Mockingjay Part 1

"Miss Everdeen, it's the things we love most, that destroy us."

So the ultimate teen franchise of this generation is just one step away from reaching its final chapter. Of course in typical teenage saga fashion it has to split its final chapter into two parts to rake in more money. I say that because as good as the effects and acting of this instalment are, they feel as if they are just a prelude.

Katniss Everdeen is now in District 13 having been thrust forward as the symbol of a mass rebellion against the capital. Under the leadership of President Coin she must fight to save the life of Peeta and an entire nation inspired by her acts of courage.

This film is quite a different experience from the previous two. Firstly there is the complete lack of an actual Hunger Game(s?). But even without the whole child murdering contest this one still manages to be darker and more dramatic in tone. It focusses much more on the concept of influence, propaganda and strategy. Like some Iron Curtain based uprising, which in many ways that is probably where Suzanne Collins drew a lot of inspiration from. I like those elements it feels like a rather intelligent move for a teen cantered film, it’s more complex and thought provoking.

The ambition of this third film is obvious. It manages to build a large amount of tension and make the viewer fully realise the gravity and scale of what they are doing. The intricate and comparatively small emotions of the characters aren’t neglected against this big backdrop and they are all given an excellent portrayal, particularly Jennifer Lawrence, as ever.

The political elements work well and suit the tone of the film. It takes the franchise to another level in a lot of ways. But these characters that are all thrown in can make the film feel a bit jumbled, a lot of elements struggle to really stand out. They’re all presented in a good way and manage to grab your attention but when surrounded by so many changing plot points and political motivations they appear to be a bit forgettable in terms of personal developments. That can also take away some of the tension when you do not really care about the characters who might be in danger because there are so many other players in this saga left alive, either kill some off or narrow your focus. Like I said before Lawrence makes an excellent and down-to-earth (which no one has ever described her as before) performance which makes it immensely believable and relatable. And of course, in his last role, Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Also, with so much politics involved it leaves room for little action. It may become more complex than the others but it sacrifices nearly all of the heart pumping action we had in them. This is supposed to be a war after all but we see a noticeable lack of activity from our heroes. The pacing begins to feel a bit slow after nearly two hours of mainly propaganda theories. The excuse for this would be of course ‘the action takes place in the second part’ and that is fine, but there lies Mockingjay Part 1’s main problem.

It still just feels like a build-up. I criticised the Maze Runner for trying too hard to be an incentive to watch the sequels and it happens here as well. It almost feels like a film with no finale. Catching Fire did very well, in remembrance, to avoid this feeling. Mockingjay cannot do this in such a manner and the fact that it has Part 1 in the title just makes it more obvious.

Overall Mockingjay is a good way to increase the stakes and tension through political activism for what promises to be quite an epic finale. But some more action would not go amiss and at the end of the day this is still just a build-up.

Result: 6/10  

Life Itself

"He is a soldier of cinema."

It should not come as a surprise that Roger Ebert is a bit of a hero of mine. He is an incredibly influential figure in the world of cinema and here is his life story. For anyone who considers themselves a fan of films then you have to know about Ebert. If you go to his website www.RogerEbert.com then you will find a statement that reads, ‘Roger Ebert loved movies’. Nothing could be as true as that.

Documenting the 70 year life of Roger Ebert, the most successful film critic of all time, this documentary explores his personal and professional life on an entirely new level, from his legendary arguments with colleague Gene Siskel to his tragic cancer diagnosis, with contributions from family and friends including Martin Scorsese himself.

While I may not agree with all of Ebert’s opinions on film (he was dismissive of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, I film I love, but named Juno as the best film of 2007, and I have never really liked Juno at all) his outspoken nature and passion for the movies was unrivalled and one that all critics hope to emulate in their own reviews. This may sound like an overstatement but when you have everyone from Oprah to Obama, and Spielberg in between, giving tributes to a man you know it’s pretty influential.

This documentary perfectly captures those elements of Ebert. Director Steve James (who indecently directed Hoop Dreams, a film that Ebert awarded four out of four stars) has been allowed full access to aspects of Ebert’s life during its final stages, including his hospital ward and home life. Despite his physical deterioration that old spirit within him is still burning as fiercely as ever. Life Itself manages to be innovative and informative whilst retaining a large amount of emotional depth. That is quite a feat for documentaries since they deal with facts and opinions, they are supposed to educate not evoke.

But here it seems as if this tone is entirely appropriate. Roger Ebert as more than just a guy who wrote about films, he entwined his own opinion with his life experiences, he drew what he knew from his own life to reach his judgement and nothing more. Considering he had an occupation that involved sitting down and typing, Life Itself does an excellent job at keeping the viewer interested. You would not have to be a fan of Ebert to enjoy this film, just a fan of movies.

But if you are a fan of Ebert then you will be delighted by the realm of unseen footage on offer here. The countless arguments and debates between Ebert and Siskel are worth the price of admission in my opinion. The more I see them together the more I realise how complex and humorous their relationship was. You could not create a pair like these two, you just couldn’t. Their varying opinions clash repeatedly, on more than one occasion one would physically try to overturn the other’s thumb when they cast their votes on At the Movies. The widows of both critics offer an insight to their personal and professional relationship, and to top it all off as I have already said, Martin Scorsese is there to offer his opinion.

Life Itself is a film worthy of critical acclaim, worthy of fans and followers of cinema but above all it is a film worthy of Roger Ebert. And praise does not come higher than that.

Result: 

Ouija

"As friends we've gathered, our hearts are true, spirits near we call to you."

2014 has been quite an impressive year for horror. First there was the impressive Oculus, that didn’t let its low budget hold it back from achieving great scares. Then there’s The Babadook, whose execution and application of its scares is nothing short of masterful. Now we have Ouija, which nearly destroys everything that they and other films have built in this genre.

After one of their friends meets a sudden and unexpected end, a group of teenagers decide to try and talk to her one last time through the mysterious Ouija board. But they soon discover that this game may be all too real.

Okay, if you want to get a better idea of what this film is like take every horror cliché you can imagine and put them together. Then remove any clichés that might be even mildly interesting and fill them with usual generic high school clichés, remembering to avoid any interesting material there as well. Then you have Ouija.

For a start horror movies are elevated if you have good likable characters. But here you get what you expect to get, there’s dumb generic teenagers. One of them is pessimistic, another is superstitious, another is paranoid, another is overly confident… you get the idea. Naturally when these opposing characters come together they naturally confer in an amusing and entertaining manner. Sorry, did I say ‘amusing and entertaining’, I meant pretentious and unnatural. That’s better. We do not care about any of them; all that you can hope for in this film is that they all die spectacularly because they are so annoying.

It’s one thing to make a horror film this generic, but Ouija is just so boring. I mean really, really f*****g BORING! A spectacular death would be something, anything would be something, something has to happen. But it never does. It builds and builds and builds, unsuccessfully, before delivering in a way that fails to make neither any sense nor any entertainment merit. It tries so hard to build tension but it fails so miserably that it’s almost laughable, except it isn’t because the film thinks of itself as the kind of horror films that uses subtlety to scare. That works if you build enough tension but as I said before this doesn’t, it just looks stupid and lazy as a result.

Even if they had managed to build some tension the effects of this film are so appalling it takes away any fear that Ouija may have generated by chance. The small budget really shows, but as we’ve seen it doesn’t have to be that way, look at Oculus. For god’s sake, the excellent Moon had the same budget as this film.

Speaking of Moon, a great psychological sci-fi thriller, Ouija fails to reach the audience not only on a physical but a psychological level as well. It has no tension and does not appeal to any common fear. Despite not even reaching the 90 minute mark this film feels much longer. It just appears to go on forever, you want it to end quickly, (spoiler) and annoyingly that is exactly what happens for the teenagers. No satisfying or scary death, just a quick and boring one.

Michael Bay produced this as well. That’s the only conclusion I can give.

Result: 1/10

The Imitation Game

"The greatest encryption device in history, the Germans use it for all communications, 159,000,000,000 possible combinations, unbreakable. Let me try and we'll know for sure."

If you had asked me a few days ago is 2014 a better year for films that 2013 I would have said no. However, having seen The Imitation Game I am most definitely thinking about possibly considering saying maybe.

The true story of Alan Turing and a team of cryptanalysts who led the charge to crack the German Enigma code that would help the allies to win World War 2. Along the way we learn more about a damaged individual whose secrets go far beyond British intelligence.

Though it may look as if Benedict Cumberbatch is playing his usual forte here as a genius who solves mysteries. But like the film, he may appear to be slick and smooth on the surface he actually is seen as a murky and frighteningly unconfident mathematician. Not only is this man working undercover for the British government he has to hide his true sexual identity, something that he would have been persecuted for at the time.

It would be easy for this film to become bogged down by the ultimately tragic end to Turing’s story. But instead it focusses more on the great achievement of this man, essential the inventor of the computer itself. It’s a celebration of his work. You’re reading this article online and you owe that to Alan Turing. To watch what he did and in the way that Cumberbatch portrays him you really become aware of his brilliance. As a debut for writing Graham Moore has a fairly spectacular debut with this fast paced, intelligent and elegant telling of this story. The dialogue is so quotable as well from ‘no matter how smart your are Enigma is smarter’ to ‘it takes a machine to beat a machine’. It all works brilliantly, at the very start of the film you hear to words ‘are you paying attention’ and from that moment it is impossible not to.

The performances of this film are just in another league, on the basis that they all work perfectly on their own and side-by-side. Cumberbatch gives a wonderful portrayal of a genius trying to solve a mystery who is himself a mystery. His performance anchors this film and it is a strong anchor. Charles Dance is back on top form following his rather disappointing performance in Dracula Untold, Matthew Goode does a superb job and his interaction with Turing is the kind of character development that really adds a beating heart to this film. It is great to see the people around him slowly warm to the unconventional and awkward Turing. Kiera Knightly also proves to be essential to the way this story develops so it’s a good thing that she gives a tender yet powerful performance here. On paper some of the characters may seem a bit one dimensional but they all come alive on screen.

The reason I really like this film is because it manages to balance both necessary elements to tell Turing’s story brilliantly. On the one hand this is a biopic, a good old fashioned adventure about cracking codes and feeling proud to be British and whatnot. But from another angle The Imitation Game is a thriller, pure and simple. This is the birth of artificial intelligence, and it likes to point out that fact. Due to the fact that Turing cannot openly express his sexuality he can only show emotion to this machine that he has created, so it causes some unlikely questions to come into light, like the Deckard conundrum from Blade Runner.

The narrative juggles three different time structures, from Turing’s school days, his work as a code-breaker and after the war to the more tragic side of these events.  It deals with them very well and in a neatly intertwined way. The clear context can create a character that is so unreadable that you actually begin to question whether he could be a Soviet spy as the British government suspects.

Through an intelligent and thrilling mix of fascinating good-old-fashioned code breaking and bittersweet tragedy, The Imitation Game is a wonderful portrayal of a man ahead of his time in terms of personality and professionalism.

Result: 10/10     

Serena

"I never thought I'd find you, I never thought I'd find anyone."

Serena feels like it should be something artistic rather than a film with A-list stars like Bradley Cooper and Jenifer Lawrence who have become the hottest screen couple in recent years as a result of Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle. Apparently Serena has gone through a vigorous editing process and a lengthy wait for Susanne Bier’s next picture. Is it worth it, well…

In an America crippled by the Great Depression a privileged landowner gambles everything to create a timber empire. His partner, a spirited woman named Serena. But as their relationship and business hopes deteriorate, romantic jealousy, ruthless ambition and a horrendous loss leads to a fall into madness.

I was expecting this to be a romantic melodrama. I would like to say that it was the attitude I held for most of this film until a sudden but inevitable fall into tragedy. I say inevitable because right from the start the eventual fate and point of the tragedy seems obvious. The film therefore fails to intrigue or grab the audience at any point. I can’t help but think that originally the film focussed more on the community and was changed when its two stars were thrust into the limelight. That suggests that a broader film is out there with Serna but instead it chooses to concentrate its focus for commercial reasons.

What you’re left with is quite a flat, if not very good looking drama. The director doesn’t seem to know what to do with her two stars. This was filmed before their breakout roles and at this point it appears that they were used for their looks more than anything. There are more sex scenes by the fireplace than the amount that seems necessary, which in this context appears to be none. Lawrence does a decent job but considering the standard of her other performances decent is quite possibly the worst way to describe her other roles.

Although I really enjoy almost everything he does Cooper just doesn’t fit this role. He’s supposed to be playing a damaged character but there’s no grit and harsh nature behind the charm. He just looks like a nice person pretending to be nasty. It’s impossible to root or connect with anyone either. The characters lack the morality that allows us to relate to them and fail to understand what they are going through. It also struggles to rack up any tension whatsoever.

Some haunting and effective cinematography can’t hide the almost comically overwrought nature of Serena. The soundtrack is also appallingly bland, there’s no punctuating or poignant moment in the film and it lacks anything that will make it standout. The narrative becomes hard to be invested in and above all else you simply do not care.

Serena gets tangled in its own artistic merit as well. If this was some subtitled piece with an unknown cast it would appear to be a wonderful subtle romantic tragedy. But the film is too commercially centred to pass itself off as a triumph of art.

The most annoying thing is that there is a constant feel of compromise. It crumbles under its own commercial and artistic weight and fails to go I its own separate way. For most of this film I was just left wondering what it could have been rather than what it is trying to be.

Result: 3/10  

Dracula Untold

"Sometimes the world doesn't need another hero. Sometimes what it needs is a monster."

It’s safe to say that vampire films have taken a slight knock in recent years. They have become a bit of a joke and thought of only as a way to influence teenagers into buying their merchandise. This newest incarnation promises a back to basics story, reconnecting with the essence of Bram Stoker’s creation. In reality it gives us a very different experience.

Like many of the villains that have recently been given a backstory Mr Dracula is merely a misunderstood citizen who resorts to desperate measures to prevent the Turks from enslaving his son. He undergoes a monstrous transformation that turns him into a creature with a lust for blood and power over bats.

This is definitely the most predictable and pretentious film I’ve seen in a while. The fact that after the first half an hour you know exactly how the film will end certainly take a lot of the tension out of the process. Half of the time Dracula resorts to using its own characters stupidity rather than come up with an intelligent plot or reasons for the film to last another ten minutes. I felt as if they were stalling for time at every opportunity and kept trying to introduce new elements of story but none of it really worked.

There was virtually no emotional attachment to any of the characters. Luke Evans does a reasonably good job as Dracula and gave it his all on what he was given. The villain is just a standard villain, very forgettable and could have been played by anyone. Even Charles Dance disappointed me in this movie. When Tywin Lannister can’t turn words into gold you know you have a problem with the scripting. The character of Dracula, especially in this context is a great troubled soul and you should be able to at least scratch the surface. But no, he’s fairly one dimensional, like I said Evans gives a nice heroic portrayal but that’s about it.

Some impressive special effects and well-choreographed battle scenes are all that the director Gary Shore has going for him. Apart from that he fails to make the film stand out in any way. It resembled nearly every film of this genre that we’ve seen before. As well as this the film feels so much longer than it actually is. You’re just waiting to get to the next action scene and skip through all of the emotionless talking because nothing is happening in those parts, certainly not character development. One of the redeeming features of Dracula Untold was that it managed to keep the runtime as low as it could so I wasn’t completely bored.

Dracula Untold also takes itself way too seriously. I can appreciate someone wanting to make a serious vampire film again but when you finish your script and there are this many faults and flaws with it just take out some of the hard-core stuff because none of it works when set against this more cartoonish take on the story.

In essence this is just a story that we’ve seen before many times but to a much lower standard. This was supposed to be Universal’s reboot of an entire universe of monster movies. But this was just such a rocky start that I really doubt whether they’ll make any more. As well as this I simply do not want to see anything else coming out from this universe. One outing sucked all of the blood out of me long before the word vampire was mentioned.

Result: 2/10     

Interstellar

"Mankind was born on earth, it was never meant to die here."

From what I can go on, Interstellar seems to have divided audiences slightly. Not on a great level like 2001 or Blade Runner did upon their release, but it has split some of its biggest fans much more than I expected. One might argue that Interstellar drifts between, an explorative journey that will take the viewer further than any other science fiction adventure before it and a film stuffed with too many ideas and a narrative disconnect.

In the distant future the Earth is dying, massive shortages of basic resources have made living conditions impossible. To make matters worse the only produce left is starting to die as well. The only chance for humanity is a mission to discover another habitable planet  by voyaging through a wormhole.

Interstellar is a quintessential Christopher Nolan film. He could be the only recent director to have his name become a vocabulary, the term Nolanising refers to adding more realism, and that is certainly present in Interstellar. It takes two years just to reach the wormhole in the first place, that is just one harsh inevitable fact that is unavoidable. As well as this the film is undoubtedly beautiful, its director puts a truly seamless blend of practical and CGI effects. There’s a pioneering effort to combine all elements of filmmaking that have come to define modern films at their best.

As well as being thrilling Interstellar manages to play with some heavy and head-scratching theories of time. Don’t mistake this for a time travel film, but the concept of time itself is a major part in adding to the tension the film generates. These theories are based mostly on real scientific theories but you can easily pinpoint the moments where realism is abandoned in favour of plot devices. The last act feels a bit disconnected. It breaks away from the narrative and plausibility that the rest of the film maintains really well. But then again this is called science-‘fiction’. You can add more fantastical elements alongside the space travel and science mumbo-jumbo.

Much of this story delves into the realm of the unknown. Inevitably you will draw similarities between this and Kubrick’s masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. Rather than asking questions that you do not know the answers to though, Interstellar seems that ask questions that you do not know how to say in the first place. Near the end it seems to defy its own laws of logic, or at least rearrange them to suit its own plot. But like I said before, what is the point of making a film like this if you are going to abide perfectly by the laws of physics. And without wanting to spoil it, but no one really knows what would really happen should the events depicted actually be carried out.

This film is perfectly cast and every performance works. That is a simple fact. Michael Cane delivers, so does Ann Hathaway. But without a doubt Matthew McConaughey is the stound-out actor here. He leads this film as well as he has any other of his recent comeback, it makes you glad that he did make a comeback. He plays Cooper, a single dad and that is normally an annoying cliché in a disaster scenario. But here the relationship between Cooper and his daughter is the driving force of this film, it’s what motivates the main character and their relationship spans across the cosmos to such a point where you want Cooper to succeed purely for her sake, never mind the rest of humanity.

Additionally the soundtrack is really effective, like hairs-on-the-back-of-your-neck-stand-up-good. Hans Zimmer has never failed to compose an immersive piece of music when working for Nolan and he has done so again here. There is even some great humour woven throughout, especially in the form of TARS, a slab-formed robot that interacts so well with Cooper that you want them to be the only people on the mission.

It is difficult to review Interstellar because if you have to explain any elements that you do not like then you give away what the essence of Interstellar is, it’s an experience. And it is one worth having Nolan successfully reaches a mass audience while maintaining an intelligent backdrop. For those of you who have issues, all I can say is that you’re probably the kind of person who would have walked out of 2001 upon its original release. If you don’t agree then you should love and admire this film.

I would put Interstellar up there with the great works of science fiction like Star Wars, 2001, and Close Encounters, and that means that Nolan is up there with the great science fiction visionaries like Lucas, Kubrick and Spielberg. It’s spectacular, entertaining, emotionally resounding and visually stunning throughout. In the simplest terms, it’s out of this relative dimensional time zone.

Result: 9/10 

Mr Turner

"The universe is chaotic, and you make us see it."

Released on the same day as the thrilling Nightcrawler, I was more eager to see the film by Dan Gilroy than this biopic from Mike Leigh. I was so impressed by Nightcrawler that I immediately named it my favourite film of the year so far. But now, the very next film that I saw after it, Mr Turner has made my final decision much harder.

The film follows great, yet eccentric, sea and landscape artist JMW Turner during the final 25 years of his life. Here we see him at the height of his fame and talent as an artist where he is admired and reviled by the public and becomes increasingly distant from the rest of the world.

It may be quite a vague plot summary but it’s difficult to sum of a biopic without giving too much away. I really liked this film. Mainly because it’s a fun film, especially the immensely enjoyable performance from Timothy Spall. For one thing I’ve never seen, or rather heard, so much grunting in a film. It really is astonishing how much that deep voice chooses to respond with a small simple noise rather than the more common and complex response. Spall excellently portrays this confident, but not vain, modest, but still aware of his own genius, creature. And I say creature because in many ways he does seem immensely adrift from the normal ideals of a human. Turner is a complex figure, one of such intelligence, but one that also gives way to the simplest of flawed desires that have plagued the most simple minded people as well.

The film is simultaneously intricate in detail yet epic in scope. There is a beautiful sense of wonder and amazement despite the fact that Mr Turner is so heavily grounded in reality. In a reflection of its title character’s personality, Mr Turner feels as if it could break away into fantasy if it wanted to, but it remains rooted to the earth for social convention.

The imagery is so magical, as if it were lifted out of a painting. Taking full advantage of not only the perspective of its main character but also using the luminous landscapes and some fancy camerawork. It really demonstrates director Mike Leigh’s talent as an artist. This entire film feels like a piece of art, something that was crafted with incredible detail.

It’s far from a stuffy costume drama though. The language used throughout marks the nostalgic view of the era and has as much fun with it as it can. Mr Turner may know the true art behind the story, but it sees the ugly side of it as well. With themes like that it could easily become an over dramatic period piece. But instead it’s not afraid to have some fun in the process.

Spall gives more than a performance here. He undergoes a metamorphism-like transformation in the process of Mr Turner. It really is something else, acting seems like too small a word it just feels like this is a human being. More than anything else I’ve seen on screen in a long time this is simply a person, with real thoughts and emotions and talents that can’t have been created or even portrayed because every single detail fits so well with what the character has been established as. The supporting cast do a fantastic job as well, they would have to in order to ensure the success of this story. While Turner is a remarkable character it’s the people around him that influence what he does.

The 2014 Oscars are rapidly becoming a hotly contended event. Mr Turner seems to have a shot at every category, it fills every box. Epic, beautiful and spectacularly performed as well as being hilarious and heartfelt. It is a piece of art.

Result: 10/10

Nightcrawler

"I'm a hard worker. I set high goals. My motto is, 'If you want to win the lottery, you have to make the money to buy a ticket."

When I’d finished watching this film and was preparing to review it I discovered something startling. Dan Gilroy, the director of this suburban thriller, is actually showing his debut here. I can say straight away, this is what you would call not bad for a first time director. And by ‘not bad’ I mean, quite possibly the best film of the year.

A lone drifter Lou Bloom is looking for a job. One night he witnesses a horrific accident and spots a cameraman filming the carnage. The next morning he sees that same footage on the news and realises that he has found his calling. Assembling a team of free-lance journalists Bloom starts to convert damage into dollars but as he continues to thrive he becomes the star of his own show.

Where do I start with a film like this? I suppose I should begin with Jake Gyllenhaal, I know he’s a good actor, a very good one in fact. But here he is barely recognisable, he seems so out of character from his usual performances, but it works so well. He plays this unhinged sociopath with such ferocity and an eerie charisma within. It’s unnerving and frightening beyond all levels to watch his descent through this tale of motivation and social hierarchy. Gyllenhaal has created given breath to the anti-hero of this generation. He is the same age as DeNiro when he did the very same as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver and he gives a performance that easily rivals that of the cinema legend.

This may come back to haunt me later. But I’m saying it anyway, Jake Gyllenhaal is getting nominated for the Oscar. Not only that, but I think it will take a lot to prevent him from winning this year.

Rather than being based on plot the film acts as an intricate character study. Naturally that means your character has to be well-written. And that is exactly what we have in Nightcrawler. Bloom’s goal is not to conquer the world of crime, but he does wish to be successful, through any means necessary. His lack of morality allows him to go to great lengths to accomplish what he wants, and he believes that success only comes to those who earn it. The complexity of this character becomes more obvious on screen, the moral line is warped beyond belief.

Initially it appears that Bill Paxton’s character, a worthy rival to Gyllenhaal in terms of character portrayal and emotional complexity, will be the enemy of this film. But as it goes on you realise that this depends completely on opinion. You want to get a more clear answer of how far you have to go in this world before it becomes unacceptable.

It sounds like it could be filled with social satire, and it is. But it doesn’t go too far until it becomes too comical, it remembers that it’s a drama and it maintains itself in that status throughout . Rene Russo acts as the media outlet who allows Bloom to thrive and she really gives a thought provoking performance. She may seem innocent in this story but she allows Bloom to carry out these acts, she lets a man who wishes to rid humanity of diversity and finds its sense of morality puzzling have access to the most gruesome of crimes.

The whole dark and gritty nature of the film comes from the scary performance, but also the superb direction in which the streets become a maze of death and destruction. The more you watch this film the more you realise that this is what the media focusses on toady. The only interesting subjects seem to be bad things, and Nightcrawler really draws attention to yourself for that, you’ll question why you watch the news.  It demonstrates the talent of Gilroy, who not only masterfully directed this film but wrote it as well. Creative freedom has brought out the best in him.

I’m not saying this film is for everyone. If you like things like Taxi Driver then you will love it, but there is a chance that it will still disturb you in a few ways. It’s unsettling to know that so much of this plot and character development is firmly grounded in reality.

Thrilling, dark, stunning direction and exceptionally performed, Nightcrawler is a psychological masterpiece that’s unlike anything I’ve seen before.

Result: 10/10