Get ready for the “ride” of your life, as you follow Lou Bloom (Gyllenhaal) on an energizing and exhilarating race to be the first to the scene of newsworthy catastrophic events. One thing is for sure, you will never watch the news the same way again. This self-reflexive movie delves into the world of capturing the worst days in people’s lives and constructing a story worthy of airtime. Full of characters you will love or love to hate, this movie is destined to be regarded as the most exciting movie about the business of television news after Mad City. Gyllenhaal gives the best performance of the year in this death defying roller-coaster of a movie. Whether you’re a news writer, camera operator, news director, or just like a thrilling movie, you will definitely have to make time to see this excellent work of cinema.

Nightcrawler is about petty thief turned television news cameraman Lou Bloom who steels and pawns in order to buy a camera to document tragic events in order to sell them to the highest bidding television news station. After several setbacks, he finally has his debut! And, that is just the beginning. He soon perfects his craft and turns the tables on his employers so that they need and want him. Primarily working for one struggling news station, he drives the nightly ratings up by being the first at every crime scene–even before the police. Determined to be the best, he dominates the market and drives out the competition. Being the best sometimes means bending the rules and taking one’s chance with death, and Bloom will stop at nothing to be the best and to have his name known around the city as the best nightcrawler capturing tragedies, deaths, and bizarre accidents on camera in a way that no one can match.

First highlighted in Hitchcock’s Psycho and a common thread in many horror/suspense films, Nightcrawler is constantly focusing on “eyes.” Throughout Psycho, the audience is faced with the bird’s eye view of Phoenix, the eyes of the real estate customer, Marion’s boss, the highway patrol officer’s, Norman’s, Marion’s lifeless eye, and most notoriously, the ever-whatchful eyes of mother. In the same vein as the Hitchcock masterpiece and foundation to the modern horror/suspense genre, this film follows suit by spending an incredible amount of time on “eyes.” Not always the eyes of the characters, but sometimes the eye of the camera–the lens. But, like any magic show staged by the best magicians, this film calls attention to not what is necessarily seen on screen (sometimes the screen within the screen) but what lies on the edges of what we see. THAT is where the true magic and story lie. The magician tells the audience to look stage right for the magic, when all along, the real magic is happening stage left. The term used to describe what happens on screen in a film is mise en scene. Destined to become a neo-classic, this film is the best self-reflexive film about the creation and sensation of television news after Mad City. It’s self-reflexive in that the entire movie is about the production and creation of that which the movie is based upon.

But it would be a mistake to suggest that this movie is told from Lou’s point-of-view, much less that it endorses his behavior. It’s too attuned to the anxiety and misery of the people he manipulates to validate such a reading. But it does put a subtle editorial frame around Lou’s odyssey. Nightcrawler is the blackly comedic, Neo-noir, night-people thriller that I wanted the Travis-Bickle-as-Superman fantasy Drive to be. Like Drive, it could be described as the best picture Michael Mann never made: a film about a private, ruthless loner who pursues his dream his way, always, and whose path through the world is marked by the bloodstains of the people he’s rolled over. In addition to Lou’s perspective, we get the points of view from the news director (Nina), his counterpart, and the news audience. It’s a comprehensive and dynamic story that seamlessly combines the perspectives of each of the elements to create the thrill ride that is as sensational as the stories on screen.

This film marks Dan Gilroy’s début as a director. He wrote the screenplay for The Bourne Legacy with his brother Tony, and although Nightcrawler is much less of an action movie, the pacing of the plot is remarkably adept, and we never have long to wait before the next bend in the road. More often than not, this being Los Angeles, that means a real bend. Lucky Lou reaches a smashed-up vehicle before anyone else, and, having taken a minute to weigh his options, drags the unconscious body of the victim into the pool of the headlights, the better to frame the disaster in style and give viewers a clearer look. He is like a Billy Wilder hero (Kirk Douglas’s unscrupulous reporter, say, from Ace in the Hole) transplanted to the land of David Lynch. The difference is that, where Lynch, in Wild at Heart and Mulholland Drive, follows those who stagger away from car wrecks, hurt and haunted, Gilroy remains with the haunter, who only stands and stares.

A film that should be shown in every television news production class, Nightcrawler is sure to transport anyone who watches it into the unscrupulous underworld of scooping the next station over to make a mark on the ratings charts. This is also a great film for any media ethics class because it provides the audience with fantastic material to discuss questions of how far is too far.

Throwback Thursday! Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Picture in 1984, Terms of Endearment is a great example of a beautiful and dynamic story. Combine the remarkable story with the incredible all-star cast, and you get an instant American classic. The narrative is touching, heartwarming, funny, and gut-wrenching. Covering the thirty-year lifespan of the relationship between a mother and daughter, this movie will have you laughing one moment and crying the next. From a mother-daughter story to the story of a charmingly eccentric woman who, in her 50’s who finally permits herself to fall in love; and the chronicle of a troubled marriage between a young professor and his whimsical bride. It’s one part dark comedy and one part heavy drama.

