Review: ‘Nightcrawler’ is Jake Gyllenhaal’s Most Memorable Performance Yet

Nightcrawler, not to be confused with a certain X-Men who is yet to get his own movie (not that he should), is the answer to a question you’ve probably never asked:

What happens when a criminal becomes a journalist?

After all, plenty of people already consider the media to be run by criminals. Nightcrawler expands that concept to believable, and unforgettable lengths.

The movie stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Lou Bloom, a driven sociopath who has one basic goal. He wants to make money (illegally if he has to) by doing something he loves. The problem is that when he wants something, he’ll do anything to get it. At his core, he’s ultimately a thief of both possessions and even ideas.

His cold, calculating mind is offset by a nearly convincing extraversion. He smiles as he delivers the lines of dialogue that haunt the audience as his story unfolds. The first act expertly introduces us to Bloom by not just showing that he’s a criminal. He proves to us that he’s a sociopath, for reasons that get into spoiler territory.

Ultimately, his actions lead to business success as a nightcrawler (an offhand term for freelancers who record video from crime scenes late at night). The movie is shot almost entirely from his perspective as we watch him negotiate and force himself into the world of journalism with his suspiciously caught video of violent crimes that cater to a specific audience. You can probably see where this is going, and it doesn’t take much to acknowledge the rampant nods that this is also a satire of modern media.

Written and directed by Dan Gilroy, brother of Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), Nightcrawler is an intense, thrilling movie with a dark sense of humor, to the point where you may laugh at just how twisted it frames Bloom up to the “critical moment.”  It warranted more laughs from the audience than some comedies I’ve seen.

I wouldn’t say it’s Gyllenhaal’s best performance ever, but it’s certainly his most memorable in my opinion. Like Matthew McConaughey, he’s had a pretty epic string of great movies these past few years. And Nightcrawler is certainly a highlight.

Definitely worth watching.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Is John Wick Worth Watching? (VIDEO REVIEW)

Starring Keanu Reeves (and other cool people), “John Wick” just might be one of the best action films since “Taken.” But not everyone agrees…

Plus, we talk about the Age of Ultron trailer Marvel released this week. Enjoy!

Check out Maria’s full review: http://bit.ly/1zx2lXx

Age of Ultron trailer: http://bit.ly/1oMlVud

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Review: ‘The Maze Runner’

Once in a while, I force myself to withhold writing a review for a movie. I choose to wait a few days before actually sitting down and unfolding my thoughts for anyone who cares to read them.

In the case of The Maze Runner, we have a film that has proven more polarizing than expecting. That is, more people are walking out of the theater satisfied than I think analysts predicted. I’m one of those people, and I’m more sure of this now even after coming across negative reviews elsewhere.

I’ve never read the trilogy of books that The Maze Runner is based on, which is good news for the majority of people who are reading this. After all, fans of the books have likely already decided whether or not this film is worth watching.

maze runner

So to be clear, I went into The Maze Runner with a blank slate, much like how the film itself begins.

The film opens with Thomas, a teenage boy who wakes up in an ascending elevator. He’s frantic, and we soon realize why. Thomas has no idea where or even who he is. And he’s greeted by a gathering of fellow teenage boys who share the same affliction.

It’s a great narrative device to give your main character amnesia from the start. It allows the audience to immediately connect with Thomas and learn the rules of the world alongside him. It’s an easy, but effective way to immerse your audience.

maze runner

The story is a fun and thrilling ride, as the “rules” of the world continue to be challenged by newcomer Thomas. The boys live within the “Glade,” a spread out field that lies within the center of a deadly maze that towers over them.

At night, the walls of the maze close. This ritual protects the boys from dangerous creatures that would kill them outright. During the day, the “runners” explore the maze in an attempt to find a way out. But if they don’t make it back before the walls close…well, let’s just say that no one survives a night in the maze.

