The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 Review

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Jeffrey Wright, Sam Claflin, Donald Sutherland

                                             Katniss visiting a  District 8 hospital, as rebels give her the salute.
I was met with a mixed reception after viewing The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1. In this film, the games are over, and the war's begun. Katniss Everdeen, victor of the 74th Hunger Games has become a symbol for defying the oppressive Capitol, and as the "Mockingjay" she leads the rebellion. I'm afraid to give my honest opinion, because when you have a beloved series, some people who love it will jump at your throat at the mention of any criticism. Luckily, I'm not dealing with a beloved book, because the book was 50/50 in terms of approval. Some hated it, some loved it. I loved it, but never even dreamed I'd see it be divided. It's a 300 page book. So fanboys and fangirls, hear me out, because I am about to deliver the 100% honest review of this movie. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this movie. But as a movie reviewer, I need to keep my integrity.

                                                           President Alma Coin and Plutarch Heavensbee
Before I reveal what I didn't like, let me first say what I did like. Specifically the acting. I particularly liked Lawrence. She has really stepped up her game, and as Katniss, she perfectly conveys her inner struggle. Katniss is just such a force to be reckoned with, and she's a great heroine. She gives a very raw performance. Katniss is no longer twirling around in dresses, or being prepped by the Capitol. She's almost without makeup, and angry for most of the movie (at least they saved that from the book). Josh Hutcherson is very good as well. He plays the "drone-like" Peeta hauntingly, and the end scene is spectacular. Just in case, I won't spoil it, but he's great in his role. I really enjoyed Philip Seymour Hoffman as well, I think he did a very good job with what he was given. It was a great nod to have the movie dedicated to his memory, as he's a prime example of great talent gone too soon. We'll talk about Julianne Moore as President Coin with the stuff I didn't like. Finally, Donald Sutherland as President Snow. I finally got to see the evil Snow from the books. I know the third installment in the series is where Snow really gets wicked, but Sutherland is phenomenally evil in the role, and he steals every scene he's in. Even from Lawrence.

                                         Katniss finding Snow's signature white rose in the ruins of District 12
I did enjoy the political aspects of the film. Non-readers of the books should be warned: this is nothing like the first two. There are no Games. I feel that this will really turn off a lot of viewers, because the franchise is so well known for the Games, which pits children against each other in a fight to the death. This is a total departure from that idea. I particularly enjoyed how the movie handled the propaganda aspect of District 13, and how the rebellion fights with that tactic, while the Capitol fights with violence and fear. The scenes that are the most moving are Katniss' propaganda scenes, with her delivering the famous "If we burn, you burn with us" line, and standing in the rubble of her own bombed District. I think the best scene in the film is when Katniss sings "The Hanging Tree" to a montage of rebellions starting once people see the video with her song. It really captures the domino effect rebellions have, and demonstrates the power Katniss has as the Mockingjay of the rebellion.

                                                   Jennifer Lawrence's performance of "The Hanging Tree"
So what didn't I like? I think my one true argument is just the separation aspect. I don't think the book should be separated into two parts. Think of past movies that were split. How many people buzzed about Breaking Dawn's first part, rather than just anticipating the finale? The same goes for The Hobbit. I think that this whole movie just slowly builds to a great conclusion to a great series. I think we'll look at this as the "bad" movie in the saga but by no means is it bad. Once The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 2 is released, we'll see how good this one really is. It is good, just not great. I think it splitting it is failing to capitalize on the source material. Also notice I didn't bring up the Harry Potter split. That's because that first part did not add random scenes not from the book that seemed disjointed. The Hobbit's first part was more new material than it was anything from the book. This movie does have a lot of that, but I think it easily balances the two. Just know, there's a lot of new stuff in this movie. Julianne Moore was the one performance I heavily disliked. In the book, Coin is a horribly stiff ruler who rivals President Snow in terms of tyranny. Katniss immediately recognizes her true colors and instantly dislikes her. But in the movie, Coin is sometimes using positive energy to rally troops, giving Katniss compliments, and basically being the nice guy. And you can tell she's moving to a conclusion for the character, but I wished she didn't go in that direction. She does fine if you separate the book and movie, but all in all I couldn't get past how much of a departure from the source the character was. As a performance I think it's very flat, save for her ending speech, which is so full of fluff you can tell she's not the white knight, and is holding back the talent I know Moore has.

