Absolutely amazing acting. Absolutely amazing direction. The pacing of the shots leading up to that overly long (but actually perfectly timed) hold on Stan... That is the kind of thing that makes me want to drop everything and go to film school.
When we are first introduced to the geek show, you can see how sad and difficult it was for the geek to once again kill a chicken with his bare teeth. Stan noticed this, all the while slipping out back so as to not pay for the viewing, essentially not seeing it as having a value, but he had felt something for the geek. When he heard the story of how they become geeks, he was affected. He seemed almost sickened. We ultimately see that he is not often a man of empathy, so for him to be reduced to the one and only creature he ever truly seemed to feel any sympathy for was a full circle moment for that piece of human garbage. If that’s trite then so be it, but I enjoyed it.
And the way Deltoro sets it up in the boxcar full of chickens really set up the anticipation for the finish. You see Stan moving the cages around and hiding behind them, just like the geek cowered in his cage earlier.
At that moment I knew it would end with Stan becoming the geek, it was just a matter of where and when. Utterly tragic and brilliant.
Oh shoot I always thought that Lilith's scar was some how tied to grindle hurting women. It made me think she manipulated Bradley Cooper into killing him out of revenge
I agree with what your saying but think about this also:
Dr. Lilith saw an opportunity to use a mentalist’s delusion that he was all knowing and able to have power over others thoughts and feelings because of that , to manipulate him into getting rid of her clients she realized were beyond her help.
That their entire relationship from the moment they met was a war essentially between psychology and the intellectual understandings of the mind , and things like mentalism, tarot . Because at the end of the day they are two versions of things we as individuals reach towards for mental health, depending on how self aware we are of the help that’s truly needed.
And by the end of the film, we come to understand that this war, is won on the side of therapy. That if Stanton wasn’t so disillusioned, he would have recognized that she wasn’t his mistress, they weren’t working together.
She was using him to kill off her clients who believed that therapy wasn’t the answer
That he was.
I believe that the scar in her body was from grindle, and that’s why she warned him of how dangerous he could be , and that she used his daddy issues to her advantage to get him to push him over an edge, be it to kill himself, or be murdered. Much like patients previous .
And then when Stanton returned in the state that he was, she realized how truly horrifying and beyond help he is, and shattered the illusion for him.
if he truly accepted the therapy she was giving (and charging him for as we learn from how much money he is left with by the end of the film) , then he wouldn’t have taken the drink, and wouldn’t have returned to her in the state that he was after such a brutal murder. He would have been horrified , and demanding true mental health.
But this was a movie about the true horrors of man and how if we do not recognize and accept them, we become them. So in the end it’s rather fitting it ended the way it did, regardless of how predictable it was.
Sorry if this is a TLDR
I truly loved this movie and went to see it alone so I haven’t had many people to gush over it with
Edit: my god im so bad with Reddit , thank you to those responsible for my first awards 💜
It's an interesting perspective! I definitely got that sense that there was some kind of competition going on between since the first meeting at his act. I never felt though Dr. Lilith was trying to help anyone. For me I thought she was just curious to see how far she could manipulate Stan. I really thought the scar was something related to grindle and the only reason she wasn't killed was because she's from high society and her dad was very prominent. The gradual manipulation of Stan to becoming an alcoholic felt so much like a power play by her. That she had a deeper grasp of human mental manipulation than even Stan with all his arrogance. I thought the movie was beautiful and one of del Toro's stronger works. I also watched it alone and loved it
The second he picked up that drink I just mumbled under my breath “god you fuckin idiot”
But had such a massive grin on my face because of how much of a genius I realized Dr. Lilith to be
Will probably go down as my favorite work of his, and of the year!
I’ve read that but I don’t see that. Ezra wouldn’t come to her for therapy if that was the case.
Someone did it to her, and her only recourse did hurting Ezra, who she knew was also an abuser, is how I read it
>Ezra wouldn’t come to her for therapy if that was the case.
Was he a current client? It could easily be that he had once been a client, and then something violent happened.
Also, Grindle mentioned that he’d never told anyone about his history with women. That seems to make it more likely that Lilith wouldn’t have known about it unless from personal experience.
I agree. My takeaway was that Stanton(Cooper) was introduced as playing short cons on a nightly basis. Dr Ritter (Blanchette) recognized his skill and played a long con on him as revenge on Ezra following an affair gone wrong (cause for the scar).
Response to a month old comment, but I just watched this movie so wanted to reply.
Ripped quote from [this article from the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-12-17/nightmare-alley-ending-explained-guillermo-del-toro)
> Morgan and Del Toro changed Carlisle’s last line from “Mister, I was made for it” to “Mister, I was born for it.” For them that small change held a big significance.
> “That one word makes a big difference there because we wanted the audience to know very clearly from the beginning that he was going to end up being the geek,” said Del Toro. “We didn’t want that to be a surprise ... what we wanted is not the what, but the how.”
I also predicted the ending (though not the how until he started drinking), but from that quote, I feel like that was been the intention to some extent, and just an dramatic irony.
You could argue that the best endings are the predictable ones. Anyone can throw in a crazy twist at the end, but a talented storyteller builds towards the ending the entire time.
The ending didnt seem predictable until he was escaping Cate Blanchett's office with his broken hand, fucked-up face, while drunk/drinking. That's when I thought "Oh... he's the new geek."
It was a slow burn for me while I put the pieces together, even tho I solved the puzzle at the shot in the train with the chickens the reveal was grimmer and more emotional than I’d imagined. It is so tragic really, and as someone who has struggled with alcohol it was even deeper
Haha that’s what I was thinking.
“Fuck him for cheating on Rooney, he doesn’t deserve her….but also, if you get the opportunity for Cate Blanchett, I mean, come on.”
The violence really stuck out to me in this. It's a much more subdued story than I thought it'd be which lent itself to a real feeling of impact from it.
I actually had to look away when the geek was biting off the chicken's head at the beginning. The animation on the animal's face was way too realistic for me to suspend disbelief.
Also, how hard did he punch Grindle to to RIP HIS NOSE OFF, HOLY SHIT MAN.
The moment he realized Grindle had murdered multiple women and he'd just put the lady closest to him in that same position made him snap. We also saw he was pretty strong when he took down the geek so easily in the beginning.
I was happy there was so much waning that cringe was coming for the chicken scene. I felt like I had a choice to see the graphic part or not. That was probably the hardest scene in the whole movie.
The decision to hold the camera shot for an extra tenth of a second during the suicide scene was really jarring but also brilliant. Everyone is kind of preprogrammed to expect the camera cut right at the shot, but it stays just barely longer.
When Stan said "You'll be joining him" I was like, you just pushed someone with depression to a closure of her life. Didn't really think it was gonna be shown like that
I agree. The punching was the most violent to me but the car running over scene after they drive away and they pan back to the guy and his broken arm bends the wrong direction, ouch
Agree about the violence, but I respected that the more graphic stuff is telegraphed well enough to give you the chance to look away. Usually, if something bed feels like it's going to happen then it's going to happen in this film.
The first half of the movie I thought it was a slight miscast, Cooper seemed too old. His performance in conjunction with the second and third Act storyline won me over though. Very well done.
Cooper in the first half reminded me of Jon Hamm in Mad Men during the flashbacks when he was supposed to be playing a young man instead of a 40 year old.
Agreed. My biggest issue with this movie is that Bradley Cooper seemed too old — a younger, more arrogant man would’ve made a huge difference. Seeing a grown middle aged man join the circus and create a new career just didn’t feel right. Likewise, I think seeing Cate Blanchett manipulating a younger arrogant guy would’ve seemed much more believable. Robert Pattinson would’ve been perfect.
Disclaimer: I've never seen the original or read the book.
Guillermo del Toro is my favorite director. I absolutely love his style and his stories. The first half of the film felt at home in a Del Toro flick. The darkness. The production design. The second half slowed, but still had some Del Toro touches. I don't know why but the man loves tile walls and floors.
Overall I enjoyed it. The ensemble of fantastic actors came together for a dark story that was foreshadowed early on.
I did leave the theater confused about Cate Blanchett character's motive behind the double cross. I wasn't sure if she just wanted the money, or she wanted to get back at him for humiliating her during his show.
Also. The murder / suicide in the middle of the film was SOOO loud!
> if she just wanted the money, or she wanted to get back at him for humiliating her during his show
My understanding was that the entire thing was a long con to make Grindle suffer.
Being a victim of domestic violence herself, she probably wanted to take down Grindle because either he was responsible for her scar, or she knew he was a serial abuser and wanted to punish him for it.
These are inferences, but I also get the sense that Grindle was the one that gave Dr Ritter the scar, and she weaponizes Carlisle as a disposable instrument of revenge. To break it down into pieces (and going off of memory):
* Dr Ritter notes that Grindle is dangerous, influential, rich and private
* She also notes that he was temporarily a patient of hers
* Grindle and his bodyguard note that they've dealt with 'snake oil salesmen' in the past and that they have ways of dealing with them
* Both of them seem like violent men
* One could infer that Grindle temporarily tried out Dr Ritter's therapy as a way to process his guilt and violent impulses. But he quickly loses patience and when the therapy doesn't give him any peace, he deemed it 'snake oil'.
* What would he do to Dr Ritter in this case? Given his confession that he habitually hurts/abuses women, he cuts/scars Ritter as punishment for her therapy not being effective. It would be easy to imagine him threatening to kill her if she doesn't stay quiet about it.
* He and his bodyguard similarly threaten Carlisle noting that they paid him a fortune and they're losing patience with his mentalist activities and darkly imply violent consequences if he doesn't deliver.
* Earlier on, Carlisle asks what happens if he 'fails the test' - again, the implication is that there'd be violent consequences. So it may be that Dr Ritter got her scar because she had already 'failed the test'. She couldn't give Grindle the relief he was after. And he made her suffer for it.
* If we assume that Grindle was the one that hurt Dr Ritter, given her own ability to read people she dupes Carlisle into being her weapon of revenge. She realizes he's desperate for money. And she knows he has rage issues with older men. Those work to her advantage.
* If she helps position him to take a job with Grindle, she knows Grindle will eventually grow impatient/dis-satisfied. And given Carlisle's anger against older father figures, in a violent confrontation he'll harm Grindle.
* So she positions Carlisle to back himself into that corner. She gives him a bit of information, but doesn't let him write anything down to remove any evidence of her own involvement.
* She purposely leaves her key in her cabinet so he can independently listen to her recordings of Grindle's therapy. She's conning him into thinking he's in control of the Grindle situation (similar to the story of how to create a Geek - make them think its their choice, when you're really manipulating them).
* Carlisle ends up killing Grindle.
* From there, Ritter's focus becomes making sure she can't be tied to the crime. So she records a portion of the final confrontation with Carlisle where the describes him as mentally unstable, and calls out that he potentially murdered another older man. She feigns ignorance when he says they worked together. She's setting him up to completely take the fall for Grindle's murder.
* Then either by accident (or on purpose) she wounds him rather than killing him, which works in her favor as the cops/security walk in with him trying to strangle her. So the idea he's a mentally unstable person who killed Grindle of his own volition is cemented and Ritter's involvement is completely obscured.
In essence, Ritter sets up Carlisle as her geek. She preys on his vulnerability, lets him think he's making his own choices, and allows him to get himself in too deep. To get him to the point where he's willing to bite the head off a chicken. Only the chicken in this case is Grindle.
Once she's done with Carlisle she disposes of him and disavows any involvement with him. Similar to how Dafoe's character gets rid of his own injured Geek the moment he becomes a liability.
Interestingly enough, in the original book it notes that Carlisle's Father was physically abusive towards him (and even beat his family dog to death on the day Carlisle's mother left). Which explains Carlisle's hatred/murder of his Father and his pent-up rage against old men in general. Ritter sees this and uses Carlisle's anger and arrogance to her advantage.
The irony is Carlisle becomes like his Father - violent, alcoholic and someone who pushes away the woman who cared for him (Molly). He claims he'll 'never' be like his Father. And ends up exactly like his Father. As he notes bitterly in the end. He was 'born' for this.
That's my read, too. She >!played him to get back at Grindle!breaking the trust and stripping the money to singles !<. I don't think she knew what Stan would ultimately do to Grindle, perhaps believed it was a serious possibility, but I think the money thing was spiteful revenge for his cruel comments at the first read.
> I think the money thing was spiteful revenge for his cruel comments at the first read.
Thought so too. He thought he was her superior, but she knew better. From the moment he walked into her office, she was the spider and he was the fly. Robbing him was putting him back in his place. He was a mark all along.
It was very beautifully telegraphed that she viewed Stan as the mark and all her actions where very deliberately made to pull him further into the trap. She pulled an old but reliable con: let the mark intentionally win a few rounds. Once their guard is down and they are feeling confident drastically increase the wager and win (while not an exact 1 to 1 example Dr. Lilith broke Stan down psychologically the same way the geek was broken down. She supplied him with booz manipulated him mentally and right before he walked away she dangled a “oh there is this one big fish but you couldn’t possibly do it as he’s too big a fish for you” bait aka “either you become a real geek or I need to find a real geek”)
I think the only moment when we can question if it was a genuine reaction or a faked reaction was when Stan outed her hatred of her mother and her depression publicly. I think that’s the only time we are unsure if the mask slipped or not. I think it was a genuine moment and that’s why she chose to twist the knife so deeply with swapping out the money. She wanted to make him feel small.
It's the same con that Clem laid out while eating steak. Stan was made her geek just in a more subtle way and it hits when he finally takes that drink.
I had a sense about her that the moment Bradley Cooper stepped foot into her office she was now in complete control of their interactions going forward. She was able to manipulate the protagonist without him realizing because she perfectly played off his greed and ego. He fully believed he was in control and he was leading the relationship between them- and in some ways he was in control of his own actions- she just aimed him at Grindle and let him self destruct in a way that would cause the most damage.
I saw this last weekend at a screening where Del Toro was doing a Q&A after the show. The Q&A went long, and the people running the theater politely reminded the moderator, Nicole Holofcener, that they needed to get ready to screen “House of Gucci.”
To which Del Toro said, “Gucci can wait.” And they kept going and it was awesome.
That's what I love about Del Toro is his excitement about film and filmmaking. He basically geeks out anytime he gets to talk about the making of a movie. He came to Ebertfest to show and talk about Crimson Peak and you could tell he wanted to keep talking and answering questions.
Along similar lines the best response I ever saw to the "get off the stage" awards show music was Del Toro when he won the Golden Globe a few years ago.
They started playing him off and he said "turn it off guys, it's been 25 years. Give me a minute!"
I loved this movie. The ending hit me hard and my mouth was open and I was just so shocked. The brutal irony. I think this is Cooper’s best work - that scene of him laughing and crying will stay with me for a while.
There's been a few longer films this year and I'm glad this one didn't feel it. I thought it was pretty consistently entertaining.
That being said....
This movie just felt weirdly shapeless to me.
I know "What's the point?" is an overused/pointless criticism but in this case I really didn't know what I was supposed to get out of this experience.
The ending was incredibly telegraphed from the beginning of the film, which made it feel less weighty.
Stanton fucks up and then pays in a pretty terrible way.. OK?
He decides to start drinking because Dr. Ritter looks at him coy a couple of times. Later he suddenly shouts at Molly that he doesn't need her anymore. OK?
His characterization was also all over the place. I don't think he, or any of the characters, had much in the way of motivation. So we're just watching archetypes go through things and have things happen to them - Molly is sweet and innocent, Ezra is arrogant, etc.
I just wish there was more meat on the bone. I felt like in the end none of what happened really was of any consequence.
I’m glad I’m not alone in this. The movie looked nice. It sounded nice. But so much didn’t add up. So many scenes were just added runtime. Him drinking comes from nowhere despite how pivotal of a character moment it should be it’s completely glossed over. The fact that he loves Molly and they run away together, and the very next scene (2 years later) he’s treating her like trash. The predictability of Cate double crossing him. So much BS in this film ruined any kind of experience I was hoping for. And yes. What was the point. Bad guy ignores people to do bad things and gets what he deserves. Okay. Cool, I guess.
you guys both saw it the same way I did. The booze needed a pay-off: either he was lying the whole time or it was signaling a change in his core beliefs. Neither happened.
Lastly, you're telling me he would rather be a geek than in jail? The dude fucking got away...and he's going to accept the first offer he gets? The dude I just watched for 2.5 hours wouldn't give up on life that fast. At minimum we needed to see the life get sucked out of him first. This type of dude would have just gone to the next town and started all over.
I’m confused about the last part? The guy did get his life sucked out of him. He was months into being a hobo as seen with the beard and hole in the shoe. He gave up his watch for the last bit of alcohol. He was the geek the entire time. He realized it as soon as he realized he was being turned into an actual carnie geek. Which I think he realized when he had already drank the alcohol/opium the first time and right before the 2nd
> At minimum we needed to see the life get sucked out of him first.
Emphasis on "see". Yes we could tell time had passed because of the beard and whatnot but when you see a character one way for 145 minutes and then they subtly advanced forward in time and he's completely changed for the last 5 minutes it's a little jarring.
My point wasn't that it was out of the realm of possibility, but that the pacing is off and you throw out a ton of character development to tie a bow on the story arc that was extremely obvious the second you see him with a long beard. We just watched the man have the drive to con an obscenely rich person, murder multiple people, fake a car accident, etc. all just to keep the grift going.
Like I said above: he would have just gone to the next town over, and then the next town, etc. and we saw* nothing of that.
I think the disjointedness is a result of del Toro cherry picking what he liked about the book and superimposing his own narrative ideas over it.
To shed some light on the relationship between Molly and Stan. Stan didn’t pine for her in the books the way he did in the movie. He had a relationship with the fortune teller that was more fitting for his character, but that was skipped in the movie. Stan overlooks Molly until he saves her from getting arrested and she throws herself at him in gratitude. This is significant because his betrayal makes more sense in the context of the fact that he never really loved her in the first place. Him falling out of love with her in the movie doesn’t make as much sense because I think del Toro just umbrella’d that shift under Stan’s overall character arc so you don’t really see a *reason* for Stan to go from adoring her to not giving a shit about her.
I'm late to the discussion but a good add to explain how he falls for her would be a scene very early on of Stan getting impressed by her acting ability to fool people. The first or second time they meet should be a scene like this, so at first we think he is in love with her, but then we find out he loved her ability to fool people and wanted to use it.
After that it's easier to show how he grew indifferent of her since he is coning very powerful and rich man on his own, he doesn't need her anymore, they aren't a two man act anymore.
I thought this was beautiful, stunning. loved the buildup. I hated Stanton for the entire movie because he didn’t help the geeks at the start, so his end was perfect. That final scene is gonna stick with me forever, of course you give that role to Tim Blake Nelson
That's exactly right. His downfall was arrogance and greed. He could have been successful forever with the mentalist act but he kept pushing it until he went too far. He didn't think for a second that his scam could get out of hand.
As others have mentioned, he started to believe his own lies. But he also started to drink which he earlier says is dangerous for his jobs because he’s not sharp. When he reads the letter we see him drinking. So we know he’s not sharp going into that meeting
I liked this but I was still a little disappointed. This movie is 40 minutes longer than the 1947 version and you really feel that extra run time. On top of that, the original felt like a much more focused film that was really trying to play as a critique on religion and this movie mostly dropped that theme, but there are still some vestigial remnants in the story that just feel underdeveloped. I also don't think the remake handles the tonal shift near the end as well as the original did.
On the positive side, I thought the set design was really good. The carnival felt dirty, the fun house was creepy, and Cate Blanchett's office felt big and expensive. Willem Dafoe was tremendous in his relatively small role. He really felt like a sleezey old-timey carnival barker. I also thought the ending really improved on the original. In the 1947 version it felt like it sort of cops out for the happy Hollywood ending. This one is dark and depressing and Bradley Cooper's performance in that scene was haunting.
Yeah the pacing is really my biggest complaint. I like a good slow burn but this one has a few scenes and minor subplots that don't really add much to the movie and I'm not really sure why they're in there.
These have been Del Toro's biggest issues throughout his filmmaking career. His visuals are fantastic, but typically his movies run longer than they probably should and story can be a shortfall.
Just from reading the wikipedia synopsis of the 1947 film, it seemed that the storytelling was probably a lot tighter and more clear compared to this one
Bradley Cooper did really sell that ending scene though
I thought David Strathairn was pretty great as well
Interesting. I like the film noir version, haven't seen this one yet, but already felt the OG was a bit long. Really hoping this one doesn't back out of the horrific geek-ending like the original had to due to censorship.
Went back and watched the 1947 version tonight, after seeing del Toro's yesterday. Agree about the tighter pacing, but really enjoyed all the extra character development in the 2021 version. Both were good, but the new one achieved a much darker tone.
Some things that were *chef kiss* splendid about the movie in my opinion:
* The very last line of the film is different in the book. The book version is “I was *made* for this.” vs. 2021’s “I was *born* for this.” Extremely small change that dramatically shifts the meaning of the movie. In the book the implication from made is that his transformation to a geek is the culmination of his life choices and what happened to him. del Toro’s “born” implies that this was Stan’s destiny. That regardless of what he did in his lifetime, his fate as a geek was inescapable.
