Nightcrawler (2014)

“If you want to win the lottery, 

you have to make the money to buy a ticket.”

Dan Gilroy’s 'Nightcrawler' was on barely on my radar before I had the chance to see it in the cinema. I’d heard from a handful of people that it was a decent watch so I had a few mild expectations but nothing too large.

For the most part, films normally fall short of my expectations. Sometimes, on a good day, they meet them. However, I’m always hoping for that one film that meets my expectations and ultimately exceeds them… ‘Nightcrawler’ exceeded my expectations by a long way.

Jake Gyllenhaal gives the performance of his career as the emotionless and, at times, terrifying psychopath - Louis Bloom - who climbs the L.A. crime journalism ladder as a footage peddler. As he becomes more successful, he begins to blur the line between observer and participant.

I thought I was going to be able to predict where the film was going to go but I was pleasantly surprised when it didn’t quite stay on the road that I thought it would. It added to the pleasure of watching because you never knew what exactly was going to come next. 

There are some disturbing ideas being explored in ‘Nightcrawler’ and it doesn’t shy away from that. It promotes an extremely unsettling atmosphere that will have you squirming with unease.

What I thought was a clever and intriguing aspect of the plot was the fact that the film was a roller coaster of emotions. Despite some of the terrible things Louis Bloom is doing, he’s not actually the one causing it per se. He’s just not doing anything to help the situation which, in itself, is a crime. This being said, some of the crimes he does commit are atrocious and really throw his credibility out the window. This really throws your moral compass off kilter as you try and make sense of the horror that you are witnessing along with Louis Bloom. 

Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance steals the show in this one and I’ll be very shocked if he doesn’t receive at least an Oscar nomination for it. He blurs the line between psychopath and relatable human being and really balances on a knife edge with whether or not he's likable. Personally, I don’t think he’s particularly likable but he’s impossible not to watch. He’s more interesting to follow and study because of his unpredictability and lack of emotion. You can’t tell what he’s thinking and that’s a haunting prospect. Despite having no “people skills’ whatsoever, you always get the sense that Louis is optimising every moment and opportunity as he becomes more successful. He makes himself indispensable and proves that he has the guts to back up his, sometimes misguided, enthusiasm. You’re left trying to piece together how you feel about what happens and what you think the justified punishment would be for what goes on.

I witnessed glimpses of greatness in Gyllenhaal in ‘Prisoners’ where he plays a gritty detective and I knew it was just a matter of time before he gave us a performance like he does in ‘Nightcrawler’. Right off the bat you sense that there’s something seriously wrong with this guy… You can’t place your finger on it but you know there’s definitely a few screws loose. Gyllenhaal does a solid job in making us truly believe in his character and there’s not one moment in the film where I wasn’t fully on board with him as a character. I admired how much Gyllenhaal threw himself into the role like he does, you’ll be wondering what he’s truly capable of with each twist and turn in the plot…

Renne Russo also gives a strong supporting performance in the film. She plays a conflicted, ageing, business woman who is trying to stay on top of the news world but is manipulated by Louis Bloom. He uses her to get what he wants with the promise of giving her what she wants. She features in some extremely disturbing moments that really make the film soar. 

First time director Dan Gilroy does an excellent job in this neo-noir thriller and his directing style is quite reminiscent of some of David Fincher’s films. He forces us to delve into the seedy reality of the L.A. media and what the news has unfortunately become. We are no longer interested in world politics or social issues, viewers are more interested in suburban crime stories, shameful money-grabbing accident reports and, most evidently, death. It really makes you think about the credibility of the news and puts these “9 o’clock news” stories into perspective.

It’s a twisted look at the “American dream” and shows us what greed and power can really do. You’ll be dragged along for the ride with the unforgettably psychopathic Louis Bloom and you’ll not be able to look away. That's the beauty of it. It forces us to think about our own media preferences and how the newsroom bends and twists the information they broadcast to try and get the best ratings.

‘Nightcrawler’ is easily one of my top ten movies of 2014 and deserves a few Oscar nods.
It delivers some seriously disturbing themes and imagery, dark edgy comedy, an exciting car chase and a slimy creep like Gyllenhaal. When you mix all of these ingredients together, it makes for a surreal thrill ride that will have you crawling out of your seat at the end. It has the maturity and intelligence to hold up a mirror to society and forces us to look at what we’ve become.

