remember the crime and how they associated dolls with the real people. The representation was wonderful but overall, cinematography was sub-par.

RECAP:

The music was used well but not all that catchy. The film could have been filmed more dramatically or at least have better use of textures, shades, and camera work. Representations were excellently shown though. The acting was superb and the movie was fun to watch. The plot and subplots all melting together makes a great script, and I recommend it to those that love mystery movies. 

Courtesy of Pinterest

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!