Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /  Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  /  Nightcrawler
Posted by: PrussianMosby, November 15th, 2014, 4:07am
No thread about this movie?

The premise sounds gloriously entertaining.

Without spoiling me, please: Anyone already has seen this? Did they fuck it up with a usual mainstream love plot à la "love against all odds Titanic style" in the end or did they stay the course of originality?

Really, the premise made me think who those guys are which bring all those crazy documentation of crimes. I guess this will be my next tickets. Sounds great enough.

I'll be back.
Posted by: rendevous, November 15th, 2014, 4:43am; Reply: 1

Quoted from PrussianMosby
No thread about this movie?


Ahh. Post modern irony.


Quoted from PrussianMosby
The premise sounds gloriously entertaining.


Indeed.


Quoted from PrussianMosby
Without spoiling me, please: Anyone already has seen this?


Probably. But not me.


Quoted from PrussianMosby
Did they fuck it up with a usual mainstream love plot à la "love against all odds Titanic style" in the end or did they stay the course of originality?


I'm hoping for the latter. To wish for the former would be too post post ironic.


Quoted from PrussianMosby
Really, the premise made me think who those guys are which bring all those crazy documentation of crimes. I guess this will be my next tickets. Sounds great enough.


Well, quite. I guess this will be my next tickets... Are you going to go twice?


Quoted from PrussianMosby
I'll be back.


We wait. With bated breath.

R
Posted by: Demento, November 15th, 2014, 4:48am; Reply: 2
I read the script a while back. It was OK. It was written in a bit different style.

Watching the trailer obviously there are some small changes from the draft that was online and the finished film. From what I remember it was a pretty straightforward story. Kind of a 80s vibe. Should make a pretty decent film. Don't remember reading anything too original about the story.

This isn't playing in theaters where I live so I'll have to wait until it hits VOD to watch it. But like you, I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by: rendevous, November 15th, 2014, 5:00am; Reply: 3
I read the start of the script, which was interesting. Huge usage of ellipses... tended to... get on the... nerves. I would have read on but I'd like to wait for the movie. Should be good.

R
Posted by: Demento, November 15th, 2014, 5:55am; Reply: 4

Quoted from rendevous
Huge usage of ellipses...


Oh, yeah. And huge wacky fonts. If someone posted a script written in that way on simplyscripts, I'm pretty sure he'd get an earful from some members here.

Didn't bother me. At least it was something new.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, November 15th, 2014, 7:04am; Reply: 5
Just came out of this, thought it was excellent. Yes, the premise is extremely intriguing and it made me wonder why it hasn't been done specifically before...or perhaps it has. Thankfully, it maximizes that intrigue potential by serving up an exciting, nasty, scathingly satirical, pulpy (ok, enough adjectives already) thriller of the nocturnal variety!

I don't want to say much more for fear of spoiling it as there are a few spoiler-ish comments I would make to explain why I really responded to it, something that's so rare in mainstream cinema, which this kind of is in terms of cast, marketing and its wide release.

A special mention to Jake Gyllenhaal who gives a superb performance. His Lou Bloom is a fascinating character. He'll surely be recognized come gong time. Riz Ahmed is great too although I had a slight problem with his character which I won't go into here for spoiler reasons.

On top of that it was only made for 8.5 million which is heartening to see in this era as it looks five times that amount. I hope it makes lots of money and inspires others to make more tight, economical and daring films.
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), November 15th, 2014, 9:37am; Reply: 6
It only made $24 Million WW, which may be god on an $8.5 Million budget, but it did not perform well in terms of expectations.
Posted by: Pale Yellow, November 15th, 2014, 10:41am; Reply: 7
I've read some of the script...loved the writing in it...the story was 'ok' for me...I do want to see this though on the big screen...maybe today.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, November 15th, 2014, 12:02pm; Reply: 8

Quoted from Dreamscale
It only made $24 Million WW, which may be god on an $8.5 Million budget, but it did not perform well in terms of expectations.


- Well it only got released yesterday here in Taiwan and I just checked its IMDb page's release info which says it has a few countries left up until the end of the year so hopefully it will reap in a bit more.

To reiterate, its a credit to the makers that they produced a film which, whatever you might think about it on the whole, looks fantastic for its modest budget. Makes you wonder where all the cash goes on those big budget behemoths, marketing notwithstanding.
Posted by: Demento, November 15th, 2014, 12:52pm; Reply: 9

Quoted from Colkurtz8


- Well it only got released yesterday here in Taiwan and I just checked its IMDb page's release info which says it has a few countries left up until the end of the year so hopefully it will reap in a bit more.


These types of movies usually do better domestically than internationally. I doubt this will make more than 30 mil in the US. Would guess about 30 mil internationally as well.