The movie’s about two remarkable women and their relationships with each other and with the men in their lives. Aurora, the mother, is played by Shirley MacLaine. She’s a widow who lives in Houston and hasn’t dated a man since her husband died. Maybe she’s redirected her sexual desires into the backyard, where her garden has grown so large and elaborate that she either will have to find a man pretty quickly or move to a house with a bigger yard. Emma, her daughter, played by Debra Winger, is one of those people who seems to have been blessed with a sense of life and joy. She marries a guy named Flap, played by Jeff Daniels, who teaches English in a series of Midwestern colleges; she rears three kids and puts up with Flap, who has an eye for coeds. And, Freud would have a hay day with the relationship that is formed between MacLaine’s character and the retired astronaut next-door Garrett Breedlove, played by Jack Nicholson; she is both repulsed by and attracted to him. Winger and her husband hit rough patches that they have to pull through. All of this is told in a series of perfectly written, acted and directed scenes that flow as effortlessly as a perfect day, and then something happens that is totally unexpected, and changes everything.

A lesser movie might flail hopelessly between such drastic extremes, and ”Terms of Endearment” does falter here and there. But it somehow manages to incorporate a great many dramatic threads. If it doesn’t always do so with the utmost grace or economy, neither does it ever fail to be enormously appealing, thanks to the bright, witty, larger- than-life performances that James Brooks has elicited from his stars. After a while, though, the film seems to relax about establishing its own cleverness, and it moves on more comfortably to follow the characters and their lives.

There are some lovely supporting performances in the film too; most notably John Lithgow’s as the bashful Iowa banker who becomes Emma’s lover after encountering her in the supermarket. Mr. Lithgow plays this entire episode clutching a canned ham in his left arm, yet he manages to make this touch seem sweet rather than sardonic. Danny De Vito is also quite good as Vernon Dahlart, whose name captures the flavor of his character and who is one of the many Texan moths around Aurora’s flame. As Flap, Mr. Daniels seems pleasant but ordinary, without the immense scale of the three other principals. This doesn’t seem to be the fault of the performance, but rather that of the screenplay. As written, Flap is an indistinct character.

This is a wonderful film. There isn’t a thing that I would change, with the exception of a lack of background on the characters, and I was exhilarated by the freedom it gives itself to move from the high comedy of Nicholson’s best moments to the acting of Debra Winger in the closing scenes. She outdoes herself. It’s a great performance. And yet it’s not a “performance.” There are scenes that have such a casual piety that acting seems to have nothing to do with it. She doesn’t reach for effects, and neither does the film, because it’s all right there. If you’ve never seen this American classic, you definitely need to plan to, and add it to your list.

Get ready for the ride of your life…especially if you choose to watch this stunning, visually spectacular movie in a IMAX Dome Theatre. Christopher Nolan has done it again…he truly has the ability to impress and strike awe in the eyes and minds of the audience. This thought-provoking and astonishing movie will rock you down to your very core. Interstellar exceeds even what you thought Nolan could bring to the screen to create a magical, transformative movie experience that, much like Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, will compel you to continue thinking about the movie long after you left the auditorium. And that curious desire to know more is mostly because the physics and logic, within this visual masterpiece, are never fully explained, and many elements left vague, thus causing the intellectually based narrative’s reach to exceed even Nolan’s grasp. Filmmakers are masters of creating worlds of fantasy, mystery, and wonder; but it’s encumbered upon the directors and writers to explain the logic and science that exists within the fictitious world, and that is where this film fails and leaves the audience unfulfilled.

Not taking place that far into our future, Interstellar is about a group of scientists and astronauts who have the responsibly to find another home for the human race, struggling to survive on a dying earth. Earth is struck with a plague of sorts that has ravaged the land, stripped it of nutrients, and covered it in dust. Corn is about the only crop left that can be grown but is slowly becoming extinct itself. Cooper (Matthew McCanaughey), a former NASA pilot turned farmer, is the father of two children whom he desperately wants to save from the dying earth. Contrary to what Cooper’s father-in-law warns him, he decides to join a secret mission to find a new home in another galaxy lead by NASA scientist Dr. Brand (Michael Caine). Joined by Dr. Brand’s equally intellectually brilliant daughter Dr. Brand (Anne Hathaway), Romilly (David Gyasi), Doyle (Wes Bentley), and the AI cyber soldier TARS, the five set off to places unknown. Leaving behind loved ones on a journey that will last for years, the intrepid explorers set forth for a wormhole that leads to another galaxy.

