Nightmare Alley (2021)

Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,582
1,331
Nope.

I have not read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, but I feel there is something akin to it at work in this film. Del Toro is not trying to film a carnival. The reference point is other films that filmed carnivals, it's mimicking the aesthetic of the representations of the thing. It's so far removed from any kind of reality that absolutely no dramaturgy can coalesce. I am not saying that you can't engage the spectator when using a stylized aesthetic (Wes Anderson movies are a good proof it's possible), but here it's just a collage of tropes with no personality whatsoever, so one believe in nothing and care about no one (except maybe the drunk mentalist ?).

I also invite you to compare the plot of the movie to the plot of the 1947 movie or the one of the 1946 book both movies are based on. In his adaptation Del Toro manages to remove basically all the elements that create dramatic tension. As a result his movie feels like 1 hour of exposition, a change of scenery, 45 more minutes of exposition and when after all this build up we finally reach what should be the meat of the movie (the Ezra Grindle part) it's lamely resolved in 20 minutes, just leaving room for a punchline the movie did not earn.

A big disappointment for me, because I am always ready for a good film noir. It feels like the recent great entries in the genre are mostly chinese art house ones like Bi Gan's 'Long Day's Journey into Night' or Diao Yinan's 'The Wild Goose Lake' and 'Black Coal, Thin Ice'.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 2 users
TomServo

TomServo

<Bronze Donator>
6,410
8,432
Szlia said:
Nope.

I have not read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, but I feel there is something akin to it at work in this film. Del Toro is not trying to film a carnival. The reference point is other films that filmed carnivals, it's mimicking the aesthetic of the representations of the thing. It's so far removed from any kind of reality that absolutely no dramaturgy can coalesce. I am not saying that you can't engage the spectator when using a stylized aesthetic (Wes Anderson movies are a good proof it's possible), but here it's just a collage of tropes with no personality whatsoever, so one believe in nothing and care about no one (except maybe the drunk mentalist ?).

I also invite you to compare the plot of the movie to the plot of the 1947 movie or the one of the 1946 book both movies are based on. In his adaptation Del Toro manages to remove basically all the elements that create dramatic tension. As a result his movie feels like 1 hour of exposition, a change of scenery, 45 more minutes of exposition and when after all this build up we finally reach what should be the meat of the movie (the Ezra Grindle part) it's lamely resolved in 20 minutes, just leaving room for a punchline the movie did not earn.

A big disappointment for me, because I am always ready for a good film noir. It feels like the recent great entries in the genre are mostly chinese art house ones like Bi Gan's 'Long Day's Journey into Night' or Diao Yinan's 'The Wild Goose Lake' and 'Black Coal, Thin Ice'.
Click to expand...
Sound like a commie dick sucker.
 
Flattop

Flattop

Trakanon Raider
74
117
I enjoyed this. The audience got to play amateur-psychoanalysis on the characters. I didn't feel like they casted for woke culture either. Maybe some underlying feminist creep?

Let's talk about this cast real quick though: I'm skipping the major characters and cutting to the side characters like my man Tim Blake Nelson and the Jim Beaver from Supernatural. The whole cast were pretty much hitters, even the small roles. I'm wondering who woulda played the better sleazy carney geek-maker for the big role, Willem or Tim? Tim's fucked up goofy face or Willems sleazy weasel face? I honestly think you could have switched their roles and still gotten a great performance here.

The wife did nothing for me. I think she should have died. Would have made a greater impact for why Brad geeks out.

Brad geeks out why? Because his woman left? Because he was betrayed by Galadriel? Because money? Combo? It wasn't because he killed an old man, he liked killing old men. I think the motive was weak for him sucking chickens in the end.

WHY was she (Galadriel) so angry with Bradly? At first I thought she was testing to see how good he was so she could use him as a weapon to kill the old men that hurt her or something (the titty scar). But then it seemed like she did it because a carney embarrassed her in public (which would be typical petty behavior). Or did she do it because Brad had her believing in magic for a minute when he pulled the trick with the gun and her mom's history?



I think Brad could have been replaced by another actor, Jon Hamm maybe.
 
  • 1Garbage
Reactions: 1 user
spronk

spronk

FPS noob
22,748
25,954
Saw this tonight (its on HBO Max), first half of the movie is great and cool set of actors/carnies and setting. Second half is ok, not really as interesting but carried by the two main leads. Ending sucks, predictable and stupid.

Biggest beef is that it really destroys the movies credibility that all these people who are supposed to be carnies/con-men constantly put their entire trust and safety wholely into someone else. They are con men because they literally trust nobody and scam everyone. Oh well, since its Del Toro I just go with this is sort of a fantastical world and the monsters are men, not actual monsters.

Not a great movie though, paced well and the time flies by and the acting is great but end of the day not a great script.
 
jaycint

jaycint

Lord Nagafen Raider
3
0
Overall I enjoyed it, I'd say about a 7.5 out of 10. I think it would have been a much better film if it were 30 to 40 minutes shorter. I always judge these things by whether or not I'm hitting pause to see how much time is left. Stellar acting all around in my opinion and the last scene was great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.