NIGHTMARE ALLEY

Anyway, onto the film!

Low expectations going in (I'd heard it was unremarkable). Was very pleasantly surprised by the first hour or so. And there's a moment heading into the final hour where I thought I'd spotted a great little parallel, a sort of microcosm-macrocosm thing, that left me very excited for the conclusion. But the conclusion was quite different, and mostly in ways that I'm not sure made a lot of sense to me.

While staying vague and only very generally spoilery...I'm not sure I entirely "get" Blanchett's character: what she was doing, or why, or when such-and-such was decided. And I'm not sure any of it, even if I find more rationale on a rewatch, is quite as powerful or as interesting as what I thought I'd figured out about the final act. Either there was an allusion there that was unintended and uncapitalized on, or it was intended but given short-shrift.

Still, better than I'd hoped, and I think 70% of the way to being an excellent film.

Agree with everyone who's suggested, here or elsewhere, that Bradley Cooper is really, really good in this, though. And yeah, particularly as the film winds down.

Wow, it looks like I'm the only one who liked this movie...yes, there was dangling plot points that weren't addressed to my satisfaction, but I found the film mesmerizing.

Eh, I dunno, I'm pretty sure I'd have said "yes" if you asked me "did you like it?" Even though I'd go on to detail my mixed feelings. But I give it . But I'm definitely beginning to tire of Del Toro's deficiencies on the storytelling side relative to most other aspects of filmmaking, at least.

I thought it was beautiful, as I did with all of the Del Toro films that I've seen. His last two, however, offered both great highs and great lows. I struggle to comprehend how someone who brought us Pan's Labyrinth can miss in the balance of what I'm experiencing in his stories. I mentioned in my post earlier that this felt like two films to me. Surely someone raised their hand to make this observation somewhere along development? I'd be very curious on this as a discussion topic. I mean specifically in how directors that are proven capable of creating great, imaginative stories and visuals could miss what I would believe to be glaring spikes of marginal quality relative to their other works and even the containing film those spikes exist in. Which is the outlier? Is Pan's Labyrinth the fluke? Surely not?

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

I watched this after suffering through the interminable Mystery of Oberwald earlier in the day, meaning that I was not in the mood for a two and a half hour movie and was not paying as much attention as I should have. I suppose it's strong on a technical level, although it looks a bit too much like an HBO series for me to really embrace.


I will say that as someone who has trouble with recent period pieces because the actors come off as too "modern", between the accent and the cheekbones, Cate Blanchett genuinely felt like someone who would have been making movies in the '40s.

I can't exactly say why, but that is rather apt description.

It might be because of its over stylized CG hues and photography.

I liked the staging and costume design, but probably to make it seem more "noir" they were a little heavy on the photographic effects. They could have simply shot it in black and white.

Because last year's "Perry Mason" had a similar look and milieu? Because you recently binge-watched "Boardwalk Empire"? Because you fondly remember the short-lived "Carnivàle" from 2003? I mean it certainly doesn't look anything like "Curb Your Enthusiasm" or "Euphoria".

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Yeah, that was the first thing that came to mind. Technically well executed, but a mixture of colour scheme and camera movement that screams "this is very important!" I hated that series and the look is a big part of why.


For the record, I think Nightmare Alley is much more purposeful in its visual style than Perry Mason or some of the other HBO series I've sampled with a similar look, it just brought a bad taste to my mouth.

I think I would have liked it more of they'd done this. Shoot it in the Academy ratio while we're at it.

Considering that 2021 was not a great year for films, Nightmare Alley was "good". Again, it was good. Not great. Well shot. The acting was really good by the entire cast. It's not a movie I'd want to watch again.

I would give it a

__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa

In the '47 version it is a case of the grifter getting grifted. The mentalist gets a taste of his own medicine. The '21 version is a bit more confusing. The analyst seems to want to assert dominance over the mentalist (payback for being foiled at the nightclub, proving she's more clever) and to get revenge against Grindle She really does appear to be angry at Stan for saying I like the '47 version better, because the dish is served cold. She gaslights Stan even as he hears sirens approaching. He's gets played the same way he has played everyone else (dispassionately, instrumentally).

Having seen this in the last day or so, I guess I found it better than most? The production design is aces, I felt like Cate Blanchett would have fit in well with the film noirs of yesteryear and the casting is rock solid (Willem Dafoe, Ron Perlman, Toni Collette).

I had two issues with it. One was that the symbolism is a bit heavy-handed at times. OK, GDT, we get it, danger is ahead...you don't have to show the carnival under stormy skies EVERY time. The tarot cards...the snow when Stan and the psychiatrist meet. All of that felt a bit obvious.

The other issue was the overlength. I think they could have chopped 20 minutes off the film easily. The climax feels protracted and the flashbacks take a bit long to get to the point.

I found the film itself pretty solid (walked into it as blind as I could have), although I'm aware there's the 1947 version of the novel as well. I'd give it a B or so.