                               Coin speaks to the rebels after a successful raid, bringing Katniss onstage.
So I did like The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1, I just don't believe it is a perfect film. Look to The Hunger Games: Catching Fire for a much better, much more action-packed installment in the series. This movie sets up a conclusion I'm anxiously waiting for, I just wished it delivered a little more. I'm writing this review unmoved by the movie I just saw. After the last movie I was excited, and I just don't feel that after this one. I look at the reviews and see critics feeling the same way. It stands at 66% (almost rotten) on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a large step back from the 85% of The Hunger Games, and an even bigger step back from The Hunger Games Catching Fire which has 90%. The same consensus, is that splitting it was just a bad idea, and it led to a dull movie with few bright spots. I like those kinds of movies but a lot of people don't Is it bad? Not by any means. It's just not great. But it carries a great potential.

Rating:

Birdman Review

Starring: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone

                                        Riggan walking the streets as Birdman, the voice in his head, taunts him.
I just saw Birdman. Let me tell you what I thought going into this movie. I had seen the trailers, and knew this was going to be a weird movie. So I was dreading that a little bit. I was solely holding onto the promise I'd read about that the movie delivers if you can just forget the oddities onscreen. One promise I was salivating over, was its one-shot technique. Yes, this movie is filmed in one take (or what appears to be one take). And I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed Birdman. The visuals are stunning. This camera shot is absolutely beautiful to watch. The acting is phenomenal. I can't imagine Birdman without any of the characters. So "let's stop with the labels", as Michael Keaton's character says to the critic in one scene, and get to the details of why I loved this movie.

                                                Riggan trying to shut out the voice as he prepares for showtime.
Birdman tells the story of Riggan Thomson (Keaton), the washed-up and aging actor who used to play Birdman in a multi-billion dollar franchise. He's suffering from some serious schizophrenia and depression, and believes he has superpowers like levitation and telekinesis. To bring himself back to the forefront, he is directing, writing, and starring in a Broadway play. The play is produced by his best friend/lawyer (Galifianakis) and stars a first-time actress Lesley (Watts), and a seasoned professional method actor Mike (Norton). Emma Stone plays his daughter Sam, who is a recovering addict he has a very difficult relationship with, as he was absent for her entire childhood. Keaton gives a powerhouse performance as the titular character. The role is so bizarre and demanding, and is fueled by his real-life parallels of his own career after Batman. I think a bunch of actors could play this role, but the fact that it's Keaton really brings it up a notch. Edward Norton was my favorite part, and he is such a lovably hateable character. He was a complete jerk and a pretentious snob, but I was enthralled watching him act in this role. He brings a certain gravitas to all of his scenes. Emma Stone was very subtle in most of her scenes, but she has definitely returned to prestige after a little dabbling in the Spider-Man blockbusters. Naomi Watts is the other standout for me. I just saw her in St. Vincent, where she was also amazing, but such a different role! I know I said the same exact thing about her in my review of that movie, so this only supports my claim that she is an incredibly versatile actress.

In a fantasy sequence, Riggan imagines his Birdman movies coming to life.

The one-shot technique was beautiful. The whole movie is filmed to at least look like it was done in one camera take. I wouldn't be surprised, with the talent involved, if it was really one take. In this form, you could see one character's reaction to a conversation. There is one scene where Emma Stone's character gets so angry at her father, she is screaming at him. Instead of cutting to his reaction after, or even what he says to her after, it stays on her face. Showing her face turn from intense anger to regret. There were so many scenes where the character speaking was speaking offscreen. Also, in the outdoor scenes, you could just feel the environment as if you were right there with the characters. You heard the crowd, and instead of using multiple cuts, it felt like you were right there.

                             Mike confronts Riggan after practice and presents his demands for opening.
The script is amazing. It's probably one of the best scripts I've ever seen in a movie. Just the way everything unfolds is really fun to watch and laugh at. Speaking of laughing, this is a black comedy, so you're laughing at stuff you really shouldn't be. The whole storyline and interactions between characters was so incredible. That's what I feel Edward Norton did the best. He really sold his interactions with Keaton and Stone. Especially his scenes with Michael Keaton. Seeing them fight was hilarious and serious at the same time. You felt the tension, but couldn't help laughing at it. I'd also like to point out that the three core performances (Keaton, Norton, and Stone in my opinion) have all been in superhero movies. Keaton was Batman in two blockbusters in the 80's. Norton had a failed attempt at being the Hulk, and Stone was Gwen Stacy in the new Spider-Man movies. In a movie that's basically criticizing the entertainment industry in a Hollywood vs. Broadway style fight, I don't think it's irony that they've been cast. I also really enjoyed all the jokes about superhero movies and blockbuster entertainment vs. the stage, and it was the fuel between Keaton and Norton's characters duels. It's definitely an interesting fight with good arguments on both sides. This is a year with so many films showing criticism of the entertainment industry and fame. You have Whiplash, which depicts what it takes to be famous, and you have Gone Girl and Birdman, which show the effects of fame and the self-obsession (and self-loathing in Riggan's case) that comes with it. I think Birdman definitely is an honest depiciton of the industry, and could go down in history as one of the best movies about movies ever made.