It ticks all the boxes for me.

Interstellar (2014)

"Love is the one thing that transcends time and space."

Farmer and ex-NASA pilot - Cooper - joins a team of explorers who’s mission is to travel through a wormhole, created by an unknown being, in an attempt to find a potentially habitable planet that will sustain humanity.

I have totally lost faith in Christopher Nolan since ‘Inception' and ‘The Dark Knight Rises' but I was optimistic that ‘Interstellar' would change that… Unfortunately it didn’t. 

You can’t help but respect the size and scope of ‘Interstellar' because, at the end of the day, it’s a phenomenal feat to have been able to make a film with the visuals and ambition that ‘Interstellar’ has. This being said, the size of the film (and the money that was obviously spent on it) is only disguising the fact that it’s ultimately a weak film. 

I saw ‘Interstellar' in IMAX (which is how I’d like to see every film... ever) because it's always a more immersive experience. It's massive sound system that rocks the entire theatre and a screen that’ll fill your peripherals is the perfect set up for any movie experience. I experienced ‘Gravity’ in IMAX and deduced that ‘Interstellar’ would probably benefit from it and I was right, it turned out to be one of the only redeeming features of the film.

Let’s get down to it.

Exposition is defined as "a comprehensive description and explanation of an idea or theory.” which is basically what Nolan does throughout the entire movie. He leads us by the hand because apparently the audience isn’t intelligent enough to grasp the theories and ideas presented in ‘Interstellar’ on their own. Nolan thinks he has to explain every detail to us as if explaining it to a child. This isn’t exaggeration, he literally has a character take a piece of paper and give us a demonstration that you would give to a child as to how a wormhole works. Please give us some credit… It’s insulting.

Funnily enough this is the same problem that I had with ‘Inception’. ‘Inception’ is hailed as a mind bender and a film that challenges the audience but I have to call bullshit on that one I’m afraid. Two dimensional characters are crow barred into the plot to basically feed us information, exposition and answers. For example, Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character’s sole purpose in ‘Inception’ is to talk us through the movie and make sure the audience understands exactly what is going on at any given moment. This really aggravates me as a viewer when a film underestimates my intelligence and feels it has to explain itself at every turn. This is what I experienced with ‘Interstellar’. Granted, I understand that certain ideas have to be explained in order to follow the rest of the plot but it was a constant annoyance. Give us the important details and we’ll do the rest ourselves.

What I found illogical was the experience of the crew members. For instance, Matthew McConaughey’s character - Cooper - was either wildly under-qualified for the job or totally over-qualified. He didn’t understand basic scientific principles (someone who was on the mission in the first place should understand what he didn't) but, on the other hand, had vast knowledge and experience with some very advanced protocols and technology? Come on... He should have a decent knowledge in the first place but shouldn’t have the knowledge that rivals Anne Hathaway’s character - Brand - who is the professional on board. 
It seemed to be whenever the plot called for some exposition there was someone there to explain it to Cooper. He was asking a lot of questions that, based on his knowledge later on in the film, he shouldn’t have been asking. He’s an ex-NASA pilot. If I was on board the ship with a pilot (who is meant to be a genius NASA pilot) who doesn’t seem to have much knowledge about space, I would be having a serious “Houston, we have a problem.” moment.

‘Interstellar’ doesn’t portray the feeling of being space particularly well. When you look at films like ‘Gravity' and the definitive space exploration film '2001: A Space Odyssey', you really get a sense of what space is like. You experience the silence and the weightlessness along with the absolute oblivion that lies beyond the space craft. I didn’t get this feeling from ‘Interstellar’ which took me out of the movie completely. Muting the sound when you aren’t in the ship doesn’t instantly make me believe that I’m in space. Granted, the visuals in space were breathtaking, especially in IMAX, but that's all they were... Really well done CGI space sequences.

Despite the constant reminder that Cooper needs to get back to his family, it never quite grabbed me and made me care. I never felt connected to the crew and felt like I was being told how to feel rather than just letting it happen by itself. It’s hard not to compare it to a film such as ‘Apollo 13’ with Tom Hanks but ‘Apollo 13' has so much heart and you care so deeply about the crew that its incomprehensible that they won’t make it home. That desperation and futile hope that’s present in ‘Apollo 13’ was what was lacking in ‘Interstellar’. The crew were totally expendable. In the end, I cared more for the robots on board the ship than the humans, which is a crime in a film that’s meant to be about how love transcends time and space.

