Horrible Bosses 2 Review

Refreshed and revenged-----Jason Bateman, Jason Sudekis and Charlie Day return, this time to get back their company by kidnapping a crazy rich guy (Chris Pine) in Horrible Bosses 2
                                The first Horrible Bosses made me laugh hard from start to finish and was another film that raised the bar superbly high for comedy, in my opinion. Now comes an unwarranted but completely irresistible sequel. Horrible Bosses 2 doesn't pull a Hangover Part II as audiences may have feared. Rather, it finds the three lovable idiots from the first film---Nick (Jason Bateman,) Kurt (Jason Sudekis) and Dale (Charlie Day) in a different situation, once again finding a way to make me laugh hysterically at every corner.

                                 This time, we begin with them on a talk show, explaining their new invention. It is called The Shower Buddy and it is a shower head that spurts out both water and shampoo. Upon feeling like it will never catch on, they receive a call from Bert Hanson (Christoph Waltz,) a business legend who wants to buy loads of their product. However, Bert decides to screw  them over and come up with The Shower Pal, which is just their invention with a better name. The film then follows Nick, Kurt and Dale as they fail to kidnap Bert's son Rex (Chris Pine) but find that he wants to screw over his old man anyway.

                                It's hard to review a film such as this because that whole last paragraph is fairly useless. The plot doesn't matter, it's just there to propel the constant jokes along. However, what does matter is if the film is funny and, as I had mentioned before, it very much is. It was obvious from the outtakes of the first film that Bateman, Sudekis and Day absolutely love working with one another. It was also obvious that people such as Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston and Jamie Foxx (all of whom return) had a blast letting their goofy sides out. It carries over into this film as the entire cast has amazing chemistry and clearly are still loving being with one another on the set. Bateman, Sudekis and Day nail almost every joke they deliver while Spacey, Aniston and Foxx provide excellent supporting comedic work. Foxx is especially good here, having a bigger role than in the last film and showing just how hilarious he can be. Pine is also extremely enjoyable, looking as energetic as ever and giving the character of Rex a completely uneasy nature without losing his comic charm.

                              One somewhat major complaint I had was that Waltz, incredible actor that he is, gets nothing to do here. He plays his role fine but the script gives his character no life or comedic energy. However, that's a small quibble for a film that I enjoyed so much. In fact, there are two gags in this film that I think are all timers. One involves a quick line in a hotel room and the other involves an extended sequence with a train. I was literally crying from laughing so hard at these two. The film has many other less major but still huge laughs every minute or so.

                               First and foremost Horrible Bosses 2 gets a lot of credit for trying something different and thoroughly succeeding. Secondly, the film gets props for making me laugh very audibly quite possibly over a hundred times and being even  funnier than the first. I won't say that this film will be to everyone's liking but if, like me, you thoroughly enjoyed the first one and/or love the actors at play here, then by all means go see it.
(4 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong crude sexual content and language throughout)

Rosewater Review

The spy who came in from the show---Gael Garcia Bernal as a dedicated journalist who gets mistaken for a spy in Rosewater
                                  It all but makes sense that the directorial debut of renowned television personality Jon Stewart is the drama Rosewater. After all, its subject, Maziar Bahari was detained in an Iranian prison for 118 days largely because he jokingly called himself out as a spy in an interview to a correspondent from "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." It is a frightening thought that the film provokes---tons of journalists are heavily detained, interrogated and worst of all, tortured in foreign countries due to their dedication to the craft. Bahari was covering the election of the new Iranian leader but he wasn't particularly throwing any super harsh criticisms into his story. Field and investigative journalism is largely based on the idea that unbiased reporting is the best kind. If a person who is covering a topical story that could expose less than desirable results for the subjects lets their own opinions and ideas get in the way, the story will ultimately fall apart.

                                 Rosewater takes a largely interesting approach to this matter. Bahari was not so much someone who wanted to expose horrible wrong doings of the Iranian leaders but he wasn't a man who held back either. About halfway through the film, Maziar finally agrees to give the Iranian captors what they want and admit that he was lying in his writings. However, he delivers his apologies in such a "yeah--this is complete BS" way that he makes the captors feel almost as if it would be better if he said nothing at all.