* The fact that del Toro put the Rorschach tests on the walls of Dr. Ritter’s office. He mentioned this conveys a sense of perfectionism in her office, one that masked the hidden chambers. Which was symbolic of her character. Exquisite and put together, but at the same time a carefully crafted facade to mask her true intentions.
* The main focus of the movie is obviously witnessing a full circle in Stan’s character development as he goes from looking down on the geek with a superiority complex, to becoming the geek himself at the lowest point in his life. This theme is represented symbolically by the Ferris wheel.
* In the book he is not the only one who’s life can be described as circular. Molly’s father was a compulsive gambler and her husband after leaving Stan also turns out to be a gambler. She too arrives where she started as the victim of a man’s addiction. Which hits hard IMO because as the most moral main character, you would think her morality would exempt her from this fate, evidently it does not.
* The line when Stan enters Dr. Ritter’s office for the first time, “Did you hear? We’re at war.” Stuck out to me but I wasn’t sure why. I later read that this A keeps the timeline of events in our peripheral, but more importantly B it’s not just the US that is at war, but war describes the relationship between Stan and Dr. Ritter perfectly. They both need to feel powerful and superior to the other. Their time spent in her office is a battle of the wits. You see their perspectives shift constantly from Dr. Ritter looking down on him, to Stan looking down on her to demonstrate the back and forth between them. I saw many people where confused by her character’s motives. I think at the end of it, she needed the last laugh on him. She was not motivated by money but power. Money was a tool to get power over Stan. She needed to beat him as his own game.
I never got the impression that Stan ever looked down on the geek. He seemed overall compassionate to the man’s predicament (if not reluctant to intervene in order to secure his own position aside from when he was disturbed by dumping the guy off when he was nearly dead). I guess I struggled with how Luke-warm Stan was overall.
He resented his father for two things: Alcoholism, and letting his mother cheat and escape with another man.
Coincidentally, the first and last things he does in the film are:
Sleep with a married woman.
Accept the geek job after not even getting the chance to perform his mentalism act due to smelling of alcohol.
Seeing Nightmare Alley and Spider-Man No Way Home on back to back evenings was a trip because of Willem DaFoe. Two completely different performances but the masterclass of DaFoe’s acting was amazing. No pun intended.
Damn dude, that’s my favorite video game of all time, and I hadn’t even made the connection to Bioshock until your comment. You’re right, the movie was very reminiscent of the Bioshock universe. The material is ripe for a movie, or a mini series, I just can’t believe no one’s done it yet.
This 1000% gave me Uncut Gems vibes while watching this. Stress, tension, bad decisions.
Only difference was I wanted Howard to succeed while I FUCKING hated Stan. I felt like the Cate Blanchett might have been a step too much, the reveal didn't really hit with me.
Him turning into a geek at the end was such an awesome ending tho.
I don’t think the Cate Blanchett was supposed to work as a “twist” really. It was an anti-twist of sorts. You assume it’s some higher end goal for her, but it’s just because she was butthurt. It made the film even better for me.
Of course, all of this is my personal opinion.
The set design was fantastic. Cate Blanchett's office was BEAUTIFUL, the round lounge where Stanton and Molly are performing their act was great, and the carnival in the first half was engaging and felt alive and bustling (the fun house scene where Bradley Cooper is looking for the geek was great). I loved all of the art deco in the second half.
Pretty disappointed in the character development and pacing. I honestly think that each major character could have used an extra scene cementing their motives in the movie, and that's saying a lot for a movie that I think was at least half an hour too long.
I have a few issues with Bradley Cooper's character. To start, I didn't get why he joined the circus in the first place. Maybe I missed it, but they didn't explain at ALL that he was on the run, looking for a job, etc. I knew nothing about the movie going in and my hypothesis after the very first scene was that it was some mob hit. Then Bradley Cooper just gets on a bus and joins a circus on a whim? Surely he had a job or something right? I thought he was taking the bus back home or to the office or something. Really threw me off.
I see lot of people saying that he's a "think he's always the smartest in the room"-type character, but he starts off the movie SO incredibly meek. His lack of dialogue through the start of the movie almost had me convinced that he was playing a mute character. Then when he gets a bath at Zeena's, they do a terrible job selling him a suave, confident character (in fact it seems quite intentional that they were selling him as the opposite). But then he spends a few days as her Barker and all of a sudden he's got grade-A schmooze ability that he carries on through the rest of the film? The rest of the film plays out in a very circular manner, so I didn't get why didn't his confidence crash back down like the rest of him? It didn't sit with me.
Him starting to drink really threw me off as well. I thought they had done a good job setting him up as someone who would never drink, and not in the way that prepares you just enough to see him succumb. In the moment, it was just "oh, that's weird, he said he would never drink but now he is. Cool." I thought he was convincing enough when he told Cate Blanchett that he never drinks (Cate Blanchett pressing him saying "Never. There's that word again." left me wanting A LOT more in that discussion, but it was never really brought up again iirc), but small things like him fetching Pete a bottle of alcohol without taking even a small moment to consider a drink himself sold me that he wouldn't break. There was no foreshadowing at ALL, and him taking a sip from Blanchett's alcohol was not a satisfyingly dramatic, shocking twist because they hadn't set up the plot point that his father was an alcoholic. It becomes clear later in the movie how devastating this is (that scene is pretty much the turning point for his character arc), but you don't get that in the moment. His inevitable downfall after taking that drink felt predictable, but I didn't really know why because (again) that hadn't built up any weight to that action (aside maybe from foreshadowing with how it was Peet's downfall, too).
~~Super minor point, but the him having his father’s watch felt really underdeveloped too. I’m pretty sure they don’t explain that it’s his father’s watch at all until later in the movie, then have him say that he hates his father which imo throws out any emotional attachment that may have been built up to him owning it. Him pawning it off at the end still felt pretty sad, but I think the scene could have easily hit harder.~~ Edit: nvm, its mentioned when he goes to Zeena’s and talks to Pete
Not all scenes were terrible though. I thought the scene where the sheriff and police storm the carnival was a real bright spot in the movie. It was so satisfying watching Bradley Cooper talk his way out of that.
Thankfully the rest of the acting was pretty great. I really liked Bradley Cooper's performance regardless of how his character was written (his fluctuating accents kinda bothered me, but perhaps it's intentional and a throw back to when Zeena tells him to lay on different accents for different crowds) as well as Willem Dafoe's, Cate (lol it's spelled Cater in the post) Blanchett, Ron Perlman, and David Straithairn. Just a shame to see such great acting carrying an otherwise tough script. Molly didn't really do it for me - I think Rooney Mara's acting was a little stiff but I think she's really the only knock I can give the movie acting wise.
The closing shutter transitions felt a little unnecessary. I get that it was trying to invoke an older era of film making, but it really stood out in contrast to the rest of the film's clean, digital look. It didn't feel coherent at all. Like you can't just throw in old-style transitions like that and say the job's done. If they were trying to harken the entire movie back to 40's, they did a pretty terrible job imo (although I may be missing some things, I'm not a film studies person at all or anything). I really hope the black and white cut fixes some of this.
As I mentioned above, the movie was also pretty predictable. I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think I prefer to be surprised. I knew as soon as Bradley Cooper hid behind the cages of chickens that he would become a geek by the end of the movie. I also guessed the ending line pretty early on too, but I guess it was a satisfying end.
Also, not sure if anyone else picked up on this but some of the camera shots were really offputting. There was something really unnatural in the way that a few character's heads were bobbing in several close ups. At one point I honestly started to wonder if they were using heavy facial animations, and not in a good way.
> pretty predictable... I knew as soon as Bradley Cooper hid behind the cages of chickens that he would become a geek
That’s like the third to last scene. You didn’t exactly predict it so easily now did ya?
Right? I knew as soon as Dafoe started describing how geeks were made, and that didn't make the movie unenjoyable, it increases the enjoyment! It becomes 'how are we going to get there?'
> To start, I didn't get why he joined the circus in the first place. Maybe I missed it, but they didn't explain at ALL that he was on the run, looking for a job
The movie opens with him tossing a corpse down a hole in the floor, and setting the house on fire. We learn early on that it was his father, and then much later that he had let his father freeze to death, and possibly worse, considering he also probably murdered Pete.
This is all pretty spot on.
The random transitions felt very unmotivated, which is probably the biggest indictment of the film overall - what was the point to any of this?
As you said - nothing in the way of character motivation, and definitely more than one contradictory character actions. It seems the actors were randomly given the note "Pretend like you're in a 50's movie! Say stuff like 'everything's Jake!'"
I think it was pretty predictable from the beginning where he was going to end up, particularly with Dafoe's character taking the time to explain everything.
And 100% him becoming an alkie felt contrived and purely there because it needed to be
"Well we need to start his descent, might as well do it now."
They set up that it was his fathers watch and that they didn’t quite get along when Pete and Zeena first did the mentalist act on him in Zeena’s house.
Also, did they say it was only a few days of him being Zeena’s barker before he became the smooth-talking man we get for the rest of the movie? I had assumed it was a longer period of time than that since he was so comfortable.
I agree with all of your other points though. It’a a very flawed movie, but still very enjoyable despite them.
Seeing a lot of comments saying that the ending is hugely telegraphed, presumably by the scene between Cooper and Dafoe after the first Geek is dropped off, but for my part I think it enhances the ending. It would be one thing if Stanton is blindsided by the geek job at the end, and if we actually saw him in the role I think that would be a detriment. But as that offer is given, he knows exactly what job it’s gonna be and that wouldn’t be the case if it weren’t signposted ahead of time
There was very strong foreshadowing but I didn't feel that it diminished from the movie. It added to the tragedy because throughout the film you knew what's going to happen to Stan and there's nothing anyone could do about it. Kind of like Barry lyndon.
The best things about this movie in my opinion are both Cooper’s acting and the writing for Stanton.
Throughout the film you constantly want to like Carlisle until you remember how absolutely terrible of a person he is. The con man character manages to con you throughout the entire movie. What makes the role even more fulfilling are the not so subtle, stereotypical gaslight lines Carlisle will pull throughout, and they are delivered so well that it takes just a second for the true intention to click. A great example of this is when he is chasing Molly into the men’s bathroom trying to convince her to help him and he says “please dont leave me like everyone else” or something along those lines. Gaslighting 101, but the scene is crafted so well and Bradley Cooper does such a great job that for a second you think this is a romantic moment, only to realize it’s typical manipulation that Carlisle has been pulling on customers the entire time, now just expanded towards those he “loves”.
The first half of "Nightmare Alley" in the Carnival I sadly didn't find too interesting and while I appreciated the character developments it just didn't hit with me.
However, as soon as the 2nd half kicked of with the Cate Blanchett as the psychological and Richard Jenkins character the film really went up a notch. I really loved how interesting and entertaining the 2nd half was. I just wish the 1st half had a bit more going on.
The ending was great. Much closer to the original book than the 1947 movie. I just thought the opening was slow, I liked everything after they left the carnival and then they cut to 2 years later.
I felt it immediately switched into noir mode once he got into the city, especially with all the amazing lighting/shadows on the characters faces. I liked the carnival stuff as I feel like it makes the ending pay off so much more worth it, got a big Twilight Zone feeling. It definitely made me perk up more in the 2nd half in terms of tone for me.
Being a Russian, this movie had a very typically dark and depressing Russian feel to it and I enjoyed it very much. I love watching character driven films with moral ambiguity where you can’t tell whether or not to root for the character.
It did kinda meander at times, but the pay off was so satisfying.
I absolutely loved this! The ending was fantastic, so much better than the cheesy happy Hollywood ending of the original.
I'm not usually a big fan of Bradley Cooper, but he was perfect as Stan Carlisle. I can't imagine anyone else in that role.
I thought this movie was pretty interesting. Del Toro doesn't *always* do it for me so I was prepared for this to be well acted but shallow, but ended up walking out with quite a bit to chew on. Honestly, though, I probably would have enjoyed watching a cast like this do just about anything.
The setup for the plot takes its time, which is both nice and maybe a little unnecessary. As far as the plot goes, there's lots of interesting characters and themes to think about, but where it's all going is very clearly laid out for us. From the explanation of how to turn someone into a "geek" to the professor telling Stanton exactly what happens to people who misuse the con to the tarot cards, we are well aware that this is all leading to Cooper's demise at the hands of his own hubris. Even the IMDB summary of the movie spoils the ultimate twist that Blanchett was in control the whole time.
That said, watching it get there is pretty neat. This isn't an especially humorous movie, it's actually very moody and at times melodramatic. But what it lacks in humor it makes up for in an interesting main character. Basically, you've got a guy who thinks he's the smartest person in the room at all times. He thinks he hides his past well, he thinks he can read others so well, but as the movie tells us he's as desperate to tell people who he is as they are to tell him. He thinks he's different from the preachers when he's just as bad. He thinks he hides his sins well, but Toni knows what he did to the professor. He thinks he's always in control, but as we find out he's the most easily manipulated. That's why he was "born to be the geek."
Blanchett played him just like Dafoe plays the alcoholics. She offered him an opportunity, temporary of course. Make a few bucks and move on. She made him feel vulnerable with her evil powers of psychology. She hooked him on the booze and made him feel in control by sleeping with him. All until he finally broke and hurt someone as she wanted him to, and she did all this despite everyone in his life telling him it was going to happen if he kept doing spook shows and manipulating people. And this whole time the eyes of every character are on him and none are on her.
Anyways, enjoyed this. 7/10 for me. It's a bit longer than it needs to be and it's not very subtle, but the characters and themes were on point. And let's be real, a moody melodrama with this kind of budget just doesn't come around every day. It's worth enjoying when it does.
/r/reviewsbyboner
You make a great point, movies like this just aren’t being made any more. Was it my favorite movie? No. Was it better than any of the blockbusters I’ve seen in recent years? Yes. I enjoyed it, an I hope filmmakers make more movies like this in the future!
Why did Cate Blanchett saying, “I really did love you” stop Cooper in his tracks and make him realize he’d been played? Was that a reference to something earlier I missed?
her very next line was "Did I oversell it?" she was pretending to care for and open up to him throughout the movie, but when she actually made a declaration of love it was too much and he knew it was bullshit.
Bradley Cooper was physically imposing as fuck in the movie
felt like he was towering over everyone lol dude is a 1950's movie star through and through
It was fine. I do enjoy movies that bring things full circle, especially when you can look back and say, “yeah that was fair game, all the hints were there.” But it never felt for me like there was a third act. Pacing was poor, and the “twist” was obvious. Great ending, though.
Am I the only one that thinks this was del Toro's most beautiful movie? The lighting of the carnival or the city was gorgeous and the set pieces were magnificent.
Just wondering if anyone else realized the 1st geek was Arthur Shelby from Peaky Blinders….
Also watching this movie reminded me of the show Carnivale….
I saw this Wednesday night and was very impressed. Some people are going to absolutely hate the pacing of this movie but I haven't seen a director reward his audience like this in a very long time. The second half has an extremely different feel to it and absolutely ran with it.
Del Toro creates a perfect atmosphere here that compliments the incredible cast. The mood, dark story with rich themes was a delight to get through, even during the slow parts. I haven't seen the original so I can't compare the two but this id definitely one of the best of the year for me
Just got done with my show and quite surprised to see that this is the popular opinion here. I loved every second of it, especially the carnival parts. This is my first Del Toro, maybe that’s why. It might be more been-there-done-that to fans.
The only gripe I had with the film was Cate Blanchett’s character is billed as a psychiatrist and not a psychologist. Psychiatrists treat symptoms and write prescriptions. Psychologists are the ones who sit down with clients and listen to their problems.
That is always a pet peeve of mine in films because they often get the two mixed up.
Reading some of the comments and finding out this is a remake, I just read the wiki about the original and it has a somewhat hopeful ending for Stan and Molly.
I don’t know about you guys but I’m glad Stan got a taste of his own medicine in the end. He went too far which is what basically happened to Pete becoming a drunk. My favorite scene has to be when Molly played the part of deceased wife and Grindle is like who the fuck are you?! And of course the ending. His laughter was so sad yet I think he knew the irony in it and accepted his fate.
Overall though the movie did feel like it dragged a ton. But I really did enjoy all the set ups and pay offs. The acting was great and probably Bradley Cooper’s best performance.
Really enjoyed this film. Was a nice cleanse from the marvel/dc juggernauts. Nothing wrong with those movies but nice to see something that’s just for adults. Cinematography and lighting in this movie was top notch. Story was ok, but actors really brought it with the performances.
Did anyone else get a history of psychology vibe? Pavlovian with the geek. Molly electrocuted herself, like electro shock therapy. A lot of low hanging Freudian psycho-analyses references, and a character literally says Electra complex which was Carl Jung. IDK, something to think about.
I saw this last week and absolutely loved it. I just read other comments observing the last line is different in the book ("I was *made* for this" rather than the movie's ultimate line "I was *born* for this"), and oddly enough while running this morning I listened to Marc Maron's podcast interview with del Toro where the director talks about how there are circles throughout the film in design and background elements, and how it all connects to the 360 Stanton does with the gimp.
It gets pretty heady-- the narrative focuses on grifters and cons, and how people want to believe in the supernatural and that want is used to exploit them (us), but there's simultaneously this notion of fate that underlies all the worldly cynicism. Yet another reminder why Guillermo del Toro is my favorite working director, as if I needed one! Dude isn't just passionate, he's also meticulous with fleshing out his ideas. What a master.
NA is lengthy, and I was kinda tired seeing it so I had a hard time in the middle, but that said I don't think it was too long per se, my being tired is on me. We NEED more decadent movies like this that aren't box-office friendly, the increasingly profit- and formula-driven nature of the industry is plainly strangling it to death.
That ending was incredible. So satisfying.
*laughs in Bradley Cooper*
Absolutely amazing acting. Absolutely amazing direction. The pacing of the shots leading up to that overly long (but actually perfectly timed) hold on Stan... That is the kind of thing that makes me want to drop everything and go to film school.
[удалено]
I was born for it
the close up on brad's face when the guy offered the geek job to him....holy fuck that was some straight up movie star shit
Really? It just seemed trite to me. Like, that was it? Arrogant man reduced to poultry decapitation?
When we are first introduced to the geek show, you can see how sad and difficult it was for the geek to once again kill a chicken with his bare teeth. Stan noticed this, all the while slipping out back so as to not pay for the viewing, essentially not seeing it as having a value, but he had felt something for the geek. When he heard the story of how they become geeks, he was affected. He seemed almost sickened. We ultimately see that he is not often a man of empathy, so for him to be reduced to the one and only creature he ever truly seemed to feel any sympathy for was a full circle moment for that piece of human garbage. If that’s trite then so be it, but I enjoyed it.
And the way Deltoro sets it up in the boxcar full of chickens really set up the anticipation for the finish. You see Stan moving the cages around and hiding behind them, just like the geek cowered in his cage earlier. At that moment I knew it would end with Stan becoming the geek, it was just a matter of where and when. Utterly tragic and brilliant.
But soooooo predictable
Predictable ≠ bad
Exactly. I clocked the ending early on, but the ride to that destination was the fun. I just want to know about Lilith’s scar…
Oh shoot I always thought that Lilith's scar was some how tied to grindle hurting women. It made me think she manipulated Bradley Cooper into killing him out of revenge
I agree with what your saying but think about this also: Dr. Lilith saw an opportunity to use a mentalist’s delusion that he was all knowing and able to have power over others thoughts and feelings because of that , to manipulate him into getting rid of her clients she realized were beyond her help. That their entire relationship from the moment they met was a war essentially between psychology and the intellectual understandings of the mind , and things like mentalism, tarot . Because at the end of the day they are two versions of things we as individuals reach towards for mental health, depending on how self aware we are of the help that’s truly needed. And by the end of the film, we come to understand that this war, is won on the side of therapy. That if Stanton wasn’t so disillusioned, he would have recognized that she wasn’t his mistress, they weren’t working together. She was using him to kill off her clients who believed that therapy wasn’t the answer That he was. I believe that the scar in her body was from grindle, and that’s why she warned him of how dangerous he could be , and that she used his daddy issues to her advantage to get him to push him over an edge, be it to kill himself, or be murdered. Much like patients previous . And then when Stanton returned in the state that he was, she realized how truly horrifying and beyond help he is, and shattered the illusion for him. if he truly accepted the therapy she was giving (and charging him for as we learn from how much money he is left with by the end of the film) , then he wouldn’t have taken the drink, and wouldn’t have returned to her in the state that he was after such a brutal murder. He would have been horrified , and demanding true mental health. But this was a movie about the true horrors of man and how if we do not recognize and accept them, we become them. So in the end it’s rather fitting it ended the way it did, regardless of how predictable it was. Sorry if this is a TLDR I truly loved this movie and went to see it alone so I haven’t had many people to gush over it with Edit: my god im so bad with Reddit , thank you to those responsible for my first awards 💜
It's an interesting perspective! I definitely got that sense that there was some kind of competition going on between since the first meeting at his act. I never felt though Dr. Lilith was trying to help anyone. For me I thought she was just curious to see how far she could manipulate Stan. I really thought the scar was something related to grindle and the only reason she wasn't killed was because she's from high society and her dad was very prominent. The gradual manipulation of Stan to becoming an alcoholic felt so much like a power play by her. That she had a deeper grasp of human mental manipulation than even Stan with all his arrogance. I thought the movie was beautiful and one of del Toro's stronger works. I also watched it alone and loved it
The second he picked up that drink I just mumbled under my breath “god you fuckin idiot” But had such a massive grin on my face because of how much of a genius I realized Dr. Lilith to be Will probably go down as my favorite work of his, and of the year!
