Nightmare Alley (2021)

Grim, dark film that takes a bit to get into and is longer and slower paced than it should be, and clunky story-wise, especially at the end, but is nonetheless fairly absorbing thanks to an interesting, somewhat unpredictable story, lots of flashy visuals, and pretty solid acting throughout, especially from Richard Jenkins. I didn’t know much about the film going in beyond it having something to do with a carnival, and, this being Guillermo del Toro, I was expecting monsters and fantasy and all sorts of wacky magical elements, which it did not have much of. It’s fairly “grounded” in as much as a del Toro film could be; a visually and emotionally heightened reality with no supernatural elements, only the sheen of the supernatural, which is fine, just not what I was expecting.

I’ve never been a big fan of del Toro, and find him to be almost as overrated a filmmaker as Jordan Peele (barf). He’s great visually, but everything else he does filmmaking-wise is mediocre at best. He’s a special and practical effects master who’s been given a chance to direct, and, for whatever reason, despite his relative mediocrity as a filmmaker, continues to get work, praise, and the occasional Oscar for his efforts. I personally don’t get it, but whatever. This, though, is the best film of his I’ve seen so far. It’s not perfect by any means, and it really could have used a 30 minute trim and better writing, especially in the second half, but the stuff that works, works well, and the whole bit in the second half with Cate Blanchett and Richard Jenkins, though not as sinister as it could have been, was fun to watch, even if the final twists and betrayals didn’t make much sense.

This is also Bradley Cooper’s best performance. He’s always been a fairly mediocre actor who, like del Toro, is inexplicably praised for fairly routine work; who’d have thought bringing these two tepid creatives together would yield something that actually wasn’t half bad? He’s very good here, charming and charismatic, with a touch of violence right below the surface. Though I really could have gone without seeing his penis. Blah. Talk about an unnecessarily gratuitous scene. And some screechy hysterical feminists complain about female nudity in films being unnecessary; I’ve never seen a shot of nudity less necessary in a film than that of Cooper’s here. What was its purpose exactly, and who was it meant to appeal to? Gays? Horny old women well past their prime longing for some A-list celebrity penis? Cooper’s vanity? I mean, damn.

But whatever, other than that, he’s good. As is everyone else, though Richard Jenkins is a particular highlight as the troubled rich guy with a dark secret I didn’t quite understand but was nonetheless compelled by. His development, along with Cate Blanchett’s, was the real problem with the film. Though well acted, their various motivations were confusing at best, downright nonsensical at worst, especially Blanchett and her **.** SPOILERS **.** turn at the end. Why did she want to destroy Cooper exactly, especially after risking her career and life helping him repeatedly through the second half of the film? Something about revenge for, what, embarrassing her in front of an audience when she failed to out him as a fraud? And what was the deal with Jenkins’ character; he forced the woman he loved to miscarry, and then killed her? Or the miscarriage killed her? How did he get her to miscarry? And what was the deal with his confession that he “liked to hurt women”? So he was a serial killer? Huh? There was also the bit about Cooper and his drinking; so he hated alcohol initially, because I guess he felt bad about having accidentally killed Pete with a tainted bottle earlier in the film (I think), but then he suddenly starts drinking right before having sex with Blanchett for the first time for some reason and becomes a rabid alcoholic so he could later be more easily persuaded into “geeking”? That’s convenient. **.** END SPOILERS **.** One can drink alcohol and not become an alcoholic, you know.

Overall, I did enjoy the film, flaws and all, and there are many flaws here. The plot doesn’t always make sense, and sometimes moves at a snail’s pace, or has characters do things because the story needs them to rather than because of any logical consistency in their behavior, but it’s fine for the most part. There’s enough good here to recommend the film, and it’s, again, certainly del Toro’s best, at least that I’ve seen of his so far, and I’ve seen most of the stuff he’s made in the last 15 years or so. It’s certainly better than “Shape of Water,” which won him the Best Picture Oscar for whatever stupid reason, probably due more to pandering and sending yet another “socially progressive,” leftist-approved message to the dirty unwashed masses than any actual merit the film deserved as a piece of excellence in filmmaking, but that’s the way Hollywood is now, where garbage is praised and rewarded so long as it checks all the “right” boxes, promotes all the “right” things, and pleases all the “right” people, the vast majority of whom have values and beliefs so far removed from the average person, they might as well be from an entirely different planet. Fortunately, this film has none of that crap as far as I could tell, and it’s just a better film structurally. It’s also more entertaining and is less predictable, and, frankly, I dug the slick, 1930s Art Deco style.

Not a perfect film by any means, but enjoyable in its own twisted, evil way. Go watch it!

Side Effects (2013)

Decent, somewhat silly film that’s entertaining and all but not nearly as intelligent or clever as it would like its audience to think it is. The acting is also kind of all over the place: not bad, necessarily, just odd at times, especially from Jude Law who is terrible in the first half and inexplicably much, much better in the second. I’ve never seen an actor’s performance make such a dramatic improvement over the course of a film as he does here. Like two almost completely different people. And yeah it’s shot and edited and directed well for the most part, but the writing could have been better.

The film’s plot, though twisty and interesting, is also one of the film’s biggest problems. It’s one of those plots you don’t really question until the credits start to roll and reality sets in and the logic of the thing starts to fall apart under simple scrutiny. I wasn’t even trying to find holes in the thing, really, they just kind of  came to me, as they will you I imagine given how ridiculous some aspects of it are. But, again, it’s entertaining for the most part, and I also enjoy director Steven Soderbergh’s tendency to play with **SPOILERS** perspective and narrative in his films like he does here with the main character of the piece shifting at about the half way point. **END SPOILERS** Certainly unique and effective, even if it’s a bit clumsily handled. And Jude Law’s terrible, terrible performance in the first half didn’t make things better by any means. Granted his character/dialogue isn’t all that well written, but I have a feeling a better actor could have handled it a little more skillfully. But the performances in this film are all weird for the most part, even from Rooney Mara who is absolutely gorgeous here with that beautiful face of hers. And that indifferent, emotionless voice. God, so sexy!

Overall, choppy film with a questionable script that still works thanks to some strong direction/editing/pacing/cinematography. It’s entertaining and unpredictable and will keep you engaged for the most part, even if it feels like two different movies taped together in the middle at times. I ultimately wasn’t sure what the message of the thing was, exactly: the first half seemed to have a rather strong **SPOILERS** anti medication type slant to it, with all the browbeating of antidepressants and those who take them and all that, while the second seems to drop all that in favor of, what exactly? Anti-corporate espionage? Anti-pretending to kill your husband and blaming it on a pharmaceutical company to get money? **END SPOILERS** Not sure. And man were the **SPOILERS** lesbian scenes in this movie uncomfortable. **END SPOILERS** I’m not sure if it was intentional, but I felt like I was going to throw up at times watching them. There’s just something vile about them, not quite sure how to put my finger on it.

Anyway, not terrible, but nothing to write home about. Better than average, and at least it tries something new, even if it doesn’t quite succeed. Still worth watching, I’d say.

 

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) – 3.5/5

Clunky, surprisingly pedestrian adaptation of the novel that is nonetheless a decent film, but nothing particularly unique or engaging or noteworthy. Nope, not even the performances. The intro was cool, though. Pointless and out-of-place, sure, but cool and nausea inducing in its weirdness, and full of all sorts of hidden stuff that foreshadows events revealed later in the series. Thumbs up.

The main probably with the film is that there’s just way too much exposition, especially in the first hour and a half or so. We’re told so much so quickly that it’s as though someone just picked up the book and started reciting its chapters to us rather than letting them play out in an interesting, natural manner. It’s too dense, and should have been trimmed somehow. I understand that all the backstory and Millennium newspaper stuff is necessary because this is the first part of a trilogy and yadda yadda yadda, but the original film managed to squeeze everything in without it seeming overwhelming, why can’t this? Mediocre screenwriting, I think.

Then again, the original Swedish movie had its own issues. I think the story as a whole is difficult to adapt. The first book gives the illusion of being a straightforward, page to screen adaptation, and, at its heart, the initial murder mystery does make for a good, easily adaptable yarn, but when you sit down and actually try to convert the thing to film, establishing elements of the second and third books included, it’s a mess. Maybe if they just focused on making this one and pretended the other, lesser two didn’t exist, it could have worked better.

I guess after having both read all the books and watched the original movie, it’s hard to go into this with no expectations. I knew everything that was going to happen and when, so nothing came as a surprise. Then again, that might not have mattered were this a better made adaptation. People not familiar with the story might be blown away, but a truly great adaptation should always provide its viewers with something new and interesting, regardless of their familiarity with the story. This didn’t do that for me.

The acting was also somewhat disappointing. I had heard such great things about Rooney Mara, and she’s okay here, but nothing great. She just speaks softly and mumbles a lot. And she has piercings and tattoos! Woah, edgy. Much like the story, I think the Lisbeth Salander character is an illusion, one that seems easily adaptable and infinitely rewarding initially, but, in reality, can only ever truly be represented in book form.

On the page, the character is exciting and dangerous, almost invincible in some ways, but on the screen, she’s muted, watered down, and reduced to stereotype. This is because, in the book, much of what makes her character her, that is, her genius, takes place in the dark privacy of her mind, for pages and pages at a time. Her thought process is what makes her so captivating, not her look or behavior. If anything, the way she looks and carries herself in the book only serves to further emphasize the brilliance that lies within. It’s literary irony. But a person thinking smart thoughts for several hours doesn’t exactly make for very captivating cinema. How would one even illustrate something like that exactly without being boring? It’s very difficult.

Thus a film version of her character must rely on what she looks like and how she behaves to get her personality across, which neither this film, nor the Swedish original, manage to pull off all that well, through no fault of their own. I think, given the complexity of the plot, the character is just impossible to successfully pull off on film. Salander is an illusion, like I said before. She sounds incredible on paper, to actors and filmmakers alike, but on-screen, it just doesn’t work. It can’t. But prove me wrong, Hollywood (or whoever). Prove me wrong.

Anyway, back to the mumbling: god, everyone in this film is difficult to understand except Daniel Craig. You’re in a movie: speak up, for Christ’s sake. And why have your characters speak English if you’re just going to make them all sport nearly incomprehensible Swedish accents? Either have them all speak normal, unaccented American English, or have them speak in their native Swedish tongues. Don’t mix the two. Why would Swedish people speak to one another in English with accents anyway and not their native tongues? It just doesn’t make sense.

I also didn’t buy the relationship between Craig and Mara. Why does **SPOILERS** Mara agree to help him so quickly after he comes to her apartment unannounced? In the book, she hacks into his computer during the investigation and helps him out with it before they even meet, showing she’s interested in the case, but here, he comes out of nowhere and she just agrees? Seems kind of odd, especially given how we’ve spent the last hour and a half establishing her as the cautious, reserved type. And the whole romance thing between them was forced and didn’t make any sense. And the rapist guardian guy was so miscast. He seemed way too nice and jolly to be a sadomasochistic rapist. You can see it in his eyes;  he wouldn’t hurt a fly. Just my opinion. **END SPOILERS**

Overall, eh. It certainly has its moments. It looks nice visually, but, save the intro, it didn’t really sport any of Fincher’s usual visual flair. I did enjoy how **SPOILERS** there are subtle clues as to who the killer is, including a neat trick they briefly use at the beginning and at the end of the film where the sounds of ordinary objects and doors in the killer’s home elicit screams of agony, as though the souls of his victims are still present and in a state of perpetual torment. **END SPOILERS** Very cool.

But the ending, damn it. Just like the Swedish film they changed the ending to something stupid and take away all its impact. Why? The ending of the book **SPOILERS** has the killer committing suicide in the end, **END SPOILERS** which is a perfectly good, powerful ending that reveals a ton about the character. But this? What does this reveal? Accidents happen? Yeah, great.

So, I guess if you’re a fan of the original books/movies and are overly critical like me, you may have a lot of issues with this film. But if you’re not familiar with the books and are looking for a good mystery murder type thing, you might like it. I still enjoyed it, don’t get me wrong, it’s just nothing special. Could have been better.