The boys are sent to this place with amnesia, though they gain their memory within a day or two. They know that someone is doing all of this to them, since a new “Glader” is sent to the maze every month with fresh supplies.

maze runner

The characters Thomas interacts and forms relationships with are unique, rather than placeholders for the most part. You’ll likely find them endearing, especially if you enjoy the “Lost Boys” aesthetic.

Speaking of, I found it particularly refreshing to watch a YA adaptation that is more about adventure and science fiction than a coming-of-age romance story. It probably helps that the main set of characters are boys, and it’s fun to watch a group of hapless teens try to create their own society.

Put simply, this is a story about survival. Not politics. Not forbidden romance. Just getting through the day.

maze runner

As the film progresses, Thomas’s curiosity creates new problems for the residents of the maze.  This culminates when a girl ascends in the elevator soon after Thomas (too soon) with the note that she is the “last one ever.”

This of course leads to all-out chaos that sparks a believable and gripping third act, with an ending that I honestly didn’t see coming.

To be fair, elements of The Maze Runner are quite predictable. And some execution of the ideas presented are more derivative of similar YA fare akin to Hunger Games.

maze runner

But if you stick with these characters until the very end, you may find yourself pumped for Act II, which has unsurprisingly been green lit early by Fox thanks to strong box office numbers.

The Maze Runner is certainly not a runaway hit, though. At least when you compare it to other YA franchises that have been proven moneymakers. It’s collected $81 million worldwide in its first weekend, which isn’t anything to scoff at, especially when you consider it only cost $34 million to make.

So we can expect another one of these movies (The Scorch Trials) in the near future. And judging by the strong performance by Dylan O’Brien (who happens to be one of my favorite actors and can be seen on MTV’s Teen Wolf), a sequel could make Fox’s investment truly pay off.

maze runner

This is no Hunger Games-killer, but it’s certainly a welcome departure from tired outings such as Divergent and The Giver. One of my few complaints is that the film tragically under-utilizes Kaya Scodelario (Effy from Skins), who’s probably wondering why she didn’t join her friends in Game of Thrones.

Her character, Teresa, is more of a plot device than an engaging character, which is a shame since she happens to be one of the only girls in the film. Still, we can hopefully expect more from her character in coming installments.

Is it worth watching?

maze runner

Yes. The Maze Runner is an easy film to sink your teeth into, if you’re willing to sink your teeth into it. The story, lore and characters ultimately work because they are as simple as they elegant. And of course, the special effects are expertly handled to make this world come alive.

The Maze Runner was directed by Wes Ball and is based on the series of books written by James Dashner. It stars Dylan O’Brien, Will Poulter, and Kaya Scodelario.

Review: ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’

As I sat down to write this review, I quickly remembered that I also reviewed the first Amazing Spider-Man on this site two years ago, and it’s fascinating to me how little I had to say about it.

Seriously, I basically came to the conclusion that it’s barely worth watching on the basis that it has some decent effects and a mediocre story that may pay off in the long-run.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

Of course, I (along with most of the Spider-Man fandom) was sorely disappointed with several directions Sony took with the origin story, especially when it came to Ben Parker’s death. I understood then and now that this would be underwhelming for moviegoers like me who are still fondly remembering the original Spider-Man in 2002.

Two years and one two-hour movie later, we have The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which is undoubtedly a bigger, better version of the movie that came before it. Everything about this sequel tries incredibly hard to outdo the original, from the acting and character development to the carefully crafted action scenes.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

 

Even the soundtrack seems to have more thought put into it this time (with dubstep tracks being carefully placed only in sequences that feature the film’s central villain: Jamie Foxx’s Electro)

In the months leading up to this film’s release, I was obsessed with staying up-to-date with all of the featurettes, promos, interviews and trailers that did their darndest to convince us that they’d fix what went wrong with the original (which still made them plenty of money).

The first thing to note, and the film’s biggest improvement, is that Sony at least has a powerful agenda behind this film aside from their obligation to make a Spider-Man movie before their contract to the character’s rights fall back to Marvel (which most of us want to happen, ironically).