Christopher & Jonathan Nolan have no clue how to write female characters. Literally no clue. They're based on weak stereotypes that are insulting to women. For instance, Anne Hathaway’s character, is hailed as an expert in her field and someone who is totally devoted to the mission. Great, I’m on board with her character. However, she is suddenly willing to completely abandon professionalism, training and most importantly common sense to be reunited with her boyfriend (who she hasn’t seen in however long) and forsake the entire human race… Really?
Not to mention Cooper’s older daughter who has so many “daddy issues” that she still holds a grudge against the fact that he left her to go and save mankind but then turn around and follow in his footsteps anyway?

Despite this, there were some aspects of the film that I did enjoy. 
The theory of relativity comes into play when a situation arises that an hour translates back to 7 years on earth. This is really thrilling because time becomes such an important factor that any second wasted translates to a serious amount of time lost for the human race on earth. However, even though it was an interesting idea and concept, it did feel a little forced on the story. It felt to me like it was a new concept that they wanted in the movie so they just found a way of cramming it in. It wasn’t as seamless and subtle as it should have and could have been.

The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer is exciting. Hans Zimmer always has a way of churning out scores that really capture the essence of whatever is going on in the scene, whether it be tension, excitement or dread. Put his thrilling score alongside some of the flying sequences in the film and you’ll have most people gripping their seats. This being said, the sound mix was totally off. The music was too loud. Dialogue was lost in the mix and moments were lost as a result.

Matthew McConaughey is confident as the lead in this film. I’m so glad he’s made this come-back as a solid, reliable actor. He really holds the film up (despite being a slight parody of himself) and makes the character his own, despite me not caring about his relationship with his family…

This leads me to a plot point that I found really strange in the film, this isn’t a spoiler but Cooper apparently has a love that can transcend space and time for his daughter Murph but he really doesn’t seem to care about his son Tom... I was really bothered by this and it was never resolved. I feel bad for Tom.

It’s so hard to find a child actor that is actually believable but Mackenzie Foy plays Cooper’s daughter Murph. She gives a strong performance and actually outshines her older counterpart who plays Murph in the future.

I really, really wanted to love this film but I just didn’t. It should have been '2001: a space odyssey' meets 'Apollo 13' but unfortunately didn't live up to that expectation.

It’s probably worth seeing so you can come to your own conclusions (with a little help from Christopher Nolan of course) but I would recommend so many other films that do a better job in delivering similar concepts and ideas that ‘Interstellar’ tried to explore but ultimately ended up dumbing down. If you want to see it done properly, I suggest a few films such as; ‘Primer’ (the true mind bender), the classic return space journey - ‘Apollo 13’ (based on the true story), one of the defining science fiction films ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ and the recent 7 time Oscar winner ‘Gravity’.

I always expect to be crucified if I point out any flaw in a Christopher Nolan film. He has achieved quite a strange reputation where his films are gospel for some reason. Everyone seems to respect him as a master filmmaker for the few successful films he's made recently, of which, he receives too much for.

I want the old Christopher Nolan back. I want the Christopher Nolan back that gave us films like ‘Memento’, ‘The Prestige’ and ‘Insomnia’. Much smaller movies with intriguing ideas that really have a lot of strength without the gargantuan budget. 
I believe that ‘The Dark Knight’ was the beginning of the end. I am a huge fan of ‘The Dark Knight’ but its success (much to do with Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker) seemed to blow open a door for Nolan, where he could do whatever he wanted without question. It appears to me that because Nolan has made a handful of successful films in the past, he can now do what he wants without an objective opinion and criticism.

Overall, ‘Interstellar’ is a tremendously messy film that has a lot of flaws. It looks relatively decent in IMAX but has way too much CGI. When you compare it to ‘2001: a space odyssey’, that didn’t have the luxury of CGI, you really see the "space" that separates them. ‘Interstellar’ doesn’t have enough heart, despite the whole message of the film being that love is the one thing that can transcend space and time… but not if you’re Cooper’s son.

Killer Joe (2011)

"If you insult me again, 
I will cut your face off and wear it over my own. Do you understand?"

When Chris Smith runs into some debt with a local gangster, he turns to hiring Killer Joe Cooper to murder his evil mother in order to collect the insurance.

Trust me... You've never seen Matthew McConaughey like this before.

