Rating: 15/20
Plot: This is an uplifting rags-to-riches story about a man named Louis Bloom who teaches himself a craft and then manages to make a successful living for himself practicing that craft.
Any bonus points I might have given this movie for a great shot of a pair of windsock men followed by a close-up of one of the windsock men was taken away immediately after Bill Paxton kept saying "brah" for some reason. Bill Paxton. Fuck that guy! The guy just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, especially when you don't expect him. You know what Bill Paxton is like? He's like a piece of chocolate you grab randomly from the box because you're too lazy to read the box to find out what you're getting and then it turns out to be molasses or some equally-awful filler and you're like, "What the fuck? Am I eating a melted tree?" That's Bill Paxton! You're grabbing delicious cinematic chocolates and enjoying them immensely, and then suddenly Bill Paxton's in your mouth and you have to run to the sink to spit him out. Watch Bill Paxton in this movie and tell me that they couldn't have gotten anybody else to play that role. Why did it have to be Bill Paxton? Why does it ever have to be Bill Paxton? Shouldn't this guy be a carpenter or something?
You know who's really good? Maggie Gyllenhaal's brother is really good. He was great in Enemy, and he might be even better in Nightcrawler. This movie works much better as a character study than it does as a narrative. And Bloom's such an oddball character that it really takes a terrific performance to keep the whole thing grounded and not make the whole thing silly. I don't know how to diagnose Bloom, where he is on the autism spectrum or anything, but it's so much fun seeing a quality actor take on a role like this and not exaggerate the nuances. Gyllenhaal doesn't blink and speaks with this unwavering and balanced rhythm, so you recognize there's some sort of mental disorder although it's quite obviously one that gives him the focus necessary to accomplish what he's able to accomplish in this story. He's smart, but it's that scary kind of smart. He's also a sociopath, a true manipulative villain who you're forced to root for because he's at the center of the whole thing. Nearly in every single shot, Gyllenhaal carries the film on his shoulders, and even though you know you shouldn't root for him because he's up to no good, it's not like anybody else is really any better here. Somebody I know made the connection with Travis Bickle, and I made that connection as well even though there's more of an overt selfishness with Bloom. But like Taxi Driver, this is so driven by the character at the heart of the thing that you really forget everything but that character when it's all over. I love character-driven movies, especially when the actor portraying the character does it so memorably. Like Deniro, Maggie Gyllenhaal's brother takes some chances. And as scene with a mirror where a little bit of that rage you know is submerged deep within this guy comes out? Wow.
As a narrative, this had some problems. I'm not sure if some of what happened here could actually happen, but all of that, combined with the greasy ante-meridiem gloom of Los Angeles gave this an almost surreal quality. And this packs a satirical punch, almost like an updated Network, that gave it a little more of an edge. I don't think it's a movie for everybody. It's dark and unapologetic, and a lot of people won't like where this character is taken even though it's the sort of thing we're likely to just accept without any fuss in our real lives.
So what did you think of this movie, Brah?
7 comments:
These are the times when I wish I were the one writing a blog and you are the one that comes along and echoes my comments. I felt the exact same way watching this movie. The narrative was peripheral. I was glad to see the character and his actions so unapologetic. I certainly think Gyllenhaal carried it, but that's not to say that Rene Russo or his ride along, Riz Ahmed, didn't do their fair share. Of course Bill Paxton is a douchebag (is that two words?). Every movie he plays in, he's a modern-day D-bag. Casting director calls and says, "Hey we need a real suburban douchebag. Ya know, one that can't help but sound like an irritating rube..." Bill Paxton is the choice. He's type casted that way. At least you'll never see him spewing Shakespeare.
But, to the narrative: I held on the belief that someone could get ahold of a camera, ambulance chase, con his way into a news studio, get some lucky shots via illegal entry and persistence, and ultimately set two guys up for a shoot out. Even the car chases where he narrowly misses slipping and sliding police cars. What I couldn't stomach was that his luck never ran out.
We should have seen him succumb to his high-risk behaviors at some point. I had three scenarios all worked out:
1) The cops catch up withholding information, and he ultimately goes to jail for obstruction of justice.
2) He gets caught in one of his violent schemes and ends up a victim instead of a bystander.
3) He is exposed by one of his cohorts, is confronted, and ends either rejected and out of business, dead, or legal action.
The audience wants to see that narrative arch. It's not there with this hint to his continuing success. All it took was for one final chapter. The writers couldn't give us that?
If you want this blog, you can have it. I'll be your most frequent commenter.
On a more figurative level, I think the ending works. You see those vans pull away as Bloom's become this sort of force. He's replaced Paxton and is a more corrupted version of that douche bag. (Looks like that's two words, by the way.) The message, I think, is that this is the sort of thing that's accepted by society and that it's not going to go away unless somebody takes a stand. The media does get in the way of the truth a lot of times. The media's a self-serving enterprise. And they media--maybe not as blatantly as Gyllenhaal's character here--does often create the news.
I thought it was odd how the detective or police or whoever seemed disinterested in pursuing this guy. That woman seemed to have everything figured out. There wasn't enough there to get a warrant, seize this guy's computer as evidence, and figure out for sure that this guy obstructed? Maybe, I thought, this woman demonstrated us--as in, the masses. We know what goes on with the media but are unwilling to cry out against it because...well, because we're entertained.
So I think that's why I didn't mind the ending so much.
I don't know if I'd like any of your three endings actually. Bloom's just the kind of character who gets away with it.
I really like your deep reading of the movie. I didn't see the overall metaphor of Bloom=media and lame-duck detective=masses. That's definitely a way to justify the ending then.
Still, not having falling action and resolution is a tough pill to swallow. My point in creating the endings is to show how easy it would have been to take it in a number of directions just take make the movie more palatable to more audiences. People remember endings. They make some bad movies good, and good movies bad. I bet some people will walk away from this movie and call it "bad" just because of the end.
I'm trying to think of a movie where the ending ruined the whole thing for me. I can't think of one.
I just wrote about a 70's movie called 'Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry' that had that type of ending though. I kind of liked it, but I can see a lot of people watching the movie and then having this ending that seems random and almost makes the rest of the movie a waste of time.
But I can't think of a movie right now that I liked up until the ending and then ended up not liking BECAUSE of the ending. Can you? I'll brainstorm and see if I can come up with some.
Ahh, thought of one. Superman, the original. The one where he flies around the world really fast and erases everything that happened. That was a stupid ending that ruined the entire movie for me although I wasn't bothered by it until I was an adult.
Man, I wish Paxton could read this review. He was great in Aliens, and really good in A Simple Plan, though.
The G-man is terrific here...one of the best performances of the year. The film itself was very watchable, but it felt really manipulative with everything leading to the point it desperately wanted to make with the ending, regardless of logic. It has many things to recommend it, but to be great, the movie needed to feel creepier throughout, and more subtle in the end. A 15.
Hmmm...I didn't really feel that this was manipulative, and I thought it was sufficiently creepy. In fact, that's what I thought made Gyllenhaal's performance so strong.
He embodies this creepiness. A lack of subtlety though? Oh yeah. I really wanted to like this even more than I did, but I did like it a lot.
Poor Bill Paxton...I hope he never sees this. If he ever Googles his name and "douchebag" (or even "douche bag"), he might.
If you Google "Bill Paxton douche bag," you get 14,200 results, by the way.
Post a Comment