The first film felt forced, basically, because we knew Sony was only doing it to hang on to their film rights. But this time around, there’s more to Sony’s madness. Thanks to Marvels grand Avengers experiment, Sony is in the business of franchise-building, and they’re now setting up a richer universe that can branch off into numerous spin-offs, which include a film devoted to both Venom and the Sinister Six.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

So that’s one point for the movie so far. There’s something to it this time.

But is the movie any good?

Yes. In fact, I’m going to say it’s great.

I know, I know. The consensus so far among Spider-Man fanatics like myself has been that this sequel is essentially an abomination. Bob Chipman, one of my favorite movie critics, nearly quit reviewing movies out of frustration over this film.

But I politely disagree with Chipman and many other naysayers, and here’s why.

First, they finally got the costume right. I was pretty indifferent to the Sam Raimi costume version, despite its toned down color and melancholic feel. But The Amazing Spider-Man proved that you can definitely mess up his costume, with laughable blinking lights and a look that doesn’t look at all like the Spider-Man we’ve gotten to love over the better half of the last century.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

This time around, however, the costume is pretty much perfect, capturing the look of Spider-Man in a way that pays homage to the original without looking dated.

Next, the action scenes and special effects were fantastic, and I applaud Dave Schaub for his hard work and dedication to crafting a movie that lets Spider-Man be the web slinging daredevil he is, stealing every scene he’s in when donning the costume.

(I even wrote a piece on how Schaub and his team set out to nail the physics of web slinging in this awesome interview you can read here.)

Adding to the action was a devotion to revealing what I call little moments throughout the story. Yes, you had big themes and character plots controlling the drive of the story, but that didn’t prevent director Marc Webb from giving Spider-Man some time to just be a hero. For the first time since Spider-Man 2, audiences were allowed to see Spider-Man foil petty crimes in creative ways, without the plot keeping him too busy.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

These moments consisted of Spidey’s varied conversations with the citizens he would save, along with entire scenes devoted to heroic crime fighting that didn’t even contribute heavily to the plot. I think that some critics were possibly annoyed at these little moments because they might seem pointless to some, but appreciated the care put into differentiating Spider-Man from his real identity, Peter Parker.

Spider-Man is a superhero who is always cracking jokes and keeping things light because he has a mask on. Peter Parker is less confident and a little more nerdy, and that’s a theme that is far more faithful here to the comics.

And it made the film fun. I found myself laughing out loud during the film many times, and kudos to Garfield for letting himself over-act for this role, because it definitely worked.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

There were two main villains in this film: Max Dillon (AKA Electro) and Harry Osborn (AKA Green Goblin). My biggest complaint for this film lies in how they handled these two, both as characters and how they fit into the plot.

To be fair, I liked both of these villains early on, especially Max Dillon’s incredibly awkward transition from bumbling electrician to full-on psychopath. But as the film trudged along, we lost what made Dillon interesting as he became a ruthless villain. In other words, his character arc was a bit clumsy.

Dane DeHaan’s take on Green Goblin committed the same sins, and  I hate how they handled the origin of this villain. I spent the entire film hoping that we’d find out that Harry’s father, Norman Osborn, would end up being the “real” Goblin, using his son as a pawn, but no such twist came to fruition.

amazing spider-man 2 worth watching

The film had a lot of great moments, but it was a bit lopsided, as it would spend huge chunks focusing on one of its many story threads. They handled the progression of Gwen and Peter’s story quite well, at the very least, and I was satisfied with how the film answered the question of what happened to Peter’s parents.

Still, the pacing just felt a bit off and the film could have used some strategic trimming. It was a bit long, but I certainly didn’t look at my watch.

