People don't understand this movie.
-
aer71367-313-155069 — 10 years ago(April 04, 2016 01:28 PM)
You know amer9001, I wondered that as well. His performance was so strikingly different and amazing in character, it's kind of dumbfounding that he wasn't nominated. But this is The Oscars we're talking about. Those Depend wearing old farts wouldn't know a good movie if it gave them a lap dance!
-
Phidippides — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 09:04 AM)
I agree that his performance was very good. I also thought that his "employee" Rick did a very good job playing a drifter. I wonder if Gyllenhaal may not have been nominated for an Academy Award because the movie was not sufficiently "high profile"; there weren't any other A-list actors in the movie (Rene Russo and Bill Paxson were the only other recognizables). While it might not be a requirement that supporting actors be A-list in order to give the lead actor an Academy Award nomination, I bet it helps.
~After enjoying that movie, I figured I would drop by IMDB to read about its problems. -
MHRathalos — 9 years ago(June 03, 2016 11:11 AM)
Agreed, I love MCs that are crafty, psychotic and semi-bad. A lot of side characters would usually fill the role but this movie just imprints this traits to the main and I loved it. It saddens me that many people would down vote a movie just because they can not see the beauty of these unusual characteristics stapled to the "hero" of said movie.
-
Pep_88 — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 12:08 PM)
Dumber, but scarier. The thought that people see this and think the main character is supposed to be a good guy. There are threads on here where people are justifying Lou Bloom's actions. Or trying to understand how the main character is the good guy and not a terrible person.
It's just as bad as people watching a satire and getting on board with the point the entire movie is going against. -
drgnndblls88 — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 03:49 PM)
exactly. but this isn't the first film that people misunderstand in this way and won't be the last. it's more frustrating with something like Nightcrawler though, it's so straightforward and completely unambiguous, literally shoving it in your face and STILL people don't get it.
-
-
TheManInOil — 9 years ago(August 27, 2016 09:04 PM)
A lot of people only like movies that make them feel comfortable. This one challenges them. It even accuses them, as it suggests that Lou is a creature only made possible by the viewing audience's voracious appetite for blood.
In the documentary series 'Making a Murderer', some news media rep actually comments "Murder is really hot right now."
The suggestion that this kind of human scum are empowered by the viewing audience is not something that audience wants to be told. -
LA_Watcher — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 11:43 AM)
Agreed. It's not necessarily a top-notch movie in my eyes, but it's still very good. A lot of dumb people have this odd notion that they're supposed to like and empathize with the lead character. These same people might watch a historical drama about Adolf Hitler and give the movie a 1-star because "this guy seemed like a dick". Same people watch a movie about the KKK and think that the foul racist language out to KKK members was unnecessary.
Seems to be the nature of our world now, majority stupid people who are purely consumers who can't put together cohesive thoughts or understand anything beyond the surface depth. -
leybell — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 02:03 PM)
I just heard about and saw this movie last night and loved it, but an older lady near me said, "I didn't like it." I knew exactly what she meant. Using that logic, I guess one hates Sophie's Choice because Nazis are naughty. I bet Nightcrawler made some media corp execs a little on edge. Not the ethics of course (They'd be pro-slavery if it helped their profits) but the voyeur getting seen himself kind of unease. I think it's not entirely farfetched to think some did not want to promote it. I am being irresponsible without proof but so many news/cinema/media businesses control so much.
-
drgnndblls88 — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 03:41 PM)
They don't like having a mirror held up to their face I guess. Some people don't have the strength or will to look at certain parts of themselves. It's frightening.
What really gets to me are the ones who like the character and say beep like "I agree with him" "He's not wrong" etc etc like..what the hell? -
inuimari — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 04:57 PM)
People "get" this film. It's pretty obvious.
If people didn't like this film because the protagonist is unlikable, that's their choice. I'm getting tired of films with psychopaths that seem to have cropped up within the past few years. -
redivivus-wraith — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 11:52 AM)
I totally agree.
You don't give a lower/higher rating on a film because of the character being likable/di*ck
You rate a film because of its quality in acting, script, uniqueness, cinematography, etc.. etc..
I gave this film an 8. Pretty decent film I might say. -
jhill804 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 06:32 AM)
Many people understand that the movie is uninspired tripe with a one-dimensional lead character who faces absolutely no conflict, has zero arc and minimal development.
The appeal of Jake's "Lou Bloom" is similar to the appeal of his Brokeback Mountain costar Heath's "Joker" as they both endear themselves to braindead edgelords who wish to inflict chaos on a world of hapless normies from the comfort of their mom's basement. Except, even the Joker explains himself and gives you insight into why he's the way he is. And, of course, he faces conflict.
Villains like Jack Torrance, Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, Dracula, Bill the Butcher and Annie Wilkes, all are made stronger characters because of their weaknesses. To some people it may seem "cool" that Lou has less emotion than Patrick Bateman or a T-800, but it's that shallowness that leaves people like me, who desperately wanted to like this movie, feeling unmoved by the time the credits roll.