                                 The film is set up as an approach in the vein of "they can throw you in prison and brutally interrogate you but you can outsmart them by being hopeful." However, this tactic is effectively not thrown in until much later. The best scene involving Maziar outsmarting the men who have imprisoned him involves talking to his interrogator about a strange addiction of his. The interrogator is intrigued but also seemingly terrified that this information is coming to light. This shows a kind of ability that Bahari used to get him through this long detainment.

                                  Maziar is played by the very underrated Gael Garcia Bernal, who adds another Best Actor Oscar worthy performance into an already extended list of strong candidates. His interrogator is played by Kim Bodnia, who gives a performance worthy of a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Like JK Simmons in Whiplash and *what I've heard of* Steve Carrell in Foxcatcher, Bodnia does have an advantage since he's in a lot of film and yet not the focus. Bodnia does an excellent job of playing a role that requires more than a lot of actors could imagine. He has to be both the tough as nails interrogator but he also has to remind the audience that he works for an organization and has higher ups as well. It's never really confirmed whether the interrogator wants to be doing what he does or whether he too has been forced into a miserable life he does not want to be a part of.

                                   Stewart does a great job of adding a lot of black comedy into the film without ever letting go of the earnest storytelling and reminding the audience how great of a story this is. He writes (from Bahari's own memoir) and directs with flair but never lets the effectiveness and inherently terrifying  nature of the story die down with it. This is a film both scary and uplifting. It's sad to think this is still happening in the world and Stewart lets us know this through a particularly infamous past event--a smart tactic that works brilliantly. Rosewater may not be for everyone and, as an aspiring journalist, it was admittedly uncomfortable for me to sit through. However, this is an extremely well made film about a courageous and altogether great man that should be seen if not just for the awareness of the dangers of field journalism.
(4 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language including some crude references and violent content)

Force Majeure Review

Making  a mountain out of an avalanche---Johannes Kuhnke and Kristofer Hivju as men dealing with relationship problems following a potentially disastrous event in Force Majeure
                                         The new psychological comedy/drama Force Majeure asks an interesting question--can a single moment change the course of a relationship's entire span? Then, the film does something even more interesting---it stimulates the viewer's mind not by bringing about any real idea of the question but rather by never stepping anywhere near an answer to it. This is a film that makes the audience wonder why it is so engaging. It's not really saying anything in and of itself. It presents the idea for a great film and proceeds to leave that idea alone. However, that seems to make the overall effect that much more. Watching these events unfold, I was reminded of the Before Trilogy, which tracks Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in both the sheer joys and rough patches of their long relationship. In both cases, the idea that the entire film consists of conversations that feel like ones everyone has had seems more exciting than anything else playing at the local multiplex. These are characters that fascinate in how real they are.

                                           The film follows Tomas (Johannes Kuhnke,) a seemingly loving father and husband who is on a ski trip with his family in the mountains. His wife, Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli) and kids Vera and Harry (real life brother and sister Clara and Vincent Wettegren) seem to love him and are all having a good time. However, when at lunch, they experience what appears to be an uncontrolled and potentially deadly avalanche.  Tomas panics when this happens, grabbing his phone and running away without his wife or kids. Ebba tells people that this was Tomas's own selfishness and he doesn't care about her or their children enough to save them. Variations of "don't worry---this was a knee jerk reaction anyone would have when a random avalanche seems to be hitting" are spoken to her. However, she's having none of it. This leads to a fascinating question for the audience--who do you trust? Sure, the wife knows Tomas more than his defenders but she might also be having an abnormal reaction herself. On the other hand, the defenders sound reasonable enough to say this was not really his fault but would they not feel how Ebba feels if in her position?

                                           The acting is terrific, as Kuhnke and Kongsli are both great at showing their respective sides without ever giving either character too much sympathy or reason for hatred. The Wettegren siblings are impressively good at letting their emotional range fly as they see their parents being torn apart by what seems like not much in their mind. Kristofer Hivju and Fanni Metelius are also great in the comic relief roles as Mats and Fanny, a couple who hang out with Tomas and Ebba and seem to view the situation from both angles.