It will probably make a profit. But won't be a big success.
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), November 15th, 2014, 12:56pm; Reply: 10
$23 Million at the NABO so far, but I highly doubt it gets to $30 Million.

Overseas, only at just under $2 Million.  I highly doubt it even gets to $7 Million.

IMO, a movie can look great for $7 - $10 Million.  Why so many shitty "little" flicks cost $35 Million plus is something I'll never understand, unless it's starpower that is eating up much of that production cost.
Posted by: Demento, November 15th, 2014, 5:54pm; Reply: 11
The overseas numbers at box office mojo aren't updated. I saw that it has made 3.5 mil in the UK alone so far, it opened in Germany this week, opens in France next week and a bunch of other places till new year. So, we'll see what it makes. Usually, these kinds of movies don't do great business overseas.

It'll put away around 2.5 - 3 mil for this weekend, domestically, most likely end up around 27 mil, maybe a bit more.

Still, it won't be a great financial success. But it'll most likely turn a small profit depending how much they put into marketing.
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), November 15th, 2014, 6:33pm; Reply: 12
Yes, it will definitely turn a profit, but based on all the up front hype, I think expectations were much bigger - probably in the $50 Million WWBO range, and as always, you never know when some film will just take of and make a shitload.

But there's more to just making bucks at the box office, as this was well reviewed and Gillenhal got lots of praise for his ballsy role.  That goes a long way, actually.

IMO, the bottom line is that movies make alot more than peeps think when it's all said and done, including rentals, DVD sales, and movie channel revenue.

Hollywood expects way too much and is so damn greedy.  I long for the days when a movie was made for $25 million, grossed $40 Million, and peeps were all thrilled.  Those days are long gone, though.
Posted by: Demento, November 15th, 2014, 7:07pm; Reply: 13

Quoted from Dreamscale
Yes, it will definitely turn a profit, but based on all the up front hype, I think expectations were much bigger


I agree. I would look at this as a disappointment. I'm sure the distributor isn't too thrilled as it did have quite the hype going in.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, November 15th, 2014, 9:02pm; Reply: 14
That's a shame in terms of it not meeting expectation but at least it turned a profit. I doubt DVD/VOD rental/sales are factored in as much as before where an overlooked film at the box office could conceivably make it up through word of mouth in the interim period. Piracy has seriously neutered that market.

Anyway, I've watched Gone Girl, Interstellar and this at the cinema over the past 3 weeks and this is my favourite, people should go see it.


Quoted from Dreamscale
Gillenhal  


- Oh, come on Jeff, that's a poor attempt to spell his name, I'm disappointed in you! In your defense, its a tough one to get right but that's why copy and paste was invented ;)
Posted by: DustinBowcot (Guest), November 16th, 2014, 4:05am; Reply: 15
What is generally forgotten about and doesn't get put into production budget is how much it costs to keep it in the cinemas. If arses are not on seats then the cinema run is over. To keep arses on seats costs money. Lots and lots of advertising money.

What can look like a profit, could actually be coming in at a loss.
Posted by: Demento, November 16th, 2014, 7:41am; Reply: 16
Most movies don't really make that much money. Especially smaller movies like this.

Most smaller movies that get a limited theatrical release lose money. They only do it because of the prestige that comes along with having your movie play in theaters. So they can say it had a theatrical run, so it can be eligible for award shows and it can get critic reviews and get a buzz going.

I saw an interview with a producer who was explaining that indie movies that play in a small number of theaters only do so as a way of marketing for the film. They do in fact in most cases lose money on the theatrical release. Which is something they know going into it. But they can say that their previous movie played in theaters and it makes them sound more legit to potential investors for the next one.

Plus even when you have a theatrical release, depending on what's being negotiated, the split goes kind of like: 60/40 for the studio the first week, 50/50 the second, 60/40 for the theater the third. Plus after the first week the number of theaters playing gets slashes and which each day it gets lower and lower.

It's not that easy for a movie to turn a profit.
Posted by: rendevous, November 16th, 2014, 9:37am; Reply: 17
All that's true, Demento. I've heard similar things myself.

I would have hoped Nightcrawler would have done better. But it is the first week. And there's a lot more to it than that, I suspect.

I think this one will have legs, of some sort. I'll find out for myself, once I've seen The Drop. I do have see Mr. Gandolfini's final performance on a big screen before I see anything else.

R
Posted by: dead by dawn, November 16th, 2014, 11:51am; Reply: 18
Nightcrawler was a great movie, R!!  Check it out.
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), November 17th, 2014, 10:23am; Reply: 19

Quoted from DustinBowcot
What is generally forgotten about and doesn't get put into production budget is how much it costs to keep it in the cinemas. If arses are not on seats then the cinema run is over. To keep arses on seats costs money. Lots and lots of advertising money.

What can look like a profit, could actually be coming in at a loss.