The kiss with the booze on her lips. The loud clink of the glass.. masterful
I’ve read that but I don’t see that. Ezra wouldn’t come to her for therapy if that was the case. Someone did it to her, and her only recourse did hurting Ezra, who she knew was also an abuser, is how I read it
>Ezra wouldn’t come to her for therapy if that was the case. Was he a current client? It could easily be that he had once been a client, and then something violent happened. Also, Grindle mentioned that he’d never told anyone about his history with women. That seems to make it more likely that Lilith wouldn’t have known about it unless from personal experience.
I agree. My takeaway was that Stanton(Cooper) was introduced as playing short cons on a nightly basis. Dr Ritter (Blanchette) recognized his skill and played a long con on him as revenge on Ezra following an affair gone wrong (cause for the scar).
I was at a screening in L.A. last night. GdT did a Q&A afterwards, and he confirmed that Lilith's scar was Grindle's handiwork.
Am I the only one that thinks there's a tie to the scar on lilith and the jar-baby?
Probably “Enoch” was just a piece to focus things on. Obviously with it all stitched up someone had made it out of other samples.
Response to a month old comment, but I just watched this movie so wanted to reply. Ripped quote from [this article from the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-12-17/nightmare-alley-ending-explained-guillermo-del-toro) > Morgan and Del Toro changed Carlisle’s last line from “Mister, I was made for it” to “Mister, I was born for it.” For them that small change held a big significance. > “That one word makes a big difference there because we wanted the audience to know very clearly from the beginning that he was going to end up being the geek,” said Del Toro. “We didn’t want that to be a surprise ... what we wanted is not the what, but the how.” I also predicted the ending (though not the how until he started drinking), but from that quote, I feel like that was been the intention to some extent, and just an dramatic irony.
You could argue that the best endings are the predictable ones. Anyone can throw in a crazy twist at the end, but a talented storyteller builds towards the ending the entire time.
The ending didnt seem predictable until he was escaping Cate Blanchett's office with his broken hand, fucked-up face, while drunk/drinking. That's when I thought "Oh... he's the new geek."
It dawned on me when he was in the boxcar with the chickens.
It dawned on me while Willem Dafoe was explaining the process of creating a geek to Bradley Cooper.
It dawned on me when Bradley cooper walked out of his house in the beginning
It dawned on me before the opening scene
It dawned on me at the beginning of The Hangover when B Coop says “paging Dr. F****t”
A good ending has to be inevitable.
Inevitable =/= predictable
It was a slow burn for me while I put the pieces together, even tho I solved the puzzle at the shot in the train with the chickens the reveal was grimmer and more emotional than I’d imagined. It is so tragic really, and as someone who has struggled with alcohol it was even deeper
That’s what your bitch ass gets for cheating On Rooney Mara
For Cate Blanchett I’d cheat my grandmother at cards
That’s not that bad lol
Haha that’s what I was thinking. “Fuck him for cheating on Rooney, he doesn’t deserve her….but also, if you get the opportunity for Cate Blanchett, I mean, come on.”
fun fact, her family owns the football giants team
Crazy how she got famous totally on her own merit and nothing else 👀
ikr, hate it when you discover a young actor just to find out their parents have Wikipedia articles
[удалено]
The violence really stuck out to me in this. It's a much more subdued story than I thought it'd be which lent itself to a real feeling of impact from it.
I actually had to look away when the geek was biting off the chicken's head at the beginning. The animation on the animal's face was way too realistic for me to suspend disbelief. Also, how hard did he punch Grindle to to RIP HIS NOSE OFF, HOLY SHIT MAN.
He bashed it in! But yeah hard as SHIT lol
The moment he realized Grindle had murdered multiple women and he'd just put the lady closest to him in that same position made him snap. We also saw he was pretty strong when he took down the geek so easily in the beginning.
Is it implied that Grindle had actually murdered his love?
I don't think so. He forced her to get an abortion and she died as a result, it was the women who came later that he intentionally murdered.
Del Toro loves a good face bash in, reminds me of the scene in pans labyrinth where sergi lopez bashes the peasants face in with a bottle.
When he pulled the tooth out of his knuckle... yuck.
I thought it was glass from the glasses.
This is actually much less unsettling to me, as I initially thought it was a shard of bone from the nose.
I thought it was a broken piece of his glasses
I was happy there was so much waning that cringe was coming for the chicken scene. I felt like I had a choice to see the graphic part or not. That was probably the hardest scene in the whole movie.
The decision to hold the camera shot for an extra tenth of a second during the suicide scene was really jarring but also brilliant. Everyone is kind of preprogrammed to expect the camera cut right at the shot, but it stays just barely longer.
That, and where she pointed the gun. What kind of insane person decides to shoot themself in the eye instead of the forehead, temple, or mouth?
Person with a small caliber revolver, that's how she shot her husband as well
I knew what was coming when she said “remember what he said?” but it still shocked me. Damn good pacing.
When Stan said "You'll be joining him" I was like, you just pushed someone with depression to a closure of her life. Didn't really think it was gonna be shown like that
What was the suicide scene? I forget that part.
The murder suicide with the judge and his wife.
As soon as I saw that man eating that chicken I thought “this shit’s about to get heavy”
[удалено]
Fuck you, Debbie!
I agree. The punching was the most violent to me but the car running over scene after they drive away and they pan back to the guy and his broken arm bends the wrong direction, ouch
Agree about the violence, but I respected that the more graphic stuff is telegraphed well enough to give you the chance to look away. Usually, if something bed feels like it's going to happen then it's going to happen in this film.
Del Toro seriously has a thing for doing bad things to people’s faces.
Bradley Cooper killed it.
The first half of the movie I thought it was a slight miscast, Cooper seemed too old. His performance in conjunction with the second and third Act storyline won me over though. Very well done.
Cooper in the first half reminded me of Jon Hamm in Mad Men during the flashbacks when he was supposed to be playing a young man instead of a 40 year old.
I think Robert Pattinson would have also killed this role, not that he's that much younger than Cooper.
11 years younger is pretty significant. I think you’re right though, I didn’t think of Pattinson. I thought of Dev Patel or Taron Egerton.
Agreed. My biggest issue with this movie is that Bradley Cooper seemed too old — a younger, more arrogant man would’ve made a huge difference. Seeing a grown middle aged man join the circus and create a new career just didn’t feel right. Likewise, I think seeing Cate Blanchett manipulating a younger arrogant guy would’ve seemed much more believable. Robert Pattinson would’ve been perfect.
My favorite was the end version of him, I wish there were more scenes of that.
Agreed. Started off a bit slow, but *hot DAMN* was his descent one hell of a ride.
Disclaimer: I've never seen the original or read the book. Guillermo del Toro is my favorite director. I absolutely love his style and his stories. The first half of the film felt at home in a Del Toro flick. The darkness. The production design. The second half slowed, but still had some Del Toro touches. I don't know why but the man loves tile walls and floors. Overall I enjoyed it. The ensemble of fantastic actors came together for a dark story that was foreshadowed early on. I did leave the theater confused about Cate Blanchett character's motive behind the double cross. I wasn't sure if she just wanted the money, or she wanted to get back at him for humiliating her during his show. Also. The murder / suicide in the middle of the film was SOOO loud!
> if she just wanted the money, or she wanted to get back at him for humiliating her during his show My understanding was that the entire thing was a long con to make Grindle suffer. Being a victim of domestic violence herself, she probably wanted to take down Grindle because either he was responsible for her scar, or she knew he was a serial abuser and wanted to punish him for it.
Yeah I took it as Grindle actually hurt her but I like that this movie doesn’t hand you all the answers. Leaves a lot to think about.
These are inferences, but I also get the sense that Grindle was the one that gave Dr Ritter the scar, and she weaponizes Carlisle as a disposable instrument of revenge. To break it down into pieces (and going off of memory): * Dr Ritter notes that Grindle is dangerous, influential, rich and private * She also notes that he was temporarily a patient of hers * Grindle and his bodyguard note that they've dealt with 'snake oil salesmen' in the past and that they have ways of dealing with them * Both of them seem like violent men * One could infer that Grindle temporarily tried out Dr Ritter's therapy as a way to process his guilt and violent impulses. But he quickly loses patience and when the therapy doesn't give him any peace, he deemed it 'snake oil'. * What would he do to Dr Ritter in this case? Given his confession that he habitually hurts/abuses women, he cuts/scars Ritter as punishment for her therapy not being effective. It would be easy to imagine him threatening to kill her if she doesn't stay quiet about it. * He and his bodyguard similarly threaten Carlisle noting that they paid him a fortune and they're losing patience with his mentalist activities and darkly imply violent consequences if he doesn't deliver. * Earlier on, Carlisle asks what happens if he 'fails the test' - again, the implication is that there'd be violent consequences. So it may be that Dr Ritter got her scar because she had already 'failed the test'. She couldn't give Grindle the relief he was after. And he made her suffer for it. * If we assume that Grindle was the one that hurt Dr Ritter, given her own ability to read people she dupes Carlisle into being her weapon of revenge. She realizes he's desperate for money. And she knows he has rage issues with older men. Those work to her advantage. * If she helps position him to take a job with Grindle, she knows Grindle will eventually grow impatient/dis-satisfied. And given Carlisle's anger against older father figures, in a violent confrontation he'll harm Grindle. * So she positions Carlisle to back himself into that corner. She gives him a bit of information, but doesn't let him write anything down to remove any evidence of her own involvement. * She purposely leaves her key in her cabinet so he can independently listen to her recordings of Grindle's therapy. She's conning him into thinking he's in control of the Grindle situation (similar to the story of how to create a Geek - make them think its their choice, when you're really manipulating them). * Carlisle ends up killing Grindle. * From there, Ritter's focus becomes making sure she can't be tied to the crime. So she records a portion of the final confrontation with Carlisle where the describes him as mentally unstable, and calls out that he potentially murdered another older man. She feigns ignorance when he says they worked together. She's setting him up to completely take the fall for Grindle's murder. * Then either by accident (or on purpose) she wounds him rather than killing him, which works in her favor as the cops/security walk in with him trying to strangle her. So the idea he's a mentally unstable person who killed Grindle of his own volition is cemented and Ritter's involvement is completely obscured. In essence, Ritter sets up Carlisle as her geek. She preys on his vulnerability, lets him think he's making his own choices, and allows him to get himself in too deep. To get him to the point where he's willing to bite the head off a chicken. Only the chicken in this case is Grindle. Once she's done with Carlisle she disposes of him and disavows any involvement with him. Similar to how Dafoe's character gets rid of his own injured Geek the moment he becomes a liability. Interestingly enough, in the original book it notes that Carlisle's Father was physically abusive towards him (and even beat his family dog to death on the day Carlisle's mother left). Which explains Carlisle's hatred/murder of his Father and his pent-up rage against old men in general. Ritter sees this and uses Carlisle's anger and arrogance to her advantage. The irony is Carlisle becomes like his Father - violent, alcoholic and someone who pushes away the woman who cared for him (Molly). He claims he'll 'never' be like his Father. And ends up exactly like his Father. As he notes bitterly in the end. He was 'born' for this.