                                           As written and directed by Ruben Ostlund, this is a terrific film in both fields. The dialogue is witty and deep without ever feeling like it's trying too hard to be either. These people talk in ways that feel legitimate but it never seems to be going too heavily for that. The direction is amazing. For a film that's mostly people having very engaging conversations, this is shockingly one of the most visually stunning films I have ever laid eyes on. The set pieces, ranging from the eye popping slopes to the wonderfully designed hotel that the couples are staying in to the beautiful simplicity of a bus are terrific. The visuals make the overall feel of the film even enticing and realistic.

                                          While the film does lag in a few parts (the last 20 minutes or so could have used some particular editing,) this is a terrific film. It is funny, smart, daring, moving, explosive, charming, heartbreaking, ETC all in one fell swoop. Ostlund has made a film that has the depth of a real life being unfolded before the viewer's eyes. In a lot of ways, this feels like what would have happened if the filming from The Truman Show was edited and released to the general public in cinemas. It's that life like.
(4 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for some language and brief nudity)

Ouija Review

Spirit bored---Olivia Cooke as a teenager who tries to get over the loss of her best friend by contacting her from beyond in Ouija
                                  There's a moment in Ouija where the teenage characters are sitting around a dinner table to attempt to contact their dead friend for the first time. All are skeptical except one who reassures his friends by saying "don't worry...these boards are sold in all toy stores." It's a shameless bit of self promotion and also told me everything I needed to know about the film. It isn't as incompetently made as it could have been but that just makes the overall result dull. A much crazier and dumber film would have at least provided some laughs. It's especially surprising to me that this film is not laughably bad because between the trailer, the "produced by Michael Bay" stamp and the fact that the director is an unknown special effects guy named Stiles White, I thought that this film was actually Scary Movie 6 in disguise. Alas...this is a horror film that sucks the entire life out of the viewer. In fact, between this film and Annabelle, horror film fans have been screwed over within the last month or so. Have we, as a society, really sunk this low that these kinds of films make money?

                                 I would do a plot synopsis but the characters are so interchangeable and the plot so lackluster and instantly forgettable I honestly would have no idea what I was talking about. Essentially the plot is stupid teenagers mourn over their dead friend, they try to contact her using a Ouija board and  then after the first 80 minutes of a 85 minute film, something kind of happens. None of this would be a problem (not even the very slow build up to anything happening) if it were done right. However, this film takes itself way too seriously and gets no enjoyment out of the potentially kooky premise at hand. It's the equivalent of a "Naked Gun" sequel if it were to follow LT. Frank Drebin solve a rape case in a very competent manner.

 
                                  This is one of those "the cost outweighs the benefits" scenarios. Sure, there's some dumb fun to be had here. Horror film quasi-legend Lin Shaye shows up in a hilariously awful cameo as a mental patient for whom the main teenage girl named ______ (I think that might have actually been her name) turns to for help. However, the teenagers mostly just sit around being sad about their dead friend and dying in ways that should be hysterically stupid but just fall flat. I mean, getting ones mouth stitched by a demon with dental floss sounds a lot funnier than it turns out to be in this film.

                                    The  nicest thing I can say about the film is that the actors aren't bad. These *obviously* late 20's, early 30's actors playing the teens try to make the most of their characters and bring some much needed personality to the film. Too bad that damn script prevents them from doing so. Also...try not to be pissed off once the unbelievably insulting end twist that contradicts the entire rest of the film is revealed. Apparently director/co-writer White and co-writer Juliet Snowden think film goers are a bunch of dummies who don't care about anything in the film nowadays. How dead wrong they are. In fact, they should be ashamed for trying to get the end twist by audience members as anything but an insult.

                                     While it could have been much worse, Ouija is only hurt by this fact. It is an extraordinarily dull film that makes no use of its potentially laughable premise. If you want to see a laughably bad horror film, just stay home and stream the Troll and Leprechaun films. If you want to see a good horror film, don't go anywhere near a movie theater.
(1 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for disturbing violent content, frightening horror images, and thematic material)

Listen Up Philip Review

A life, unwritten---Jason Schwartzman as a self-centered writing looking to escape the rush of the city for the sake of inspiration in Listen Up Philip
                                         When one thinks about it, writing is not an inherently fascinating thing. Sure, writers such as myself are fascinating people with fascinating ideas but our stories don't really add up to much. We're ordinary people who express themselves by putting words together to make sentences. Listen Up Philip is a film that presents writers in a cliched, largely egotistical nature but fascinatingly avoids fully following through with the cliches. Sure, title character Philip Lewis Friedman (Jason Schwartzman) is an appallingly self-centered jerk (we're not all like that) but he's also easy to relate to even outside of a writer's perspective. You can't help but root for this horrible guy because you see what has made him the way he is. In a lot of ways, he's similar to Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of real life con artist Jordan Belfort in last year's The Wolf Of Wall Street. In both cases, these are men whom the audience feels bad for because they've let their success and power get to them. If there's one type of role that Schwartzman was born to play, it's this one. From Rushmore to I Heart Huckabees to Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World to the HBO comedy "Bored To Death," Schwartzman has proven he has a knack for playing characters who would be far too unlikable if played by anyone else. He takes characters who hand out misery to others like candy on Halloween and gives them an edge that makes the audience root for them.

                                         The film follows Schwartzman's Philip as he struggles with his day to day life in the fast paced world of Brooklyn. His photographer girlfriend Ashley (Elisabeth Moss) no longer shows signs of caring about him, all his friends have gone onto less green pastures than him and turned against him. In fact, the first two scenes simply consist of Philip tearing into people who he regrets having in his life. Even his latest book has a huge potential for failure. One day, he meets Ike Zimmerman (think Ira Levine, I suppose) (Jonathan Pryce,) a highly successful author who enjoys Philip's work immensely. Ike mentions to Philip that Brooklyn is "good for inspiration but not productivity." Ike makes a somewhat facetious offer to Philip that he can stay at his country home to write. Philip jumps at the opportunity, takes a job at a college teaching creative writing and discover Ike's daughter, Melanie (Krysten Ritter) has fallen victim to his "the whole word revolves around me" attitude.

                                          Pryce is perfect as the author who has no real redeeming qualities. He's kind of charming but that's only a lead in to his awful behavior. Ritter and Moss also get nice roles as the women in these mens' lives. The women get their own arcs and their perspective is as essential to the story as the male point of view. The film is funny but also pulls out a lot of great dramatic stops. Schwartzman plays up the charm but is never afraid to let his character explode in frustration. His brutally honest speeches are both amusing and sad. We see the hurt in this man that he's trying to hide but we can't help and chuckle. The film is directed in the style of an old, grainy 1970's film (like John Cassavetes or older Pedro Almodovar,) which adds to the nuanced and nostalgic feel of this story. However, I could have done without the multiple, shaky closeups of people's faces. That's a small quibble for a film that works so well, however.

                                          The clever dialogue helps boost the realism of the story. As we watch Schwartzman and Pryce trade conversational one liners to each other, we feel like we're actually watching two well known writers. While it may not exactly break  any new ground, Listen Up Philip is a welcome throwback to a different kind of film. The performances, especially from Schwartzman, flawlessly playing a charming schmuck as ever, add a lot to the well done nature of the film. Writers are not always enjoyable to learn about but through writer-director Alex Ross Perry's scope, they most certainly are.
(4 out of 5 Stars, The film is Not Rated but contains adult language and situations)

Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) Review

Acting the fool----Michael Keaton and Edward Norton as an irrelevant actor and an acclaimed actor who decide to do a play together in Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
                                             It is modern day New York City. Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) has just lost an actor in a freak accident involving a stage light. He brings in Mike (Edward Norton,) a highly acclaimed but notoriously difficult to work with actor whom he books through co-star Lesley (Naomi Watts.) Riggan then deals with such issues as being an obsolete actor in a world of top notch players, his brutally honest ex-wife (Amy Ryan) and daughter (Emma Stone) and a powerful critic (Lindsay Duncan) who will stop at nothing to destroy his play. This all seems like a fairly standard set up for an entertaining comedy/drama. However, Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) seems to be set in a world entirely different from the one it is said to be. This could potentially be attributed to many factors. It could be that the actors in this film are known for being able to disappear into any role given to them or the fact that the direction by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is meant to evoke the feeling of one long tracking shot.

                                             Whatever the reason is, the film is fantastic and ends up being significantly more than it suggests. Through two actors, the film creates a semi-autobiographical feel. Keaton, playing a man who famously portrayed a superhero and is now stuck in acting limbo, once played Batman and then, at least for a while, seemed to be doing mediocre and by the numbers all too well (Desperate Measures, Multiplicity, Speechless, Quicksand, ETC.) Meanwhile, Norton plays an actor who is praised for his talent but is also regarded as an ass of the highest order. In real life, Norton is a great actor when the opportunity presents itself but is also quite a tough person to get along with, according to eyewitness accounts (lest we forget that infamous filming of The Incredible Hulk.) By taking two actors who share the feelings, attitudes and actions of their characters in the real world and placing the film in a brassy, downright futuristic New York City, the film gives these two the opportunity to once again revel in their talents.

                                               The film also does something else really well. Not for a second is it dumb about anything it presents. This is a smart film, which presents seemingly simplistic ideas in a fascinatingly complex light. Even Duncan's role as a bitchy critic is original if not altogether plausible. The film is even smart enough to allow the audience to understand where the critic is coming from. She has no reason to be doing what she's planning to do and yet the film does a great job of making the audience think she does. It's also interesting to see a film where Ryan, as Keaton's ex-wife and Zach Galifianakis, as Keaton's buddy/manager are the two most straight laced characters in the film. These are two gifted actors who generally thrive on the act of being broad and ridiculous and hysterical so the fact that they get to prove their dramatic chops here is refreshing and wonderful to watch.

                                                The acting is great all around and Inarritu not only directs the film with great flair and passion but also has co-written a script (along with Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo) that is equally smart, hilarious, sad, touching, beautiful and glorious. Unlike most scripts with a larger than average amount of credited writers, the four writers here makes sense. This script is far from a one person or even a two person job. There are so many clever and substantial lines it takes at least two viewings to catch everything that's so great about this film. I, myself, have only seen it once and am dying to go see it again to catch the abundance of lines I probably missed.

                                                  With more to recommend than can be summed up in one review, Birdman (Or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is a magical film experience. True to what the craft of cinema should be and essential to view on the big screen, this is one that should be seen by all who love film and the art of making a project immediately.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language throughout, some sexual content and brief violence)

John Wick Review

Kick it with Keanu----Keanu Reeves as a former hit man who goes back into business after his life is ruined by Russian punks in John Wick
                                       I've never really felt one way or another about Keanu Reeves. He's sometimes excellent (The River's Edge, My Own Private Idaho) and sometimes unbelievably dull (47 Ronin, The Day The Earth Stood Still.) This may sound like it applies to most actors but with Reeves it is especially true that his level of excellence depends on the role he's in. He is a very good actor when he needs to be, for sure but I can also often see him simply going through the motions. His newest action film, John Wick, in which he is placed in the role of the title character, is his best work in at least a decade and a half. This is Reeves at his best. He takes this role and has an endless amount of fun with it. Good news for the audience as well since him having a blast in the role translates incredibly well with the viewer.

                                        The film stars Reeves as Mr. Wick, a former hit man who lives in a world where being a killer for hire is an accepted job. (FINALLY!) John has retired and leads a quiet but desolate life, with his wife having died. His wife, however, leaves him a cute little dog for him to look after and care for. However, a group of Russian punks, led by the son (Alfie Allen) of a brutal gangster (Michael Nyqvist) decide to break into his house and murder his dog. This is to say they don't know who Wick is and don't realize this event will ultimately lead him out of retirement.

                                          I dug this film so much that even the tough Russian gangsters felt realistic. A lot of this is due to the alternate universe John Wick is set in. This is literally a world where they have a hotel that hit men stay at complete with very strict policies. Lance Reddick even shows up in a hilarious role as a stilted hotel desk worker. Directors David Leitch and Chad Stahelski (former stunt men) and writer Derek Kolstad fill the film with a shocking amount of dark, very funny humor, such as when John is throwing down with Ms. Perkins (Adrianne Palecki,) an assassin for hire in his hotel room with Reddick's worker bee standing quietly at the desk. A nice amount of supporting players including Dean Winters, John Leiguzamo, Ian McShane, Willem Dafoe and Bridget Moynahan also get to have fun with their respective roles.

                                             This film is Reeves doing what he does best---killing dudes one by one. This is non stop action from start to finish. It never asks the audience to feel any real emotions (except the dog, perhaps) and that's fine here. It's an absolute blast from start to finish and never tries to be anything it's not. If you're the kind of person who craves a throwback to the 80's Dolph Lundgren-Sylvester Stallone or 90's Steven Seagal-Jean Claude Van Damme action films then this should be just right for you. Leitch, Stahelski and Kolstad all deserve credit for making an inventive, crazy fun world but Reeves is the one who drives this home with all his might.
(3 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong and bloody violence throughout, language and brief drug use)

Hit By Lightning Review

Ball buster---Jon Cryer as a loser restaurant manager who falls for a suspicious woman (Stephanie Szostak) in Hit By Lightning
                                    I feel really bad for Jon Cryer and Will Sasso. Both are very funny men who get wrongly underestimated for different reasons. While Cryer too often gets stereotyped as "that guy from "Two And A Half Men,"" Sasso never gets any work that's on par with proving his true comedic talent. It's weird to think a film as awful as Hit By Lightning is the closest thing that's come out to breaking these two talents from their respective molds. I have a theory that they get to prove more here than usual because the film is so bad. If the film were simply mediocre, their hard work and endless dedication to getting laughs from the audience would go unnoticed. However, the film is so horribly written and dreadfully non-eventfully that they show how great they can be even when given no good material. Both men are great here but the film only proves to be a detriment to them.

                                    The film stars Cryer as Ricky, a manager at restaurant Debby's (it's Denny's spelled with B's instead of N's...and that's one of the less cringe worthy jokes in the film.) Ricky is having trouble in love while his buddy Seth (Sasso) tries to take him out every Saturday night simply for carnal pleasures. However, neither man knows how to pick up a woman despite Seth's confidence that they'll just keep trying. Ricky signs up for E-Happily (yeah, apparently no one wanted to use this film for product placement) and meets Danita (Stephanie Szostak.) Ricky and Danita fall in love instantly and Ricky sees hope for his future. One problem---Danita is married to Ben (Jed Rees,) a successful mystery author whom Danita wants Ricky to kill.

                                       After I saw the film, I was interested to see who was behind this film. It came as no shock to me that the writer and director is Ricky Blitt, a former "Family Guy" writer who has since left the show. On the basis of this film, it's no wonder why. Unlike that show, whose random non-eventfulness and multiple pop culture references are genuinely funny in context, this film falls flat with all of that. The non-eventfulness of this film proves to be more boring than anything and every joke that doesn't involve a fake version of a large company is an awkward, unfunny pop culture reference. "Ricky's wearing a baseball cap so let's make a joke where he randomly mentions how good John C McGinley was in 42." "Seth brings over a copy of Body Heat so let's have him awkwardly point out that this film was made back when Kathleen Turner looked like a woman." This is the level of joke etiquette within this film.

                                      This perhaps could have worked if there was dark comedy to balance it out as there should be in a film about a  man trying to murder another woman's husband but Blitt obviously has no clue how to go dark. His very few attempts to go dark end up being clumsy and feeling weirdly unjustified. Also, the whole film wants the audience to root for Ricky and Danita when they are both horrible people to begin with. Before even bringing up the idea of the murder (which happens 45 minutes into the 85 minute film,) they're both such despicable people that there's no reason to root for them. Ricky even fills his balding head with shoe polish  when he first goes out with Danita and continues to do so. Why should the audience root for two people who need to hide what they are from one another? Sasso's Seth is the only likable character in the film and that's only because Sasso has mastered the art of lovable goofball the same way his "MadTV" co-star Ike Barinholtz has on TV's "The Mindy Project." Rees, an actor who always shows up randomly and never disappoints, is quite good here but isn't given a lick of anything to do with his character.

                                         With a different writer/director, Hit By Lighnting may have worked. The cast (excluding the awful performance of Szostak) deserve much better and should aspire to be in more high quality, worthy of their talent productions. Writer/director Blitt doesn't know what to do with these funny people and ends up making a film that feels as long as Shoah, even at 85 minutes. There is literally one mild chuckle I got from the film itself and not from the actors. It's the last line and shot of the film. Until that last five seconds, however, sitting through this so called comedy felt like a prison sentence of the worst kind.
(1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is Not Rated but contains adult language and situations)
Note: Although the three male actors were great, I can not give this film any more than half a star. There are plenty of great performances in film and, although these actors deserve better, they can not overcome the film's terribleness. In fact, the fact that Cryer, Sasso and Rees were so good made the overall horrible nature of the film all the more unpleasant to sit through.

Nightcrawler Review

Shoot to chill----Jake Gyllenhaal as dedicated worker Louis Bloom, who finds himself a crime scene video recorder for a local news station in Nightcrawler
                                             The new film from screenwriter and first time director Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler is not only a brilliant and amazingly fun satire but also an incredible confirmation of the talent in Jake Gyllenhaal, an actor whose career has taken an incredible turn over the past decade or so. He has proven to be the leading actor version of Christopher Walken. That is, he plays kooky with such an incredible bite and with such enjoyable self seriousness that he's always an amazing screen presence. Credit also goes to Gilroy, who directs the film with the kind  of direction that is never seen done anymore. He uses set pieces in the same vein that Alfred Hitchcock did, like with Mount Rushmore in North By Northwest and his ease with tension suggests a reincarnation of The Master of Suspense as well.

                                              In the film, Gyllenhaal plays Louis Bloom, a dedicated and ambitious young man looking for any type of work available. One night, he drives past a car crash and sees renowned cameraman Joe Loder (Bill Paxton) shoot some footage. This inspires him to hire an assistant, Rick (Riz Ahmed) and sell footage to channel 6 news director Nina Romina (Rene Russo.) However, he gets in more than he initially expected when he goes too far in his ambitions.

                                               In a lot of ways, Louis is a mix of two classic Robert De Niro characters--Rupert Pupkin from The King of Comedy and Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver. Louis's scary amount of dedication to get ahead in the world is very reminiscent of Pupkin while his way of saying things that are completely psychotic but come across as articulate and intelligent is a lot like Bickle. Gyllenhaal plays menacing with an amazing ease and he never goes too over the top with it. As well, Paxton, Russo and especially the underrated Ahmed are excellent supporting players.

                                                The film's satire comes from the idea that to get ahead in the world today, you have to be willing to do so by any means necessary. Bloom doesn't just run himself into the ground, he does so with great glee and motivation. However, as previously mentioned, he's so articulate about and so aware of his own craziness that it's hard not to maintain a rooting interest. He never comes across as a villain of any sort, although his awareness to his insanity makes it all the more intense.

                                                 Gilroy writes the film with very witty dialogue and some of the best ironic humor my ears have ever heard. He also knows how to have the characters talk realistically even as the situations get increasingly fantastical. The direction is amazing, taking the audience right along for the ride. As Louis is taping these horrific crimes, the audience feels right there with him. It even feels scarily close for the audience when the footage is cleverly shown through the lens of Bloom rather than directly to the audience.

                                                  Nightcrawler is a terrific, spectacular, jaw dropping, powerful film that also manages to be surprisingly fun and darkly hilarious considering its grim subject matter. I'm sure come Oscar season the Academy won't even consider nominating Gyllenhaal for his work simply because of how creepy of a performance it is. However, it's a performance of great depth and intensity that should definitely be acknowledged by all and so is the film.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for violence including graphic images and for language)