Although true to a certain extent, let's understand that it's the "theaters" that decide which movie they play and how long they play them.  Advertising obviously comes into play in this formula, but more importantly is how the film opens, what it's up against, and what it will be up against the following week.

The Industry can say all they want about making money and losing money, but as far as I'm concerend, it's pretty clear that all involved are doing very well for themselves, and it doesn't matter if their projects are a hit or a flop.

A perfect example is Producer George Furla.  Check this dude out on IMDB.  OK, sure, he's been  involved in a few good films, but the vast majority are not only terrible, terrible movies, but they're also huge financial flops, some of epic proportion.  BUT, somehow, and for some reason, the guy keeps going and I know for a fact, he lives quite well.

The general public is obviously missing something in the "success formula" that Hollywood likes to send out.

Posted by: Demento, November 17th, 2014, 11:34am; Reply: 20

Quoted from Dreamscale

The Industry can say all they want about making money and losing money, but as far as I'm concerend, it's pretty clear that all involved are doing very well for themselves, and it doesn't matter if their projects are a hit or a flop.


What they are missing out is that part of the film budget goes towards the producer's salary his assistants and so on. The people working for the production company draw a weekly paycheck no matter how the movies does or if the movie gets made at all. They get paid a fixed salary. If a movie they make does good, they get a bonus. The production company finds/earns capital and they run their business, like any other business.

If the movie fails they might not be hurt at all because they rarely invest any of their own money. It's the people that invest in the movie that get hurt. Most of them don't care about getting a IMDB credit, so you don't know who they are. And a lot of them don't invest just for a financial return but for artistic reasons, ego etc.

Usually in smaller movies and smaller time producers, from what I've read, they set up a project, get some names attached, then they get money from people close to them. Family, friends, business partners and so on. They build a small fund, something they get go and show to investors that have real money. So they can go "we have this much money, we need this much to make the movie". People usually think of Producers as people with a lot of money, but when you see movies with smaller budgets, let's say below 10 mil, they're usually people that can GET money. Round up a crew, get actors, a director and so on. They don't invest their own money in the movie and they get paid either way.
Posted by: albinopenguin, November 17th, 2014, 12:00pm; Reply: 21
Great film, but not mind blowing. The trailers reveal way too much and the first half is kind of slow. The lighting and style is heavily influenced by Drive (although Drive is a much better film). In other words, if you were intrigued by the trailer, then you'll leave the theater satisfied.

Oh and Gyllenhaal is fucking fantastic as always.

A- for me. Definitely check it out. But go see Birdman first.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, November 18th, 2014, 8:58am; Reply: 22

Quoted from albinopenguin
Great film, but not mind blowing. The trailers reveal way too much


- And that's why one should never ever watch trailers. They will only ruin the film for you, I fu?king despise them. Go on the basis of the people involved i.e director, writer and principal cast.


Quoted from albinopenguin
The lighting and style is heavily influenced by Drive (although Drive is a much better film).


- Yeah, many have drawn similarities in terms of location, look and score but I preferred this. I was let down by Drive when I first seen it but have liked it more and more with two subsequent re-watches. Its very enjoyable but rather slight. An exercise in style and that's fine too. I think Nightcrawler has far more interesting themes at play while never taking its foot off the gas either.
Posted by: Andrew, November 18th, 2014, 12:13pm; Reply: 23
Very good movie. Jake G is excellent.
Posted by: sniper, February 24th, 2015, 4:01am; Reply: 24
Finally got a chance to see this movie and, boy, I'm glad I did. Damn, this was excellent! Gyllenhaal is just plain scary (I am grudgingly beginning to love the hell out of him). Very impressed with how he played his character Lou.

I also loved how Lou doesn't really have a character arc (other than a profesional one), it works perfectly for his character and for the movie.

Brilliant.
Posted by: eldave1, March 22nd, 2015, 1:08pm; Reply: 25
Watched it last night. Not as much a fan as some of the others here. I did think that Jake was absolutely brilliant. I found the "if it bleeds it leads" thread of the story very tedious. It's been done a million times and done much better.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, March 28th, 2015, 7:07am; Reply: 26

Quoted from sniper
I also loved how Lou doesn't really have a character arc (other than a profesional one), it works perfectly for his character and for the movie.


Totally agree and how great is it to see a filmmaker have the conviction to follow through with that and not be beholden to formula. This is the freedom you get when working outside the system...and look how exhilarating it is to see it realized right to its amoral end.

I listened to a Q&A with Dan Gilroy recently where he flat out denounced character arcs as nothing more than narrative conventions which don't reflect reality or the human experience.

I say, "Good on ya, Dan!" and I'll be highly anticipating his next writer/director project.


Quoted from eldave1
I found the "if it bleeds it leads" thread of the story very tedious. It's been done a million times and done much better.