Written by Tracy Letts (based on his play) and directed by William Friedkin who directed ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘Bug’ comes ‘Killer Joe’, a film that is shocking, dark, funny and oh so twisted. It had a quiet opening at the box office in 2011 and, since I was a fan of the director, I went to see it despite not knowing much about it. Let's just say I was not prepared for what I was going to see...

What should be said about ‘Killer Joe’ from the get-go is that it isn’t as straight forward and conventional as the plot suggests.

The film has an uncomfortable sense of dread throughout that makes us squirm as we try and piece together where it’s going and how it’s going to get there. The tension is gradually increased and the audience can feel it. The plot thickens and we learn more information about characters that eventually culminates in a grand finale that will leave you clinging on for dear life (and quite possibly clinging to a sick bag). 

This being said, despite the building dread that is ever-present in the film, there is a dark humour scattered here and there that had me laughing in scenes that you really shouldn’t be laughing at. It’s a black comedy that is so dark that it’s quite possible that you could miss the humour. I always find it interesting when a film can make me feel ashamed for laughing at a scene that just shouldn’t be funny.

Matthew McConaughey steals the show as Killer Joe Cooper and ever since seeing this film, my respect for him as an actor has grown tenfold. We now have films such as ’The Dallas Buyers Club’ and ‘Mud’ that really showcase him as an actor but I feel that ‘Killer Joe’ was the first time I saw him have the freedom to really act and probably have a lot of fun with the character. 

Joe Cooper is a twisted human being with a professional approach to what he does - he kills people. He balances the polite texan police detective with the psychopathic hit man perfectly. It was surprising seeing McConaughey play so against type after seeing him play the love interest and "home grown Texan hunk" in so many middle of the road movies. I only ever got a glimmer of how good he could be in ‘A Time To Kill’ where he plays a lawyer defending a man who takes the law into his own hands by murdering the boys who raped his daughter. 

In ‘Killer Joe’ this reputation is shattered in the most enjoyable of ways as we see some seriously twisted stuff going down. I dare you to watch ‘Killer Joe’ and look at him in the same way again.

It’s easy to forget about the supporting cast with a performance like Matthew McConaughey’s but they are flawless.

Thomas Haden Church and Emile Hirsch deliver very comedic and believable performances as the slightly dumb father and son duo who hire Killer Joe.

Juno Temple is also a key player in the story as the naive and damaged Dottie, Chris’ sweet little sister who eventually turns out to be a “retainer" for Killer Joe when Chris and Ansel don’t have the money up front to pay him for his service. I’ve seen her in a lot of films playing small roles but I think her performance in ‘Killer Joe' is testament to her talent as an up and coming actress who will hopefully go far.

The film is based on a play and although you can understand why with the limited locations and small cast, it doesn’t hinder the film at all. The dialogue is interesting and you get a lot of detail in the characters. I would go and see the play in a heartbeat after how fantastic the film was. 

Controversy quickly circulated about ‘Killer Joe’ and it’s easy to see why. "Rated R for strong and disturbing violence, sexuality, graphic nudity, drug use and language”. There are several key scenes in ‘Killer Joe’ that will forever be etched into my mind. Most notably is the finale, without giving away any spoilers, you won’t look at KFC again without remembering one of the climatic moments of the film… 

William Friedkin isn’t afraid to give us scenes that will shock us and I always feel that they aren’t there just to shock us. They deliver strong messages and challenge us as we delve into the depths of the darkest characters and themes. This seems to be the main criticism of the film as there were apparently a lot of walk outs in the cinema but I can understand why. It’s not that the film is overly violent, it has it’s violent scenes but it’s not the violence that shocked audiences. I think it’s the more sexual aspects of the film that are shocking to most.

It’s not for everyone.

To categorise Killer Joe in any genre would definitely be a disservice to the film. It is funny, terrifying, tense, shocking, thrilling, atmospheric and even somewhat romantic in a twisted way? The list goes on and on. 

All you can do is keep an open mind for this one and if you can do that I guarantee you won’t be disappointed. The dramatic and shocking conclusion will leave you howling with laughter and then wondering why you did...

Fury (2014)

"Ideals are peaceful. History is violent."

World War 2 is staggering to an end. Norman, a rookie soldier who hasn't seen combat, is forced to join a five man tank crew, lead by battle hardened army sergeant Don ‘Wardaddy’ Collier, on a mission behind enemy lines.