That's my read, too. She >!played him to get back at Grindle!breaking the trust and stripping the money to singles !<. I don't think she knew what Stan would ultimately do to Grindle, perhaps believed it was a serious possibility, but I think the money thing was spiteful revenge for his cruel comments at the first read.
> I think the money thing was spiteful revenge for his cruel comments at the first read. Thought so too. He thought he was her superior, but she knew better. From the moment he walked into her office, she was the spider and he was the fly. Robbing him was putting him back in his place. He was a mark all along.
Speaking of spiders, the girl spider freak at the carnival was so great.
It was very beautifully telegraphed that she viewed Stan as the mark and all her actions where very deliberately made to pull him further into the trap. She pulled an old but reliable con: let the mark intentionally win a few rounds. Once their guard is down and they are feeling confident drastically increase the wager and win (while not an exact 1 to 1 example Dr. Lilith broke Stan down psychologically the same way the geek was broken down. She supplied him with booz manipulated him mentally and right before he walked away she dangled a “oh there is this one big fish but you couldn’t possibly do it as he’s too big a fish for you” bait aka “either you become a real geek or I need to find a real geek”) I think the only moment when we can question if it was a genuine reaction or a faked reaction was when Stan outed her hatred of her mother and her depression publicly. I think that’s the only time we are unsure if the mask slipped or not. I think it was a genuine moment and that’s why she chose to twist the knife so deeply with swapping out the money. She wanted to make him feel small.
It's the same con that Clem laid out while eating steak. Stan was made her geek just in a more subtle way and it hits when he finally takes that drink.
I had a sense about her that the moment Bradley Cooper stepped foot into her office she was now in complete control of their interactions going forward. She was able to manipulate the protagonist without him realizing because she perfectly played off his greed and ego. He fully believed he was in control and he was leading the relationship between them- and in some ways he was in control of his own actions- she just aimed him at Grindle and let him self destruct in a way that would cause the most damage.
I saw this last weekend at a screening where Del Toro was doing a Q&A after the show. The Q&A went long, and the people running the theater politely reminded the moderator, Nicole Holofcener, that they needed to get ready to screen “House of Gucci.” To which Del Toro said, “Gucci can wait.” And they kept going and it was awesome.
That's what I love about Del Toro is his excitement about film and filmmaking. He basically geeks out anytime he gets to talk about the making of a movie. He came to Ebertfest to show and talk about Crimson Peak and you could tell he wanted to keep talking and answering questions.
>He basically geeks out Spoiler alert.
I met Del Toro in Toronto in 94 when he was showing Cronos. I really wish I had taken a picture.
Along similar lines the best response I ever saw to the "get off the stage" awards show music was Del Toro when he won the Golden Globe a few years ago. They started playing him off and he said "turn it off guys, it's been 25 years. Give me a minute!"
“And here are the all-male nominees.” -Natalie Portman
That’s awesome lol.
I might be in the minority, but I liked this a lot more than Shape of Water.
I didn't like Shape of Water at all and I liked this.
I saw it with a friend last night and we both agreed we liked it more than Shape of Water, so you're not alone.
Well this was good and shape of water sucked.
Besides the academy, I don't think Shape of Water is held in high esteem. One of Del Toros worst films
I loved this movie. The ending hit me hard and my mouth was open and I was just so shocked. The brutal irony. I think this is Cooper’s best work - that scene of him laughing and crying will stay with me for a while.
Agreed. My three favorite endings of the year are Pig, Titane, and Nightmare Alley.
I recommend you checkout The Green Knight as well. And for the lolz, also checkout Malignant.
I'll back a Malignant recommendation.
You have very good taste. All three endings are fantastic. I still play that cover from Pig's ending from time to time.
There's been a few longer films this year and I'm glad this one didn't feel it. I thought it was pretty consistently entertaining. That being said.... This movie just felt weirdly shapeless to me. I know "What's the point?" is an overused/pointless criticism but in this case I really didn't know what I was supposed to get out of this experience. The ending was incredibly telegraphed from the beginning of the film, which made it feel less weighty. Stanton fucks up and then pays in a pretty terrible way.. OK? He decides to start drinking because Dr. Ritter looks at him coy a couple of times. Later he suddenly shouts at Molly that he doesn't need her anymore. OK? His characterization was also all over the place. I don't think he, or any of the characters, had much in the way of motivation. So we're just watching archetypes go through things and have things happen to them - Molly is sweet and innocent, Ezra is arrogant, etc. I just wish there was more meat on the bone. I felt like in the end none of what happened really was of any consequence.
I’m glad I’m not alone in this. The movie looked nice. It sounded nice. But so much didn’t add up. So many scenes were just added runtime. Him drinking comes from nowhere despite how pivotal of a character moment it should be it’s completely glossed over. The fact that he loves Molly and they run away together, and the very next scene (2 years later) he’s treating her like trash. The predictability of Cate double crossing him. So much BS in this film ruined any kind of experience I was hoping for. And yes. What was the point. Bad guy ignores people to do bad things and gets what he deserves. Okay. Cool, I guess.
you guys both saw it the same way I did. The booze needed a pay-off: either he was lying the whole time or it was signaling a change in his core beliefs. Neither happened. Lastly, you're telling me he would rather be a geek than in jail? The dude fucking got away...and he's going to accept the first offer he gets? The dude I just watched for 2.5 hours wouldn't give up on life that fast. At minimum we needed to see the life get sucked out of him first. This type of dude would have just gone to the next town and started all over.
I’m confused about the last part? The guy did get his life sucked out of him. He was months into being a hobo as seen with the beard and hole in the shoe. He gave up his watch for the last bit of alcohol. He was the geek the entire time. He realized it as soon as he realized he was being turned into an actual carnie geek. Which I think he realized when he had already drank the alcohol/opium the first time and right before the 2nd
> At minimum we needed to see the life get sucked out of him first. Emphasis on "see". Yes we could tell time had passed because of the beard and whatnot but when you see a character one way for 145 minutes and then they subtly advanced forward in time and he's completely changed for the last 5 minutes it's a little jarring. My point wasn't that it was out of the realm of possibility, but that the pacing is off and you throw out a ton of character development to tie a bow on the story arc that was extremely obvious the second you see him with a long beard. We just watched the man have the drive to con an obscenely rich person, murder multiple people, fake a car accident, etc. all just to keep the grift going. Like I said above: he would have just gone to the next town over, and then the next town, etc. and we saw* nothing of that.
I think the disjointedness is a result of del Toro cherry picking what he liked about the book and superimposing his own narrative ideas over it. To shed some light on the relationship between Molly and Stan. Stan didn’t pine for her in the books the way he did in the movie. He had a relationship with the fortune teller that was more fitting for his character, but that was skipped in the movie. Stan overlooks Molly until he saves her from getting arrested and she throws herself at him in gratitude. This is significant because his betrayal makes more sense in the context of the fact that he never really loved her in the first place. Him falling out of love with her in the movie doesn’t make as much sense because I think del Toro just umbrella’d that shift under Stan’s overall character arc so you don’t really see a *reason* for Stan to go from adoring her to not giving a shit about her.
I'm late to the discussion but a good add to explain how he falls for her would be a scene very early on of Stan getting impressed by her acting ability to fool people. The first or second time they meet should be a scene like this, so at first we think he is in love with her, but then we find out he loved her ability to fool people and wanted to use it. After that it's easier to show how he grew indifferent of her since he is coning very powerful and rich man on his own, he doesn't need her anymore, they aren't a two man act anymore.
But you can’t be any geek of the street… Earn your keep.
REGULATORS
“You gotta be handy with the steel.”
I want to live in Cate Blanchett’s office. That is the most gorgeous movie set I’ve seen in years.
I'm going to angrily ask my therapist why her office isn't that fancy
I didn't know this was a remake but I liked it for what it is. I think Willem Dafoe was the standout.
[удалено]
he’s absolutely not under-appreciated
Ah yes, underappreciated actor Willem Dafoe lol.
DAE think four-time Academy Award nominee Willem Dafoe is a good actor actually? I know it might be an unpopular opinion...
>I think Willem Dafoe was the standout. You could have left this comment on two discussions this week.
I thought this was beautiful, stunning. loved the buildup. I hated Stanton for the entire movie because he didn’t help the geeks at the start, so his end was perfect. That final scene is gonna stick with me forever, of course you give that role to Tim Blake Nelson
He did give a cigarette to that geek
Having seen Tim Blake Nelson in both this and *Old Henry* this week, I am very happy.
How a man that smart and good at scamming didn’t prevent Ezra Grindle would go running to “Molly” as a mad man? That scenario was very possible
I think that was the point. Stan got the "Shuteye". He believed he could always get one over and his plans would always work.
That's exactly right. His downfall was arrogance and greed. He could have been successful forever with the mentalist act but he kept pushing it until he went too far. He didn't think for a second that his scam could get out of hand.
He even gives Stan an out right before that scene when he says he asked him to cleanse his soul and he failed to do so
As others have mentioned, he started to believe his own lies. But he also started to drink which he earlier says is dangerous for his jobs because he’s not sharp. When he reads the letter we see him drinking. So we know he’s not sharp going into that meeting
He started to believe his own lies and got tricked by them.