With the possible exception of Gravity, there is not any other film that can compare with the visual spender and awe-inspiring cinematography and soundscape that Nolan brings to the screen in his cinematic masterpiece Interstellar. If you have the opportunity to watch it in an IMAX Theatre (in particular a Dome IMAX), you will benefit from an hour’s worth of footage shot with IMAX cameras that the regular (even 4K) theaters cannot fully showcase in all its wonder. However, if you watch it in an IMAX Dome, you will have to get used to the cuts between the “360” footage and the regular format; distracting at first, but soon you accept and even find excitement and amazement in the scenes that completely envelope the audience. Scored by Han Zimmer, the music is beautiful and terrifying all at the same time. The soundscape truly captures the emotions and breathtaking views in the movie. Enabling the audience to feel like they are in space with the astronauts, the absence of sound in many of the space scenes, creates a feeling of helplessness and fear. Combine the brilliant direction and score with the talented eye of cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema and the meticulous cuts of editor Lee Smith, and you truly have a work of art.

Beyond the incredibly stunning visuals and breathtaking sound design lies an intellectually-based narrative that has so much potential but is never fully explained and follows no known logic–even within the realm of the movie itself. In many respects, the movie could be subtitled “The Suspension of Disbelief.” It is common knowledge that audiences have to employ the use of the “suspension of disbelief,” but the entire plot of a movie should not rely on the audience just accepting elements of the movie just for the sake of blindly making sense of the movie. I would love to have watched the movie with a theoretical physicists so I could have discussed the science and theory behind the plot of the movie. It would be quite difficult to discuss the shortfalls of the plot without giving away key elements and surprises in the movie, so I will not attempt to do so. However, there are definitely straw-man arguments and a reoccurring deus ex machina that serves to explain everything even though itself is never fully explained. As complicated as the plot was in Inception, it is more easily explained than many of the plot points in Interstellar. Essentially, Nolan has created a world in which you just accept the logic and scientific theories even though they do not make sense within the infrastructure of the movie.

Your imagination will be blown away in this visual masterpiece that will provoke you to continue thinking about the plot of the movie long after the credits roll and you get into your car. Questions like how and why will be the ones generating post-movie conversations in the car with your friends. Debating the science and logic in the movie will likely prompt college professors to build entire lessons around the story. Maybe that is what Nolan was hoping for…creating curious minds and enticing new explorers to be the next great minds in our future. Or, it is entirely possible that he just wanted to tell a visually powerful story that rests on fabricated theoretic physics. Either way, you will thoroughly enjoy the movie–except for the whole “how does that make sense?” Despite the beautiful mess of science the movie exhibits, you may still want to go along with the high-impact edge-of-your-seat ride.

Actually, that was pretty good. Pay no attention to other reviews that have been written. Before I Go to Sleep is a pretty good thriller–if you don’t mind thriller cliches, that is. You’re neither going to witness Nicole Kidman’s nor Colin Firth’s best or a good performance, but you will get a fun thriller to watch this weekend. It basically follows suit with the rest of the October movies, in terms of cinematic quality, with the likely exception of Nightcrawler (from what other critics have written). Although I haven’t seen it yet, I plan to this weekend or next week. As the credits role, you will most likely feel as if you sat through a Lifetime movie with A-List actors. Despite the many cliche moments, there is a great plot twist that I did not see coming. Since the movie is only 1.5hrs, it launches out the gate like a sprinter, and keeps up a good pace for the run of the film.

Before I Go to Sleep is about Christine (Kidman) who suffers from a severe case of amnesia that causes her to lose her memories from any given day, while she sleeps, and wakes up feeling as if she is back to her 20s. Through her husband Ben (Firth) and a video diary, she is able to retain some of what she has learned each day. However, with the help of her psychiatrist, she uncovers something dark that could rock her world while she pieces together her past.

The movie opens with a very Hitchcock-ian ECU (extreme closeup) on Chris’ eye. This shot is very reminiscent of the final shot of Marion in Psycho as the camera slowly spirals out from her lifeless eyes. Much in the same way the much more comedic 50 First Dates plays out, this movie features a similar concept of narrative exposition from loved ones, newspaper clippings, and photographs. However, this is a much darker story than the comedic counterpart. Over all the cinematography, direction, and screenwriting is par for the course for Lifetime-esque films. But, this IS a theatrical release, so it falls short of where it should be.

The plot keeps you guessing and has you along for the ride from the very beginning. There are certainly unanswered questions like: why all of a sudden is she (Chris) able to slowly recall memories even though she has been stricken with severe amnesia for ten years? And, at what point did this psychiatrist become involved with Chris? She still lives in the same city where she had been prior to the accident, so why don’t friends ever come over or check up on her? I suppose, this is where one should employ the suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy this moderate thriller.

Not at all Oscar bait, but could very well be Raspberry bait; it’s one of those films you watch for pure entertainment value and enjoy the ride, as “TV” as it is. Thankfully, it sticks to an appropriate run time of 1.5hrs, and will keep your attention as long as you like Lifetime style movies. And, this critic enjoys them from time to time. Happy Halloween!