I’d like to talk more on how I felt about the film toward the third act, which was its strongest (at least in regards to the last 15-20 minutes). But I’ll leave you with this:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is worth watching. It’s a well-made film that presents a decent take on the webhead, unless you’re firmly against Sony’s new version already. My advice is to just go with the flow and let yourself be amazed by the plenty of good things this sequel has to offer.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Review: ‘House Of Cards,’ Season 2

One heartbeat away from the presidency and not a single vote cast in my name. Democracy is so overrated…

Frank Underwood (played by the talented Kevin Spacey) utters these words in episode two of the second season of House of Cards, a political thriller that took us all by surprise. While being sworn in for winning the vice presidency after a full season of political  scheming involving lies, betrayals and even murder, Underwood sets his sights on the road ahead.

Season 2 starts with an episode that literally stuns. I obviously can’t spoil the decisive action and unexpected plot movement that sets the tone for this season, but I can almost guarantee that fans of the show will undoubtedly be hooked.

My laments about the first season were few but potent. One too many episodes were imbalanced scripts compared to the ones surrounding them, as they failed to deliver the same heart-pounding storytelling on a consistent basis.

A few episodes in, I can safely say that this has been somewhat remedied. Now that the characters are settling comfortably within their roles on Capitol Hill and beyond, we’re finally done with exposition and ready to fully sink our teeth into the motivations and struggles that plague these complicated faces.

Robin Wright in particular provides new material to her cold character, especially when confronting past turmoil in episode two. We also see a new side of Frank Underwood when it comes to the complex passion and love he has for Claire. It’s not rooted in anything apparently sexual, but it still contains the same mad devotion and loyalty you would expect from an honest-to-god romance.

Their dynamic alone is enough of a reason to tune in, but then you enter the subtle paradigms and nuances that litter the script, especially with new faces joining the cast in the form of Jackie, Frank’s hopeful replacement for Majority Whip. She is already shaping to be the next Frank Underwood in terms of her ruthlessness and ability to manipulate anyone, no matter how close they are to her.

What truly works for the script this time around is that it’s not choosing to rely too heavily on the sub-plot surrounding the conspiracy and suspicion around Frank Underwood. It’s there, and people are still catching on slowly, but the titular house of cards still feels pretty secure early in the season, which will be necessary if the script hopes to contain itself as we watch Frank Underwood continue his rise to power in the most corrupt way possible.

House of Cards Season 2? Definitely worth watching if you were at least amused at the first season. I would even go as far as to say that critics of the previous episodes may find something here that was missing before, as many good shows tend to mature for the better as they enter their second round.

And House of Cards is no exception.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Review: ‘Frozen’

Disney is a strange company, but in the best way possible. They’re bold enough to buy the Marvel franchise, hire Pixar’s mastermind as their creative director of pretty much everything at this point, and continue crafting movies that stay true to the Disney tradition, at least by most loose definitions of the term.

By this tradition, I mean the continuation of the Disney princess phenomenon, including its most recent renaissance (as they say) of the classic Disney Princess movies reinvented to capture the cutting edge animation that reached new heights in the late 80s with The Little Mermaid, only to reach full form thanks to breakout 90s hits like Beauty and the BeastAladdin, and Mulan.

frozen
The rise of Pixar brought on a new age, however, with the onslaught of yet another renaissance in animation — one that rendered any other offering by Disney (ironically) obsolete.

Pixar was their critical and family-driven darling, and the mouse studio didn’t really have the creative direction to answer this problem for quite a while, even when DreamWorks came into its own with the introduction of Shrek and those frankly despicable minions.

This is all to say that Disney plays the long game when necessary. After the tempered success of Princess and the Frog in 2009 and Tangled a year later, it became more than clear to me and others that Lassetter’s Disney was on a true comeback, beginning with Bolt and carrying on today to Frozen.

You see, Disney has been experimenting over the past few years with what I call the “Disney-Pixar-Dreamworks” trilogy. They’ve taken the strongest elements of each animation studio and developed full-fledged Disney movies with them.

One might argue that this all started with Meet The Robinsons or the aforementioned Bolt, but these movies were mere precursors to what Disney would ultimately settle on creatively. No, this all started with Tangled, a new take on a classic Disney character named Rapunzel.