                                        Emma Stone as Sam Thomson, staring out of the window at her father.
I think that this is definitely a perfect movie. It's awards-bait that wasn't intended to be awards-bait. You can sometimes tell that certain actors take on movies expecting an Oscar, and certain scripts are written attached to certain directors to create the perfect storm. But I feel that Birdman did not intend this. It's simply art. Michael Keaton is a shoo-in for a nomination, and he could win. Norton's a definite as well. There's no way they're not getting nominated. Emma Stone could get in, and I'd like to see her get recognition she deserves. And it basically has cinematography and visual effects in the bag with it's camera take. I think it'll definitely play well over the next few months until the Oscars, where it will likely be nominated in a handful of the categories. It's just simply an original movie that succeeds with everything. I found myself loving it more and more throughout the running time, and would recommend it to anyone who loves awards and prestige movies. It's a little weird, but if you can get over that I think you'll enjoy it.

Rating:

Whiplash Review

Starring: Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist

                                        Fletcher observes Andrew drumming alone after he dismisses the band.
Whiplash is an intense movie that never relinquishes its grip. It's a criticism of show business, the music industry, and what it takes to be famous. Whiplash tells the story of Andrew Neyman, a first year drummer at Shaffer Conservatory, the best music school in the country. While Andrew starts out in regular band classes, he is soon recruited by Terence Fletcher, the highly-esteemed director of the school's studio jazz band. While he realizes Fletcher is tough, he does not expect what's about to come. Fletcher ruthlessly and mercilessly abuses the students emotionally and physically, believing to be great in the music business, you have to endure. He pushes the students to their breaking points, and expects them to live up to the title of best band in the country. This is one intense movie. It's a horrifying depiction of what some teachers are like, and how far show business can push someone to the edge. But it succeeds, and the result is a masterfully created, phenomenal story. With great music!

                                       Fletcher presents his band to the audience, who are unaware of his tactics.
The acting in this movie is remarkable. Miles Teller is the best I have ever seen him. I've seen him play a range of roles, some comedic and dramatic, but this is his peak so far. As Andrew, he perfectly plays the role of an aspiring student who wants nothing more than be "one of the greats" as he puts it. As he realizes how serious Fletcher is about his band, he distances himself from his real life, practicing near 24/7 to the point that he is actually hurting himself, getting many blisters and bloody sores on his hands. Andrew's PTSD from his horrible experiences is also perfectly acted by Teller. You really believe that this kid has seen hell, with his nervous twitches and darting eyes. It's J.K. Simmons, as the music teacher that really steals the show. He's played in a multitude of movies and shows in small roles, and all has led to this film. As Terence Fletcher, he is ruthless, heartless, and cruel in the way he treats his band. He physically slaps Andrew multiple times when he can't tell him whether he's rushing or dragging in tempo, and hurls a chair at him. And the worst thing is his language. Throwing multiple racist and homophobic slurs as well as swear words at students, he creates a fear in his students that he believes somehow translates into respect. The climax of his abuse comes at a time when he forces his three drummers to play a few measures as fast as possible, shifting among themselves, for nearly six hours. Blood and sweat soon coat the drumset while he screams at them to keep playing. It's tense and terrifying to watch, but Simmons is revelatory in his performance.

                                      Fletcher screams at a student for being out of tune, before kicking him out.
The acting is definitely the best part of the movie, but it succeeds with all of its other accomplishments. The directing is fantastic, the camera angles are spot-on, and the music...the music is incredible. But I could've guessed beforehand that a movie centered on a jazz band would have strong music. The music definitely sticks with you after the film's close. I still have "Whiplash" (the piece from which the movie derives it name from) stuck in my head. There's no doubt in my mind that the team who worked on this movie were very careful in their execution of every detail.