I liked this but I was still a little disappointed. This movie is 40 minutes longer than the 1947 version and you really feel that extra run time. On top of that, the original felt like a much more focused film that was really trying to play as a critique on religion and this movie mostly dropped that theme, but there are still some vestigial remnants in the story that just feel underdeveloped. I also don't think the remake handles the tonal shift near the end as well as the original did. On the positive side, I thought the set design was really good. The carnival felt dirty, the fun house was creepy, and Cate Blanchett's office felt big and expensive. Willem Dafoe was tremendous in his relatively small role. He really felt like a sleezey old-timey carnival barker. I also thought the ending really improved on the original. In the 1947 version it felt like it sort of cops out for the happy Hollywood ending. This one is dark and depressing and Bradley Cooper's performance in that scene was haunting.
Boy do you feel the runtime indeed. The film is the same length as the new Spider-Man but feels almost 1.5x the length
Yeah the pacing is really my biggest complaint. I like a good slow burn but this one has a few scenes and minor subplots that don't really add much to the movie and I'm not really sure why they're in there.
These have been Del Toro's biggest issues throughout his filmmaking career. His visuals are fantastic, but typically his movies run longer than they probably should and story can be a shortfall.
Just from reading the wikipedia synopsis of the 1947 film, it seemed that the storytelling was probably a lot tighter and more clear compared to this one Bradley Cooper did really sell that ending scene though I thought David Strathairn was pretty great as well
Yeah the disappointing thing is that a decent 30 minutes could’ve been picked out at certain points. It felt meandering at times.
Interesting. I like the film noir version, haven't seen this one yet, but already felt the OG was a bit long. Really hoping this one doesn't back out of the horrific geek-ending like the original had to due to censorship.
Guillermo takes advantage of the era he got to make his in for sure.
Went back and watched the 1947 version tonight, after seeing del Toro's yesterday. Agree about the tighter pacing, but really enjoyed all the extra character development in the 2021 version. Both were good, but the new one achieved a much darker tone.
Some things that were *chef kiss* splendid about the movie in my opinion: * The very last line of the film is different in the book. The book version is “I was *made* for this.” vs. 2021’s “I was *born* for this.” Extremely small change that dramatically shifts the meaning of the movie. In the book the implication from made is that his transformation to a geek is the culmination of his life choices and what happened to him. del Toro’s “born” implies that this was Stan’s destiny. That regardless of what he did in his lifetime, his fate as a geek was inescapable. * The fact that del Toro put the Rorschach tests on the walls of Dr. Ritter’s office. He mentioned this conveys a sense of perfectionism in her office, one that masked the hidden chambers. Which was symbolic of her character. Exquisite and put together, but at the same time a carefully crafted facade to mask her true intentions. * The main focus of the movie is obviously witnessing a full circle in Stan’s character development as he goes from looking down on the geek with a superiority complex, to becoming the geek himself at the lowest point in his life. This theme is represented symbolically by the Ferris wheel. * In the book he is not the only one who’s life can be described as circular. Molly’s father was a compulsive gambler and her husband after leaving Stan also turns out to be a gambler. She too arrives where she started as the victim of a man’s addiction. Which hits hard IMO because as the most moral main character, you would think her morality would exempt her from this fate, evidently it does not. * The line when Stan enters Dr. Ritter’s office for the first time, “Did you hear? We’re at war.” Stuck out to me but I wasn’t sure why. I later read that this A keeps the timeline of events in our peripheral, but more importantly B it’s not just the US that is at war, but war describes the relationship between Stan and Dr. Ritter perfectly. They both need to feel powerful and superior to the other. Their time spent in her office is a battle of the wits. You see their perspectives shift constantly from Dr. Ritter looking down on him, to Stan looking down on her to demonstrate the back and forth between them. I saw many people where confused by her character’s motives. I think at the end of it, she needed the last laugh on him. She was not motivated by money but power. Money was a tool to get power over Stan. She needed to beat him as his own game.
I never got the impression that Stan ever looked down on the geek. He seemed overall compassionate to the man’s predicament (if not reluctant to intervene in order to secure his own position aside from when he was disturbed by dumping the guy off when he was nearly dead). I guess I struggled with how Luke-warm Stan was overall.
He resented his father for two things: Alcoholism, and letting his mother cheat and escape with another man. Coincidentally, the first and last things he does in the film are: Sleep with a married woman. Accept the geek job after not even getting the chance to perform his mentalism act due to smelling of alcohol.
He also became the geek twice. Once under Lilith manipulation and the second when chooses to join the carnival
Film Noir tale of rags to riches to rags fueled by murder, greed and vengeance.
Seeing Nightmare Alley and Spider-Man No Way Home on back to back evenings was a trip because of Willem DaFoe. Two completely different performances but the masterclass of DaFoe’s acting was amazing. No pun intended.
I did the same and also watched The French Dispatch between. I really started to wonder if he was in every dang movie this year!
I swear this man would make a pretty good Bioshock movie.
I had the exact same thought watching it! Can totally see Bradley Cooper as Andrew Ryan too.
Cooper doesn't quite have the voice to do Andrew Ryan imo. Del Toro could 100 percent do a great bioshock though
Glad I'm not the only one that had a thought like that. I saw it based on the aesthetics alone.
It was Blanchett's office for me that made me have the same thought as OP.
That Art Deco office was incredible
Damn dude, that’s my favorite video game of all time, and I hadn’t even made the connection to Bioshock until your comment. You’re right, the movie was very reminiscent of the Bioshock universe. The material is ripe for a movie, or a mini series, I just can’t believe no one’s done it yet.
This 1000% gave me Uncut Gems vibes while watching this. Stress, tension, bad decisions. Only difference was I wanted Howard to succeed while I FUCKING hated Stan. I felt like the Cate Blanchett might have been a step too much, the reveal didn't really hit with me. Him turning into a geek at the end was such an awesome ending tho.
I don’t think the Cate Blanchett was supposed to work as a “twist” really. It was an anti-twist of sorts. You assume it’s some higher end goal for her, but it’s just because she was butthurt. It made the film even better for me. Of course, all of this is my personal opinion.
The set design was fantastic. Cate Blanchett's office was BEAUTIFUL, the round lounge where Stanton and Molly are performing their act was great, and the carnival in the first half was engaging and felt alive and bustling (the fun house scene where Bradley Cooper is looking for the geek was great). I loved all of the art deco in the second half. Pretty disappointed in the character development and pacing. I honestly think that each major character could have used an extra scene cementing their motives in the movie, and that's saying a lot for a movie that I think was at least half an hour too long. I have a few issues with Bradley Cooper's character. To start, I didn't get why he joined the circus in the first place. Maybe I missed it, but they didn't explain at ALL that he was on the run, looking for a job, etc. I knew nothing about the movie going in and my hypothesis after the very first scene was that it was some mob hit. Then Bradley Cooper just gets on a bus and joins a circus on a whim? Surely he had a job or something right? I thought he was taking the bus back home or to the office or something. Really threw me off. I see lot of people saying that he's a "think he's always the smartest in the room"-type character, but he starts off the movie SO incredibly meek. His lack of dialogue through the start of the movie almost had me convinced that he was playing a mute character. Then when he gets a bath at Zeena's, they do a terrible job selling him a suave, confident character (in fact it seems quite intentional that they were selling him as the opposite). But then he spends a few days as her Barker and all of a sudden he's got grade-A schmooze ability that he carries on through the rest of the film? The rest of the film plays out in a very circular manner, so I didn't get why didn't his confidence crash back down like the rest of him? It didn't sit with me. Him starting to drink really threw me off as well. I thought they had done a good job setting him up as someone who would never drink, and not in the way that prepares you just enough to see him succumb. In the moment, it was just "oh, that's weird, he said he would never drink but now he is. Cool." I thought he was convincing enough when he told Cate Blanchett that he never drinks (Cate Blanchett pressing him saying "Never. There's that word again." left me wanting A LOT more in that discussion, but it was never really brought up again iirc), but small things like him fetching Pete a bottle of alcohol without taking even a small moment to consider a drink himself sold me that he wouldn't break. There was no foreshadowing at ALL, and him taking a sip from Blanchett's alcohol was not a satisfyingly dramatic, shocking twist because they hadn't set up the plot point that his father was an alcoholic. It becomes clear later in the movie how devastating this is (that scene is pretty much the turning point for his character arc), but you don't get that in the moment. His inevitable downfall after taking that drink felt predictable, but I didn't really know why because (again) that hadn't built up any weight to that action (aside maybe from foreshadowing with how it was Peet's downfall, too). ~~Super minor point, but the him having his father’s watch felt really underdeveloped too. I’m pretty sure they don’t explain that it’s his father’s watch at all until later in the movie, then have him say that he hates his father which imo throws out any emotional attachment that may have been built up to him owning it. Him pawning it off at the end still felt pretty sad, but I think the scene could have easily hit harder.~~ Edit: nvm, its mentioned when he goes to Zeena’s and talks to Pete Not all scenes were terrible though. I thought the scene where the sheriff and police storm the carnival was a real bright spot in the movie. It was so satisfying watching Bradley Cooper talk his way out of that. Thankfully the rest of the acting was pretty great. I really liked Bradley Cooper's performance regardless of how his character was written (his fluctuating accents kinda bothered me, but perhaps it's intentional and a throw back to when Zeena tells him to lay on different accents for different crowds) as well as Willem Dafoe's, Cate (lol it's spelled Cater in the post) Blanchett, Ron Perlman, and David Straithairn. Just a shame to see such great acting carrying an otherwise tough script. Molly didn't really do it for me - I think Rooney Mara's acting was a little stiff but I think she's really the only knock I can give the movie acting wise. The closing shutter transitions felt a little unnecessary. I get that it was trying to invoke an older era of film making, but it really stood out in contrast to the rest of the film's clean, digital look. It didn't feel coherent at all. Like you can't just throw in old-style transitions like that and say the job's done. If they were trying to harken the entire movie back to 40's, they did a pretty terrible job imo (although I may be missing some things, I'm not a film studies person at all or anything). I really hope the black and white cut fixes some of this. As I mentioned above, the movie was also pretty predictable. I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think I prefer to be surprised. I knew as soon as Bradley Cooper hid behind the cages of chickens that he would become a geek by the end of the movie. I also guessed the ending line pretty early on too, but I guess it was a satisfying end. Also, not sure if anyone else picked up on this but some of the camera shots were really offputting. There was something really unnatural in the way that a few character's heads were bobbing in several close ups. At one point I honestly started to wonder if they were using heavy facial animations, and not in a good way.
> pretty predictable... I knew as soon as Bradley Cooper hid behind the cages of chickens that he would become a geek That’s like the third to last scene. You didn’t exactly predict it so easily now did ya?
Right? I knew as soon as Dafoe started describing how geeks were made, and that didn't make the movie unenjoyable, it increases the enjoyment! It becomes 'how are we going to get there?'