David Ayer delivers a harsh and often brutal look at the horrors of World War 2 in this straight to the point ride into battle inside a small Sherman Tank. Not since Spielberg’s 'Saving Private Ryan’ have I seen a more truthful, realistic and horrific depiction of war than in ‘Fury’. 

What should be said about this film is that it isn’t pretty. War is ugly. It’s dirty, bloody, unapologetic and saddening. 'Fury' does a solid job in really driving that message home.

I found the film slightly reminiscent of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ with it’s bleak, realistic outlook on war but with a strong heart. You feel the bond of the soldiers and come to care for them. Much like ‘Saving Private Ryan’ you really get a sense that the film is historically accurate. Terms, events and facts are dropped subtly that just make the story come alive and draw you into the world in a way that most period pieces fail. We are exposed to sides of the war that you don’t normally see, for instance, the absolute coldness in the way that dead bodies were treated. There is a scene in particular where several soldiers are literally cut in half by an onslaught of machine gun bullets and, after the smoke clears, they are just left by the side of the road. One minute they are here, the next they're not. The cold reality of war sinks in pretty quickly.

Violence plays a large part in any film about war but what ‘Fury’ does effectively is not glorifying it in any way. Ayer makes us feel every bullet that ricochets off the tank and every bullet that tears through flesh. The sound design plays a large part in creating this realistic depiction of violence. The noise of a gun firing is emphasised to be as realistically loud and aggressive as possible, not something to be taken likely in most action films where guns are let off at the the drop of a hat. If a bullet whizzes by a characters head you are left in no doubt that, due to the the sheer velocity of it, if it had connected there wouldn’t be much left. Just when this thought goes through your mind, someones head is literally blown off in front of you. It’s so blunt that it’s hard to know what is going to happen next.

The violence is thrilling, not in the traditional sense but in a frightening way. Despite being in the comfort of the cinema, at the end of each battle you can’t help but feel lucky that you weren’t hit in the crossfire. The audience starts to feel the same fear as the soldiers as they ride into what could be their deaths because we have seen, in graphic detail, what a bullet can really do to a human body.

One of the main criticisms I had been hearing about the film before going to see it was that the characters weren’t "likable enough". This meant that when it’s all going down you don’t care about them. Although this is partly true at the beginning, each character being an acquired taste, I have to disagree. The men in the tank unit aren’t the most likable people in the world but, if you found yourself in the same position as them, would you be? What David Ayer shows us is how people cope with war. Each character is just trying to do their best to survive and cope with the horrific things that are going on around them and to the people they have come to care for.

The rookie soldier Norman is the audience. We are thrown into war, much like he is, and are left feeling breathless after each incident that opens our eyes to what war is really like. We learn the ropes with him and share his moral compass as he tries to navigate through dizzying battles and the brutality of what they were doing. Brad Pitt is excellent, as always, and delivers a believable and powerful performance as Don ‘Wardaddy’ Collier, the tank commander who pulls Norman through, kicking and screaming, and teaches him how to survive in the nightmare that is war. Logan Lerman is really great in the role of Norman. He really captures the innocence of a lot of young boys that signed up, only to be totally unprepared at the nightmare they were going to find themselves in. I’ve never really seen him before but I’ll definitely be keeping a close eye on anything that he might be in in the future.

Shia LaBeouf was the breakthrough actor for me in ‘Fury', I’d only ever seeing him in films like Transformers and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull… (Let’s take a moment to acknowledge these abominations…) Then add those films to his less than savoury reputation and it was safe to say that I was taken aback at his acting ability and how he totally played against type for this film. Even sporting a moustache Tom Selleck would approve of, he really pulls off a mature performance and went toe to toe with Brad Pitt, Joe Bernthal and Michael Peña.

The climax of the film is when we really get the satisfying pay-off that we’d been waiting for. We see the true faces of the men that we’ve been sharing the journey with and really come round to those who we haven’t liked from the beginning. Out-numbered and surrounded, you can’t help but feel a part of their fight and scared at the prospect of losing any of them.

I think ‘Fury’ does justice to the memory of the men who fought and died in World War 2 and definitely leaves you with a glimpse into what it would have been like to have experienced such atrocities.

I think the most overused word in this blog has to be reality but it seems to be the key feature of ‘Fury’. It really brings home the reality of war in a way that few films have done recently.