                                                   Bloody drumsticks after a long 6 hour session of practice. 
Whiplash is basically a perfect movie. I've been using my critical mind to try and find a fault in it, but I can't find any. So there's nothing I can do but award it a full five stars. Deservedly so, I might add. As for awards potential, I'm going to bet that in this movie, we've found the winner for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. J.K. Simmons is a force to be reckoned with. As for other awards, I see it maybe getting a screenplay or cinematography nomination. Maybe a Best Actor nomination for Miles Teller, but with so much competition, I see that being very unlikely. I would highly recommend this for anyone who can take such an intense movie, but for anyone who's a fan of music or in a music program would love it.

Rating:

St. Vincent Review

Starring: Bill Murray, Melissa McCarthy, Jaedan Lieberher, Naomi Watts, Chris O'Dowd

Anyone heard of the movie Neighbors? Well St. Vincent is the sophisticated version of that raunchy comedy. Now don't get me wrong. I love Neighbors, and think it's hilarious and has a strong message behind it. But it doesn't even compare to the message behind this comedy-drama about two bickering neighbors. St. Vincent stars Bill Murray as Vincent MacKenna, a grizzled and cranky war veteran, and his unlikely friendship with the young son of his next door neighbor (McCarthy). Although he's rough and disliked by everyone who meets him, he forms a strong bond as a best friend and father figure to this child as his mother struggles through a rocky divorce. I walked into this expecting to laugh hard, and I did. But I was surprised at the direction this movie went in.

Bill Murray shines. I regret to inform that I haven't checked out a lot of Bill Murray's films outside of Ghostbusters. I actually think that after this movie, I'll finally check out Caddyshack and Groundhog Day and see what all the buzz is about. I don't want to spoil what happens through the course of this movie, but it's not the comedy that I was expecting. Murray shines in comedy, and there's no doubt about that. But this was an extremely dramatic role. Yes, his wise-cracking and smart-aleck character was hilarious at times, but once you discover why he is this cantankerous and mean-spirited man, it becomes a whole different movie. And Murray pulls it off. As for the actor playing Oliver (Lieberher), this young first time actor is incredible. His character change from the beginning to the end, and how Vincent reflects in him is great to watch. Oliver changes from such an uptight and by-the-books kid, but Vincent never pushes him too far, and only shows him the world and how it works. He's an odd role model, and not a great one according to his mother. But as the credits roll, and they're hilarious by the way, there's no doubt in your mind that Vincent is a hero.

As for the female actors in the movie, they are both outstanding. Melissa McCarthy plays Maggie Bronstein, a single mother navigating a vicious divorce, who tries her hardest to spend time with her son while working the long hours to provide for him. Vincent becomes his "babysitter" of sorts while she's away. McCarthy, who has lately (I believe, and some may disagree) overstayed her welcome as a lead actress, really does a fine job in a supporting role. I don't think she does a very good job headlining a movie. Bridesmaids was where we first fell in love with her, and it was a very significant supporting role that earned her an Oscar nomination. And then came Identity Thief which she co-headed with Jason Bateman, but critics and audiences alike hated it. The Heat with Sandra Bullock in the more leading role came out and she was fantastic again. And this year we had the mess that was Tammy with her headlining a movie all on her own for the first time. McCarthy needs to be subtle, and she is right here in St. Vincent. She flexes her dramatic acting chops and really holds her own, and delivers some powerful scenes.
Naomi Watts...where do I begin. She plays Daka, a pregnant Russian prostitute and exotic dancer, that is sleeping with Vincent. Weird role, right? And she is phenomenal. I forgot I was watching Naomi Watts, and I'm a huge fan of her work. She disappears into this crazy character, who is mostly comedic, but also has a huge heart at the center. It's evident how great of an actress she is if she can go from heartbreaking in The Impossible to hilarious in this film. Her mannerisms are perfect, and her delivery is outstanding. She acts like she hates Vincent and only hangs with him for the money she gets at night, but when he needs her, she takes care of him with a smile on her face, and looks out for him like he did for her. It's not even his baby, and he alone helps her to get ready for her child. She'd never admit it, but she loves him, and it makes her a funny character with a complex center.