The checklist is simple:

1. Does the movie have a Disney Princess and/or fantasy setting?

2. Are the animation and storytelling in sync, as it is with Pixar?

3. Does it contain lovable side characters that shape the marketing campaign akin to Dreamworks?

This list is a complete yes to the “trilogy” that is Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, and Frozen. And it shows in how Frozen in its most basic components is a mixture of several movies and concepts: It has the character relationships of Shrek, the plucky female from Tangled, and the Broadway musical effort of Wicked (complete with the plot of two sisters at odds with each other).

This is no complaint, as Frozen manages to also maintain its own originality and charm between the pages, mostly thanks to the ambitious retelling of The Snow Queen (though the similarities between stories is slim at best), a story that isn’t told often enough complicated by Disney’s best soundtrack in years, perhaps since Mulan or Lilo and Stitch if you’re an Elvis fan.

 

frozen

The Snow Queen is an old Danish fairytale most audiences have never heard of, centering around two sisters who happen to be princesses living in a kingdom Disney has deemed Arendelle. The oldest sister, Elsa, has magic powers of no explanation: she can turn anything into snow or ice for reasons the audience is never clued in on, thankfully. As she grows older, her powers become harder to control, and for reasons I won’t spoil, she shuns her doting sister, Anna, for the majority of their childhood.

The opening sequence to Frozen is clearly gunning for the same emotional beats of Up and its first eight minutes, offering a lively, albeit sad look at the broken relationship between these two girls. You don’t have to be a sister or have one to feel the cloying sentiment in this number, aptly called Do You Want to Build a Snowman?

frozen

After an unfortunate incident, Elsa unintentionally curses the kingdom with an eternal winter (even though it’s summer), covering the land in snow and paranormal snow creatures. She runs away in order to isolate herself and is pursued by Anna and some of her new friends, a group of misfit characters to put it kindly.

Plot-wise, the story is strong and well-written, focusing more on its comedic timing than anything all that dramatic, but the music seems to be the tool that delivers the film’s most poignant moments, including some key lessons meant to empower young girls, including a twist on the romantic love story that is sure to delight parents.

The characters, for the most part, are likable and effortless in their inclusion as this is Anna and Elsa’s story.  When we are introduced to Kristoff and his reindeer Sven, who have a friendship reminiscent of Han Solo and Chewbacca, the movie succeeds at making them a worthwhile addition without distracting from the main plot. Even Olaf, who should have been annoying in hindsight, provided the levity and fun required of him in a film that could otherwise be deemed dark and heavy-handed.

frozen

The only complaint worth lodging at Frozen in my view is the ending, as it goes with many animated movies of recent years. It’s not terrible in any sense, but it is a slight let down in how the film builds and executes, aside from a minor twist on the material involving the impact of the two sisters and their relationship. For every other character, there’s little for them to do by the final minutes.

Other than that, Frozen is a fantastic installment in the Disney archives, providing a new and fun adventure that children and nostalgic young adults like myself will enjoy thoroughly.

Review: ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’

When Harry Potter jumped from book to major motion picture, it crossed a cultural threshold that truly shaped the new millennium of not just cinema, but books, television and even theme park rides.

We began to demand for stories rich with lovable characters, epic moments and fantastical settings on a mainstream scale, something that hadn’t really been demanded since Stars Wars.

hunger games

Recall that it was during this era that comic book movies exploded with appeal, and an “impossible” story like The Lord of the Rings captured everyone’s attention. Basically, fantasy was king over the last decade.

Of course, all good things come to an end (that is hopefully as good), and we said goodbye to Harry Potter and his friends toward the end of the 2000s. Since 2008, we’ve been bombarded with more book-movies than ever before, with studios rushing to create the next Twilight franchise of success.

Surprisingly for movie-makers (but not moviegoers), 2013 was not the year that Beautiful CreaturesThe Host or The Mortal Instruments achieved mainstream appeal (for good reason I might add). No, it was the sequel to a movie based on a book that isn’t about vampires, chosen ones, destiny or other fantastical themes. It’s about people.

Go on…Review: ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’