True, the "media is amoral" theme is a well worn one alright but have you ever seen it done from this particular angle before? From the perspective of stringers or "Nightcrawlers" to use the parlance of the film? I haven't. That's what made it so intriguing and original for me. A unique spin on a familiar subject.
Posted by: eldave1, March 28th, 2015, 10:47am; Reply: 27

Quoted from Colkurtz8

True, the "media is amoral" theme is a well worn one alright but have you ever seen it done from this particular angle before? From the perspective of stringers or "Nightcrawlers" to use the parlance of the film? I haven't. That's what made it so intriguing and original for me. A unique spin on a familiar subject.


I don't think the if it leads it bleeds debate was from Lou's perspective.  Anyway:

Again, I found the Lou Bloom (night crawler) character to be totally mesmerizing. Kind of like like Travis (De Niro) in Taxi Driver - of course the arc of their stories are different - but you get the point - you have to watch when they were on screen.

During the tiresome (and in my view somewhat fake/contrived) conflict between the News Director  and the Station Producer I could have gotten snacks and really not missed a thing. I found the conflict and the related dialogue between them cringe worthy.  It's like when you watch a movie and you know the creators are saying - okay - we got to have a B story conflict here and they trot out one that's been done a million times. I would have just have liked it better if the if it Bleeds it Leads concept was a given - rather than a point of conflict. Because much like - "sex sells" - it's not anymore.

I will grant you this - It could be that - because the Bloom character was so fascinating and  because Jake did such a great job - anything else in the film has a chance of suffering by comparison.  



Posted by: Colkurtz8, March 29th, 2015, 2:00am; Reply: 28

Quoted from eldave1
I don't think the if it leads it bleeds debate was from Lou's perspective.  Anyway:

During the tiresome (and in my view somewhat fake/contrived) conflict between the News Director  and the Station Producer I could have gotten snacks and really not missed a thing. I found the conflict and the related dialogue between them cringe worthy.  It's like when you watch a movie and you know the creators are saying - okay - we got to have a B story conflict here and they trot out one that's been done a million times. I would have just have liked it better if the if it Bleeds it Leads concept was a given - rather than a point of conflict. Because much like - "sex sells" - it's not anymore.


- Fair point, those arguments did seem moot alright. I thought you were referring to the amoral nature of Nina's channel as a whole which we're exposed to via Lou and the services he's providing.

Yeah, you would've assumed that Nina and the producer to be past these conflicts of interests by now, having come to a mutual compromise on the organisation's standards, a mandate.

Although, it is revealed that Nina has been with a number of channels before this and hasn't been with this one for very long. Plus, the film is so scathing in its depiction of the media that I guess they felt they needed some voice of reason to counterpoint the vampires!

Anyway, those arguments make up a very small part of the film and didn't detract from the overall experience.  I was willing to let them slide.
Posted by: eldave1, March 29th, 2015, 11:09am; Reply: 29

Quoted from Colkurtz8


- Fair point, those arguments did seem moot alright. I thought you were referring to the amoral nature of Nina's channel as a whole which we're exposed to via Lou and the services he's providing.

Yeah, you would've assumed that Nina and the producer to be past these conflicts of interests by now, having come to a mutual compromise on the organisation's standards, a mandate.

Although, it is revealed that Nina has been with a number of channels before this and hasn't been with this one for very long. Plus, the film is so scathing in its depiction of the media that I guess they felt they needed some voice of reason to counterpoint the vampires!

Anyway, those arguments make up a very small part of the film and didn't detract from the overall experience.  I was willing to let them slide.


Fair enough
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), June 14th, 2015, 2:05pm; Reply: 30
Now streaming on Netflix.

Although it took me 3 viewings to get through it, I'm glad I stayed with it.

The first hour was a slog for me.  Slow, dull, and not all that realistic, IMO. Lou, as a character, is a true maggot, and the fact that he gets worse...or maybe his true colors just shine brighter, is where this succeeds.  The stuff with Nina was rather weak, and again, IMO rather unbeleivable.  BUT, the last half hour is strong...very strong.  It ends on a another unrealistic plot point, but all in all, it was well done.

Jake Gyllinhaal did a great job.  He was menacing, sleazy, and a downright scumbag.  He had a strange way of "acting", that at first, I attributed to "poor acting", but in reality, it was just Lou's oddball character that Jake worked to perfection.

Not really my kind of flick, but no way I can say it's not a good film.

Solid B from me.
Posted by: Max, June 22nd, 2015, 6:58pm; Reply: 31
I liked the film very much.

What the f- was up with the script tho? Mini slugs all the way through? Ugh, big no for me.

The writing is pretty sweet tho, would just prefer solid slugs for the read.
Print page generated: April 28th, 2024, 6:26pm