The greatest message this movie has is about "Sainthood." Oliver goes to a religious school, and he's assigned a project to research someone in the modern day, and see if they're worthy of being a Saint. While some classmates choose figures like Mother Theresa, he chooses Vincent. And he learns of his past, what he's had to overcome, and how even though he's rough around the edges and has been through so much in his life, especially through the course of the film. He still does little good deeds asking for nothing in return. He's even in debt with criminals from gambling! And he still provides for this pregnant prostitute and gives her a home, takes care of this young boy every day, and becomes the real father in his life. The tearful speech he gives to Vincent as he presents him with the "Sainthood Medal" made my whole family cry, even myself. Even my father, and I've never ever heard of a movie that he's cried in. This quickly became one of, if not my favorite movie of the year so far. I'm not even going to talk about Oscar prospects, because it deserves every nomination, especially a win for Bill Murray, and if it doesn't get any, it'll be a huge mistake. But I'll still be happy. It's a phenomenal movie, with a strong message. Hilarious at times, heart-wrenching at others, St. Vincent is a movie that succeeds in everything it promises, and even more.

Rating:

Interstellar Review

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Casey Affleck, Michael Caine

Christopher Nolan has a new film, and Interstellar is one ambitious film. The famed director of the Batman trilogy, as well as cult favorites Memento and The Prestige (and who could forget Inception?) brings us this epic tale, of astronauts using a wormhole to find a new planet. Sounds ridiculous right? The stuff of fiction? I was very surprised to find how immersed in fact this movie is. There is a lot of scientific exposition. And I was extremely confused by almost all of it. It's been hours, and I'm still working Interstellar through my brain, and I'm sure I will be for a couple days now. In the near future, a second Dust Bowl has almost destroyed Earth. Crops are all dead except corn, and the dust threatens the people and their way of life. Matthew McConaughey plays Cooper, a pilot-turned-engineer who is recruited by Michael Caine's character to man a mission to find a new world to inhabit. This involves him leaving his family, which includes his beloved daughter Murph, who he promises he will return for. I'm a huge Nolan fan. Inception is in my all-time top five, with The Dark Knight not too far behind. But something holds this movie back for me. And I think it's that it tries to, as the expression goes, "have its cake and eat it too."

The storyline is very intricate. There are so many twists and turns, and I love a good twist so much, that I enjoyed the first 2/3 of the movie. I'd go even further than that. Just the last 20 minutes really killed it for me, but I'll get into that later. Did I mention this movie is 170 minutes, just shy of 3 hours? Don't worry, it doesn't seem long, and it's all essential, except for the end. Let's talk about the acting. Matthew McConaughey nails it. He gives it his 100% and pulls it off. I'm really becoming a huge fan of his after Dallas Buyers Club, which he of course won the Oscar for, and his work on True Detective. I must honestly say that I'm not a fan of Anne Hathaway. Don't get me wrong, she deserved the Oscar for "I Dreamed a Dream" in Les Misérables but I just don't like her. And she does well to hold her own against McConaughey, she's just a very hateable character. If you think Sandra Bullock jeopardized the lives of her crew in Gravity, wait until you see Amelia Brand. Brand's father is played by Michael Caine, who is the leader of sorts of NASA. He does well, but even more so than his daughter, Dr. Brand is a character you end up hating. There's also one cameo from a huge celebrity, that I'm surprised they kept secret for this long. Don't look up any cast listings. It's a great surprise, and he does a great job. I can't spoil it and tell you who, because that would ruin the surprise.The rest of the performances are separate from these three, so I'll get to them later.

I'll get to the science, but first, let's look at the Earth performances. As Cooper and his team make their way through the wormhole, and end up in a galaxy orbiting a black hole, time moves slower for them. I believe that this would actually happen should you end up near a black hole, but I'll need to ask my science teacher a lot of questions about this movie to ever really know what was fact or fiction. Jessica Chastain plays his daughter Murph, years after he's left, while Casey Affleck plays his son. Both are bitter with resentment towards their father, and deal with it in different ways. His son sends him messages, but later abandons him as his family dies from the storm. Murph never sends him messages, and largely becomes absent. She calls him once, to tell him that it's her birthday, and that he promised he'd be back when they were the same age. Chastain carries the Earth half of the movie, as she navigates a world without hope, and you start to really like her character. Mackenzie Foy plays Young Murph, and she does an excellent job as well, but it's Chastain, who is so subtle yet powerful as his scorned adult daughter, wanting to accept the possibility of return, but full of spite nonetheless, that really shines.

So here are my problems. While I largely believe what the movie told me, I have no idea if it's true or not. My brain boiled over about a half hour into the film, and I just stopped trying to figure it out. There's a lot of "artificial gravity", with hints at aliens, a fifth dimension, and obviously a lot of talk about what can displace time and how to save time, and what percentage of the planets share Earth's gravity, and a lot of stuff I didn't know what to make of. If you're not a science fan, this movie will try and shove information down your throat. If you're not mature, you will not be able to take it. This is an extremely sophisticated movie that requires 100% of your brain and 100% of your attention. I'm lucky I had some people there to explain it to me, and for the first third of the film I was convinced I hated it, because I didn't understand it. Speaking of thirds, the ending, was a load of garbage to me. Pure Hollywood. I'm able to separate the end from the rest of the film, but I've seen many  critics pan the entire thing just for the ending. It's overly sentimental, and tries to tie every last loose end in the movie. And I'd rather just let the characters be left ambiguous. I feel that could leave it to the viewer's imagination, much like Nolan did with the ending of Inception. I think at this moment, Nolan slipped up and became emotionally-manipulative. For a director who is usually so original, this was a pretty cliché filled ending.

 I wanted very badly to love this movie. And I was content I would. I will warn you, this is not at all the movie the trailers sell you. Almost all of the trailers' content is seen with in the first hour. I was expecting to feel so sad at the sight of him leaving his daughter, but I never felt close to them. I think the creators got a little carried away with the scale of Interstellar and the script suffered as a result. At the end of the day, you can't blame the acting sometimes, or the scenes. You have the blame whoever wrote that character or wrote that scene. Nolan and his brother wrote the movie, and I think the director has too much control over this movie. He oversaw the music, helped with the cinematography work, directed it, produced it, and wrote it. And I think that is where the problem was. This is Christopher Nolan trying to sell us his magnum opus. It's epic, and he expects everyone else to think it's his best work. But I think you can't sell an opus, it just happens. Did Hitchcock know Psycho would be his? I think he's trying too hard with this movie. One review I read quoted the following line from Inception:"Whose subconscious are we in?" is repeated by Ariadne throughout the movie as they jump from dream to dream and everything blurs. The reviewer went on to say, and I agree, that the answer while watching Interstellar is Nolan's. You're in Nolan's subconscious. And everything is exactly how he would want you to see it, but it doesn't all connect.

Rating:

Nightcrawler Review

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Nightcrawler is one strange movie. While walking out of it, I was asked if I liked it. And the thing is, I couldn't come up with an answer until I really thought about it. There's always that conflict between "liking it" and the quality of the movie. I like some really bad movies. And I didn't enjoy some really good movies. Everybody does. Nightcrawler is an interesting movie. Without a doubt, it's extremely well-made. There are no holes in the plot, and every character fulfills their role. But it just made me feel extremely uncomfortable. And it wasn't because of anything displayed onscreen. It was just weird. Jake Gyllenhaal gives a spectacular and unforgettable performance as Lou Bloom, an antisocial obsessive man who is unhealthily driven by the desire to make a living and a name for himself in Los Angeles. By any means necessary. He becomes an freelance cameraman, and goes around town filming crime scenes while getting the best footage, to sell it to a news company. His demands become more frightening, and his tactics terrifying, when he will do whatever it takes to get the best footage, even committing crimes himself.

Lou Bloom is a strange man indeed. Usually I try and diagnose characters if they don't specify mental illness, but I couldn't even tell you what he has. He's one of the weirdest characters I've seen. This guy blinks maybe five times in the whole movie. I think Gyllenhaal's performance far outreaches the quality of the film. By this I just mean Gyllenhaal is the movie. He's in every single scene, and the best scenes are when he's completely immersed in this character. His best scenes are his interactions with Rene Russo's character, who is the morning news director he sells to. A quote she says which sums up the movie's message is "To capture the spirit of what we air, think of our newscast as a screaming woman, running down the street with her throat cut." So the more gory and horrifying the story, the more it sells. One of my favorite parts of the movie, was when Lou invited her to dinner with him, and he asked her to become his partner and sleep with him. And threatened to never give her another one of his stories and allow her to be fired if she doesn't agree. Of course, she didn't agree to it, but that scene perfectly illustrated how cut off from reality he is, and how little skills with people he has.

So if you want to see Nightcrawler just be warned that it's one weird movie. If I think about it, then I guess the movie was really good. I just can't get past the creepiness of it. Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Ruso both give excellent performances, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them getting some awards recognition from smaller circuits. I don't think either could make it to the Oscars, because I think the subject matter of this movie is just too strange for the Academy. But if you're a fan of Gyllenhaal, this is definitely one of his best roles.

Rating: