Rated C for Cameron

I like my theme on Wordpress, but it has its problems. If you want to see an archive of my articles, scroll to the bottom of the page. Sorry about that.

Month: November, 2014

In Theaters: Nightcrawler


Though I’m pretty premature on the subject, I really think that the future will hold 2014 as one of the greatest years for movies, especially in the 21st century. After going to see Birdman, and being blown away, I can’t lie, but my expectations for Nightcrawler dropped slightly. It’s like when you have an amazing meal, the best meal of your life, no matter what your next meal is, it lacks the same appeal. I fully admit that this happened to me, and heck it may have skewed my opinion of Nightcrawler, but I’m certainly not saying that Nightcrawler was bad, far from it.

Nightcrawler was an extremely satisfying and impressive film. Especially considering that it was the directorial debut of Dan Gilroy. Made with a budget of 8.5 million dollars, an incredibly low amount for a film with such a cast, and the fact that it was filmed on location in Los Angeles really added to the film for me. As someone who lives in Orange County and often spends time in LA, the film really captured the city very well. Though I know this sentiment won’t affect the film’s quality for those of you who haven’t gone to LA. Often times there is a schism in films that depict Los Angeles. Some go too far to show the glitz and glamour of the city, others dwell too much on the strife of the tough areas of the city. What is forgotten many times is that while LA contains plenty of either of these things, there is much of the look and feel of Los Angeles that can be found in almost any city. I guess what I am saying is that LA is more normal than many people think.

Back to the film. I think going into the film I was expecting some deeper message. But at its heart, Nightcrawler is truly a character piece. While it shows some of the more vile practices of the American news media, it doesn’t really reveal anything, because most of what it shows is the kinds of things that we were already assuming. As a character piece though, it truly succeeds. Despite the writing or directing, what will make a character piece is the performance of the main actor or actors. An example I would give is the movie Chaplin. A lot of people hold Chaplin in very high regard. In my opinion the film is a standard paint-by-numbers period story of a rise to fame, a downfall, and then redemption. What made Chaplin good was the performance of Robert Downey Jr., completely immersive and realistic.

While Nightcrawler is no stock story, in fact it’s mighty unconventional, what made the movie was Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance. The movie made me really think about the possibility of how a sociopath might rise through the ranks of society. His performance is darkly humorous at times and frightening at others. My next comment contains some minor spoilers for the beginning of the film so I will write it in a separate paragraph with spoiler markings.


As other commentators have said, I didn’t like the addition of Lou beating up the security guard at the beginning of the film. In my opinion it was dissonant to how his character acted throughout the rest of the film, and may have harmed the rise of the film’s tension.


At times Gyllenhaal’s character, Lou, will go off on tangents about business tactics and advancing in a profession. While some actors (along with a director) might have taken this as Lou being sincere. Gyllenhaal makes it subtle yet clear that his character is not being sincere, rather he is merely saying what he believes will make people respect him, trust him, and even be submissive to him. Being as Lou is an obvious sociopath, his circumstances change throughout the film, but he is unfaltering in his unnatural behavior. Rene Russo, as the news director of a struggling morning news show, does go through developments, exhibiting how a person can be manipulated and succumb to the will of a threatening person.

I must note however the performance of Bill Paxton; it is impressive how Paxton constantly chameleons himself into his roles. I’ll admit that on more than one occasion I was not aware that he was in a movie until the credits rolled, and that was true for Nightcrawler. If you’re interested, just take a look at the dichotomy between his character in Nightcrawler and his character in Edge of Tomorrow.

If I were to give any criticism of Nightcrawler it would be on the pacing. The film felt a little repetitive at points, and rather than moving forward consistently it often seemed to go back to scenes that felt slightly unnescary. I understand that interstitial moments were needed to separate the night scenes of the movie, lest the audience not be aware of a time change. However rather than relying on similar scenes, such as Lou in his apartment, they could have provided a bit more variety. But it is so hard for me to deeply criticize this film, as it is Dan Gilroy’s first time directing. I see great potential in him, and the first films of great directors rarely define the rest of their careers (Scorsese, PT Anderson, Fincher).

Cameron’s Rating: 8/10

Repeat Viewing Quality: 4/5

Movie Suggestion: Chaplin

PS: You may have noticed my unique banner for this review. I made it myself, rather than using images I find online, I hope to use more of my own work in the future.


Criticizing the Criticizers: The Title of Star Wars Episode 7


While I’m sure that others have made or will the observations that I am about to make, I thought that I might as well get these ideas down in some way.

So this morning, Disney announced that the title of Star Wars Episode 7 would be The Force Awakens, while the general response that I have seen so far has been pretty positive, there are some who don’t enjoy it. Some have said that the title is dull and vague. They draw comparisons with the trend of the “Rise” title, (The Dark Knight Rises, 300:Rise of an Empire, Rise of the Planet of the Apes), which I’ll admit has gotten a bit stale in recent past. A quick look at IMDB shows me seven franchise movies in the past seven years that use some variation of “rise” in their titles. However, the use of the word “awaken” hasn’t shown the same prevalence.

So for what reason do I defend the title The Force Awakens? I think in the fad of certain people rushing to criticize any movie news they hear, they may have lost some sense of retrospection. First let’s look at the original trilogy of Star Wars films. I am aware of the fact that the first film, Star Wars, was rereleased as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. But many people will lump this change in with the many, sometimes terrible, changes that George Lucas made to the original series. What they might not know, due to young age or unawareness, is that this change was made for a rerelease in 1981, just 4 years after its original release, one year after Empire Strikes Back’s release, and 2 years before the release of Return of the Jedi. So it seems clear to me that this change wasn’t made for kicks and giggles, it was made so that there would be a clear distinction between the movies. Empire had just been released, and Lucas knew that he had plans to do at least 4 more films, so it does seem logical that he wouldn’t want the first film to be a source of confusion when the prequels would come.

Besides all that though, in examining the title A New Hope, it is not a stunningly deep title, and that is perfectly fine. I think of all the things one could criticize about a film; its title is hardly something to hold up as a main argument. And as we look at the two other films of the original trilogy, if we try and forget our feelings toward the films, their titles aren’t exactly full of rich meaning either. Recently, in my Birdman review, I pointed out that titles for blockbuster films are mostly a brief description of the content of the film itself. If we pretend like we are someone that hasn’t seen any Star Wars films, what do the titles tell us? A New Hope tells us that not only is there a hope, but it is new, meaning that before it there was some sense of despair. The Empire Strikes back tells us that an empire, a word often holding a negative connotation, is striking back at something, probably an opposition to its rule. Return of the Jedi tells us that some group or thing called “Jedi” is returning, and the use of the word “return” means that their/its return is of some significance.

I won’t delve deep into the titles of the prequels, but it is worth noting the distinction in Episode I’s title. The Phantom Menace is definitely a distinct title in comparison with all the other films. In my opinion the title is too unclear and any interpretation doesn’t really make it a better title. Who is the “Phantom Menace”: Palpatine, the dark side, Darth Maul, Anakin, Jar Jar? A literal interpretation could be “ghostly danger,” but that doesn’t really say anything, now does it? The other two films in the prequel trilogy (Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith) follow a similar style to the titles of the original trilogy, and almost have a sort of parallel with them.

Down to brass tax, though. The Force Awakens is not a vague title. Vague implies that this title doesn’t tell us enough to suggest the plot. The title is actually extremely not vague, if I do the same literal interpretation as I did before. It tells us that there is a force, a word that implies power or strength, and it is awakening, meaning that it has been dormant for some length of time. This actually says a lot about the plot. And let’s be frank, the lore of Star Wars, particularly what “The Force” means, is something that is now deeply ingrained in the cultural zeitgeist.

So besides my need to rant on things, I felt the need to write this for a reason. Before you (in the general sense) go out and criticize something, at least take some time to reflect upon it and examine how it relates to the past and the future. Everyone has a right to be critical, but being critical just so you can be an opposing force (no pun intended) is really not worth its reward.

For Reference: my Birdman review https://cameronbarrettstewart.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/in-theaters-birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance/