Nightcrawler

Los Angeles at night. Is there a more sprawled out canvas of "anything can happen" in America? The city itself is a dark and tempting character, with iconic sights from the Hollywood Hills, to Mulholland Drive. Beverly Hills to the Pacific Highway. The bright lights and the dark streets of this flat, urban landscape. It's hard to imagine nearly 4 million people live in the limits, yet there is something that is so attractive. The more movies you've seen, the more tempting she is. It's a magical city, and director Dan Gilroy captures her dark, seedy magic as if it were one of the characters. I haven't been this impressed with LA as a main character since Collateral, or Heat. You might even say that this seems like a low-budget Michael Mann film.

Jake Gyllenhaal is mesmerizing as Lou Bloom. To say he's a bit quirky and creepy would be an understatement, and Jake nails it. Lou is a borderline sociopath looking for some direction in life. He is intelligent, but not educated, and doesn't seem to have any friends, family, or connections. The back story doesn't matter though because Lou is such an interesting character. Gyllenhaal lost a considerable amount of weight to play the gaunt, almost Kafka-esque version of his former self. His bug eyes, greasy hair, and emaciated features create a compelling anti-hero. He becomes entranced by the world of crime photo-journalism, stumbling upon an accident scene and marveling at the adrenaline rush of human misery and society's infatuation with watching. A man with little conscience, this is right up his alley. As a quick study, he discovers that he is actually pretty good at the job and thrives on the carnage besieging the city at night. As he starts to make a decent living, he befriends a news station program director (Rene Russo) more out of the mutual absence of moral integrity and the craving of profitability, and less out of actual friendship. Things begin to spiral out of control when Lou loses himself in his job, not at all motivated by the money as much as the respect of the news station, and the adoration of the public.

Nightcrawler preys on the voyeuristic instinct of all of us, and Tony Gilroy throws us right in the middle of the nasty world of network news. The approach is highly cynical, and you won't leave the film feeling very good about yourself. Or humanity. Or anything really. In fact, that's what Gilroy manages to accomplish; an icky feeling after watching this deplorable and despicable subculture cannibalize themselves and each other. Why would you want to watch a film like this, you ask? Because just like the car wrecks on the highway, you can't look away. That's the catch-22.

Gilroy and his brother hit the scene a few years back with the brilliant Michael Clayton, and Nightcrawler is brilliant in an entirely different way. The way that Network made us look at news dissemination through a cautious lens, Nightcrawler questions the ethics of the industry when ratings are the only true measure of success. It's an unscrupulous industry, and it's people like the entrepreneurial Lou Bloom who keep it moving at a darker and more graphic pace.

The plot isn't anything clever or even unpredictable, but Gilroy captures the essence of the film through his use of rising tension. The music is subtle but effective, and the pacing is sound for a novice filmmaker. What holds the film together however, is the City of Angels at night, and Lou Bloom. Outstanding job for a film with a budget of only $8.5 million. Expect it to be an awards sleeper.

In the end, you get so caught up in this seedy world, that you don't know whether to root for Bloom to achieve success, or root against him and his insatiable appetite for (insert human misery here). Does it make you a bad person if you secretly root for him? Of course, but it's the movies and the best performances are the ones who cause you to sympathize with a character despite his tremendous flaws. For that, Jake Gyllenhaal has accomplished his objective, and I expect he will receive an Oscar nomination in the process. Still one of the more underrated actors around when it comes to talent and potential (his role in Prisoners was amazing), he gets his first Best Oscar nomination for Nightcrawler.

The violent news culture we live in is amplified on screen, and this film isn't for everyone, but for a crime drama/thriller, it's definitely entertaining. Gyllenhaal impresses me once again. 8/10.

John Wick

John Wick is a hitman coming out of retirement seeking revenge on the mob family who stole his car and killed his puppy. It sounds pretty dubious, but it works, and here's why: It doesn't pretend to be anything other than a good old-fashioned action revenge flick. It is short enough to captivate the audience's attention, rarely taking the foot off the accelerator. It's directed by a pair of veteran stuntmen, so the action is somewhere in between a B movie and a top shelf Hollywood action film. And finally, it doesn't attempt to create unnecessary character depth or back story. It knows what it needs to do, and it delivers.

John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is a legendary operator in the community of wet work, and he's respected and feared by everyone. Since retiring and settling down with a family, his wife gets sick and dies, leaving him a puppy as his only remaining link to her memory. A reckless son of a Russian mobster breaks into his house, steals his car, and kills his dog, unleashing the fury and rage that has been building within Wick. What unfurls is a killing spree in a series of action sequences that keeps the momentum and the tone of the film light enough to fully enjoy, but fast enough to appreciate.

Reeves is in his element, and at 50 years old, is showing that he's aging gracefully in the path of Tom Cruise. He seems to get better with age, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Keanu make his presence known in the action arena over the next 10 years. His next project is titled Rain. He plays John Rain, an assassin who makes his victims look like they died of natural causes. Is there a trend developing here? Long thought to be a joke of an actor, with some pretty memorable lines throughout the 80's, 90's, and even through his Matrix trilogy, he is more soft-spoken in John Wick, and delivers a self-knowing, mature performance. Not to be taken seriously, but comfortable and confident where he is. One thing is certain, he is pretty solid at action.

The directors, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski have been around Hollywood for years as stuntmen, so their experience is vast, but their shelf-life as directors is probably going to be limited. They create a pretty cool movie however, and the action sequences are solid. Nothing particularly noteworthy, but definitely popcorn friendly.

A Swede and a Brit play the father/son Russian mobsters, and although convincing, it's nothing that we haven't seen before. Willem Dafoe makes an appearance as a fellow assassin and John's seemingly only friend (although everyone who knows him pays him the respect of a king). Adrianne Palicki is the femme fatale, but doesn't get much screen time, nor are her best assets featured very prominently. It's alright though, because it's not that type of movie. It's about revenge.

John Wick is a surprisingly entertaining movie, and although its body count is pretty high, it's not done gratuitously, which makes it kind of fun. Reeves is a gunfighter, and this is 90 minutes of macho fantasy. Besides, any movie with Lance Reddick as a hotel concierge has to be pretty cool. 7/10.

Interstellar

"Do not go gentle into that good night" Dylan Thomas wrote way back in the mid 20th century, and there's a resounding sense of fatalism and fearless exploration in this villanelle that sums up the essence of Interstellar. Of course, when Michael Caine reads poetry, nearly anything can sound beautiful, haunting, and deep.

Tell me that Christopher Nolan and his brother wrote a sci-fi film that has deep personal meaning to them, and that Christopher is behind the camera, and I'll pay full price anytime. He is the master of modern sci-fi action films (sorry Ridley Scott), and not in the Michael Bay way, I'm talking about the way that is respected among audiences, critics, and frankly, Hollywood.

Interstellar is a film in two parts, the first is the Earthbound character development that seems a bit rushed, but also drags out as anticipation of part two lingers. We are in middle America, in the not so distant future, and it's not so much dystopian as it is a cautionary tale addressing both overpopulation and destruction of the environment. We are entering a 21st Century dust bowl, and life is looking bleak. Corn is the only crop that grows and scientists outlook isn't optimistic. Something drastic needs to be done to save the human race.

Enter Cooper (McConaughey). He's a former NASA test pilot who never got a chance to do what he was trained to do. With the collapse of social services comes the abolition of extra programs like space exploration, so the engineer finds himself out of work, and manning a respectable if not inane life as a farmer. He desperately wants better for both of his kids, nudging them into the sciences, droning on to anyone who will listen about how adventure and exploration are lost arts, and that agriculture is simply boring. Anyhow, he stumbles upon his long, lost brethren and they welcome him back, introducing him to the last bastion of hope for humanity, the Lazarus project. Headed by the indelible Michael Caine, a staple in Nolan's recent films, the Lazarus has the remaining NASA scientists; the best and the brightest, working on breakthrough quantum physics theories since discovering a black hole near Saturn.

Of course it's ridiculous, but Nolan spins a moderately believable yarn. Jumping on the idea that gravity is the only thing keeping humans from leaving Earth in a Star Trek fashion, it is the one theory that Caine's Professor Brand is dangerously close to cracking. In the meantime, they plan to send out brave astronauts through the black hole in search of an inhabitable planet for humans. Pretty grandiose idea.

The four-person crew is led by Cooper, and Brand's daughter, Amelia (Anne Hathaway). I'm not usually a fan, but performance/character is surprisingly likable. The other two are Wes Bentley (where has he been?) and David Gyasi as physicists, engineers, or some other sort of mission specialist. This begins part two. The space sequences are beautiful, and the excitement of the possibility of undiscovered science making science fiction just plain science is both fascinating and captivating. Part two is where the magic happens. The crew races against time (literally) in their search for the brave pioneer astronauts who sent their data out years ago, and as they explore interstellar space, there is a sense of claustrophobia as well as awe, and what unfolds is a very clear combination of Contact, Armageddon (yep, I threw a Bay film in the mix), and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

As the film reaches its inevitable and climactic conclusion, we are reminded that this is nothing short of a Christopher Nolan masterpiece. After pondering my slight disappointment, I realized that Nolan films are larger than life. There is no way that the film could ever meet expectations, and that is what makes it a must-see. He is a genius at his craft, plain and simple. The Dark Knight and Inception were two of the best films of the past decade, not just for content, but for layered thematic story lines and incredible character portrayal. Interstellar's characters aren't quite as memorable as the Joker, or DiCaprio's Cobb, but they are certainly better than Jodie Foster, or Bruce Willis and his crew. I imagine it will draw comparisons to last year's Gravity, but they are different creatures in different genres (I would call Gravity full-on realistic, but I'm not an astronaut, so I can't be quoted). Both hold strengths, and I would say Nolan is channeling his inner Stanley Kubrick more than anything else, and for that, he should be celebrated. 2001 was iconic in so many ways, it set the bar and hasn't been touched. Hell, Kubrick can't be touched in the pantheon of cinema, but Interstellar certainly makes a valiant effort.

There can be flaws noted, particularly nearing the climax and how it explains subtle clues from earlier in the film, but not in the giddy way that Inception demanded a second viewing, even though that's what I was expecting and hoping for. The theme of man's follies in destroying the beautiful planet is a bit heavy, as is the humanist spirit to protect it. And there is a sequence of Red Planet/Mission to Mars inspiration that is somewhat unnecessary, but it's really more of a speed bump than a road block. The music drowned out the dialogue at times, and seemed a bit overbearing, but the music was such an important part of both 2001 and Inception, so I can certainly see why they went that direction.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great film all around. A magically original story with high level science explained as if it were from a State University 101 class. Very smooth. I guess I wish that the 2 1/2 hours had gone on much, much longer. And that's why I'm giving it a 9/10.

Fury

Fury is a hellish look at WWII's final days through the eyes of a battle-hardened tank crew, and a pacifist newbie thrown in to replace a dead crew member before one last run into Germany. It's ugly, dirty, violent. But writer/director David Ayer wouldn't have it any other way. Colin Powell commented "This is really how it is" after watching a screening, and I can't help but agree (speculation, I've never been in war). There is very little glamour, and death is waiting for all of them at any given moment. The unnerving constant is how each of the men deal with the harsh reality of their own mortality.

The crew of Fury, the Sherman tank mobile home for a 5 man crew, is led by Brad Pitt, a man who is stoic and hard in front of his men. Brave and unshakeable. But he has his personal moments of silent insanity when nobody is watching. He knows that a true leader in war needs to be strong and confident, or else his crew will fail. He promises all of them that he will keep them safe if they follow his directions, and they all believe him; with every last ounce of their lives. Michael Pena (End of Watch) plays the driver without much emotion. He's a little bit too calm throughout the fray, but he is assuaged by Pitt's words of wisdom. Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead) plays the muscled crazy crewman who is the loader. Grimy and dirty, his job is to keep loading hulking shells, one after the other, and he gets a euphoric rush every time one of them is fired. Shia LeBeouf is the gunner, and although he's fallen on some harsh criticism since his Transformers roles, he is the centerpiece of the full emotional spectrum played out on the screen. A great role and great performance.

The focus of the film, however, lies in the heart of Logan Lerman's character. A brand new army typist, drafted right out of innocence, and thrust in to the war as a replacement gunner on Pitt's Fury crew. He's in way over his head, having never been in a tank, and never wanting to fire a weapon. There's a constant look of palpable fear that slowly wears away, like Novocaine subsiding, until the final act when he becomes what he fought so hard to avoid, a war machine.

There is constant tension through the claustrophobia inherent in the idea of a fortified mobile enemy target. Three well executed battle sequences show some of the harrowing faces of death, and Ayer does a nice job creating some dramatic shock value to amp up the tension. The idea that one well-placed rocket can cause an inferno, cooking the 5 men inside is a pulsating fear that slowly grows over the course of the film.

I've never seen a truly well done tank battle scene in the movies. Best I can recall, Patton and Courage Under Fire are the only 2 that come to mind, and their action is muted by the acting and the character studies. Fury's action scenes blow them away, bar none. Four Sherman tanks taking on the massive fortress of a German Tiger Tank is one of the coolest choreographed battle ballets intermixed with violence, blood, and explosions that I've seen in recent film. A truly remarkable achievement.

As the battle-torn Fury finally falls apart (not a spoiler, it's in the trailer), the men are faced with the ultimate decision. Fight or flee. Life or death. The final fight is a bit rushed, and a bit one-sided compared with what might have been the reality, but Fury leaves its mark.

Fury is the type of film that won't get the awards attention that I thought it would before viewing. It has the grittiness and violence of Saving Private Ryan, but it's missing something. Director David Ayer has carved out a Hollywood niche, and as long as there are profits, he'll keep making his movies. The human characters could use a bit more depth, and that's what I've thought since he broke on the scene with Training Day. Every subsequent film he's created has lacked character development.

Terrific action however, and brutally graphic death scenes. Ayer's next film falls in line with his wheelhouse, a remake of the Sam Peckinpah classic The Wild Bunch set in modern day Mexico. That will be a cool movie.

Fury is absolutely not for the timid, not for the masses. If your gut turned watching the violence of Saving Private Ryan, you might want to skip this. For the action film junkie however, Fury is pretty good. Dialogue and character development are certainly the weaknesses, but otherwise it's a very worthwhile use of two hours. I loved it and hated it, a rarity in my experience, but because of its strengths, I have to give it a 7/10.