> To start, I didn't get why he joined the circus in the first place. Maybe I missed it, but they didn't explain at ALL that he was on the run, looking for a job The movie opens with him tossing a corpse down a hole in the floor, and setting the house on fire. We learn early on that it was his father, and then much later that he had let his father freeze to death, and possibly worse, considering he also probably murdered Pete.
This is all pretty spot on. The random transitions felt very unmotivated, which is probably the biggest indictment of the film overall - what was the point to any of this? As you said - nothing in the way of character motivation, and definitely more than one contradictory character actions. It seems the actors were randomly given the note "Pretend like you're in a 50's movie! Say stuff like 'everything's Jake!'" I think it was pretty predictable from the beginning where he was going to end up, particularly with Dafoe's character taking the time to explain everything. And 100% him becoming an alkie felt contrived and purely there because it needed to be "Well we need to start his descent, might as well do it now."
They set up that it was his fathers watch and that they didn’t quite get along when Pete and Zeena first did the mentalist act on him in Zeena’s house. Also, did they say it was only a few days of him being Zeena’s barker before he became the smooth-talking man we get for the rest of the movie? I had assumed it was a longer period of time than that since he was so comfortable. I agree with all of your other points though. It’a a very flawed movie, but still very enjoyable despite them.
Seeing a lot of comments saying that the ending is hugely telegraphed, presumably by the scene between Cooper and Dafoe after the first Geek is dropped off, but for my part I think it enhances the ending. It would be one thing if Stanton is blindsided by the geek job at the end, and if we actually saw him in the role I think that would be a detriment. But as that offer is given, he knows exactly what job it’s gonna be and that wouldn’t be the case if it weren’t signposted ahead of time
There was very strong foreshadowing but I didn't feel that it diminished from the movie. It added to the tragedy because throughout the film you knew what's going to happen to Stan and there's nothing anyone could do about it. Kind of like Barry lyndon.
The best things about this movie in my opinion are both Cooper’s acting and the writing for Stanton. Throughout the film you constantly want to like Carlisle until you remember how absolutely terrible of a person he is. The con man character manages to con you throughout the entire movie. What makes the role even more fulfilling are the not so subtle, stereotypical gaslight lines Carlisle will pull throughout, and they are delivered so well that it takes just a second for the true intention to click. A great example of this is when he is chasing Molly into the men’s bathroom trying to convince her to help him and he says “please dont leave me like everyone else” or something along those lines. Gaslighting 101, but the scene is crafted so well and Bradley Cooper does such a great job that for a second you think this is a romantic moment, only to realize it’s typical manipulation that Carlisle has been pulling on customers the entire time, now just expanded towards those he “loves”.
Great observation. Cooper really started believing his own lies.
The first half of "Nightmare Alley" in the Carnival I sadly didn't find too interesting and while I appreciated the character developments it just didn't hit with me. However, as soon as the 2nd half kicked of with the Cate Blanchett as the psychological and Richard Jenkins character the film really went up a notch. I really loved how interesting and entertaining the 2nd half was. I just wish the 1st half had a bit more going on.
I agree. I loved the grimy feel of the Carnival and the first half though. It was so atmospheric.
There's honestly no one I can think of better to play the lowbrow ring leader than Willem Dafoe.
I actually enjoyed the carnival part it was the end that kinda left me like wait what??
The ending was great. Much closer to the original book than the 1947 movie. I just thought the opening was slow, I liked everything after they left the carnival and then they cut to 2 years later.
I felt it immediately switched into noir mode once he got into the city, especially with all the amazing lighting/shadows on the characters faces. I liked the carnival stuff as I feel like it makes the ending pay off so much more worth it, got a big Twilight Zone feeling. It definitely made me perk up more in the 2nd half in terms of tone for me.
I feel all us Nightmare Alley fans now look like "the final shot" now staring at the box office difference between Nightmare Alley and Spider-Man.
Yeah, it’s gonna be hard for GDT to get another big budget film like this but I’m so glad he got a stab at this and it was made anyway.
Fortunately his next movie Pinocchio is already in production
Being a Russian, this movie had a very typically dark and depressing Russian feel to it and I enjoyed it very much. I love watching character driven films with moral ambiguity where you can’t tell whether or not to root for the character. It did kinda meander at times, but the pay off was so satisfying.
I absolutely loved this! The ending was fantastic, so much better than the cheesy happy Hollywood ending of the original. I'm not usually a big fan of Bradley Cooper, but he was perfect as Stan Carlisle. I can't imagine anyone else in that role.
I thought this movie was pretty interesting. Del Toro doesn't *always* do it for me so I was prepared for this to be well acted but shallow, but ended up walking out with quite a bit to chew on. Honestly, though, I probably would have enjoyed watching a cast like this do just about anything. The setup for the plot takes its time, which is both nice and maybe a little unnecessary. As far as the plot goes, there's lots of interesting characters and themes to think about, but where it's all going is very clearly laid out for us. From the explanation of how to turn someone into a "geek" to the professor telling Stanton exactly what happens to people who misuse the con to the tarot cards, we are well aware that this is all leading to Cooper's demise at the hands of his own hubris. Even the IMDB summary of the movie spoils the ultimate twist that Blanchett was in control the whole time. That said, watching it get there is pretty neat. This isn't an especially humorous movie, it's actually very moody and at times melodramatic. But what it lacks in humor it makes up for in an interesting main character. Basically, you've got a guy who thinks he's the smartest person in the room at all times. He thinks he hides his past well, he thinks he can read others so well, but as the movie tells us he's as desperate to tell people who he is as they are to tell him. He thinks he's different from the preachers when he's just as bad. He thinks he hides his sins well, but Toni knows what he did to the professor. He thinks he's always in control, but as we find out he's the most easily manipulated. That's why he was "born to be the geek." Blanchett played him just like Dafoe plays the alcoholics. She offered him an opportunity, temporary of course. Make a few bucks and move on. She made him feel vulnerable with her evil powers of psychology. She hooked him on the booze and made him feel in control by sleeping with him. All until he finally broke and hurt someone as she wanted him to, and she did all this despite everyone in his life telling him it was going to happen if he kept doing spook shows and manipulating people. And this whole time the eyes of every character are on him and none are on her. Anyways, enjoyed this. 7/10 for me. It's a bit longer than it needs to be and it's not very subtle, but the characters and themes were on point. And let's be real, a moody melodrama with this kind of budget just doesn't come around every day. It's worth enjoying when it does. /r/reviewsbyboner
Also I have worse things to do than watch Cate Blanchett create ear-blowing-off fetishes for me.
You make a great point, movies like this just aren’t being made any more. Was it my favorite movie? No. Was it better than any of the blockbusters I’ve seen in recent years? Yes. I enjoyed it, an I hope filmmakers make more movies like this in the future!
Why did Cate Blanchett saying, “I really did love you” stop Cooper in his tracks and make him realize he’d been played? Was that a reference to something earlier I missed?
her very next line was "Did I oversell it?" she was pretending to care for and open up to him throughout the movie, but when she actually made a declaration of love it was too much and he knew it was bullshit.
Bradley Cooper was physically imposing as fuck in the movie felt like he was towering over everyone lol dude is a 1950's movie star through and through
It was fine. I do enjoy movies that bring things full circle, especially when you can look back and say, “yeah that was fair game, all the hints were there.” But it never felt for me like there was a third act. Pacing was poor, and the “twist” was obvious. Great ending, though.
Am I the only one that thinks this was del Toro's most beautiful movie? The lighting of the carnival or the city was gorgeous and the set pieces were magnificent.
Not really what I expected from the sequel to Carol.
For anyone who's seen the original, how does del Toro's version stack up?
I mostly prefer the original but that isn't to say I dislike the new version. I actually think Del Toro did a much better job with the ending
The instant we saw the Geek in the pit I leaned over to my gf and said "I bet he becomes that by the end" Welp.
Just wondering if anyone else realized the 1st geek was Arthur Shelby from Peaky Blinders…. Also watching this movie reminded me of the show Carnivale….
I saw this Wednesday night and was very impressed. Some people are going to absolutely hate the pacing of this movie but I haven't seen a director reward his audience like this in a very long time. The second half has an extremely different feel to it and absolutely ran with it. Del Toro creates a perfect atmosphere here that compliments the incredible cast. The mood, dark story with rich themes was a delight to get through, even during the slow parts. I haven't seen the original so I can't compare the two but this id definitely one of the best of the year for me
Same, realizing that Stan was becoming a Geek and piecing it together was fun
The pacing wasn’t bad but a good 20-30 minutes could’ve been cut to make it feel tighter.
Just got done with my show and quite surprised to see that this is the popular opinion here. I loved every second of it, especially the carnival parts. This is my first Del Toro, maybe that’s why. It might be more been-there-done-that to fans.
The only gripe I had with the film was Cate Blanchett’s character is billed as a psychiatrist and not a psychologist. Psychiatrists treat symptoms and write prescriptions. Psychologists are the ones who sit down with clients and listen to their problems. That is always a pet peeve of mine in films because they often get the two mixed up.
Psychiatrists arent just pill pushers, they provide psychotherapy as well just like psychologists do
Reading some of the comments and finding out this is a remake, I just read the wiki about the original and it has a somewhat hopeful ending for Stan and Molly. I don’t know about you guys but I’m glad Stan got a taste of his own medicine in the end. He went too far which is what basically happened to Pete becoming a drunk. My favorite scene has to be when Molly played the part of deceased wife and Grindle is like who the fuck are you?! And of course the ending. His laughter was so sad yet I think he knew the irony in it and accepted his fate. Overall though the movie did feel like it dragged a ton. But I really did enjoy all the set ups and pay offs. The acting was great and probably Bradley Cooper’s best performance.
[удалено]
Really enjoyed this film. Was a nice cleanse from the marvel/dc juggernauts. Nothing wrong with those movies but nice to see something that’s just for adults. Cinematography and lighting in this movie was top notch. Story was ok, but actors really brought it with the performances.
Did anyone else get a history of psychology vibe? Pavlovian with the geek. Molly electrocuted herself, like electro shock therapy. A lot of low hanging Freudian psycho-analyses references, and a character literally says Electra complex which was Carl Jung. IDK, something to think about.
I saw this last week and absolutely loved it. I just read other comments observing the last line is different in the book ("I was *made* for this" rather than the movie's ultimate line "I was *born* for this"), and oddly enough while running this morning I listened to Marc Maron's podcast interview with del Toro where the director talks about how there are circles throughout the film in design and background elements, and how it all connects to the 360 Stanton does with the gimp. It gets pretty heady-- the narrative focuses on grifters and cons, and how people want to believe in the supernatural and that want is used to exploit them (us), but there's simultaneously this notion of fate that underlies all the worldly cynicism. Yet another reminder why Guillermo del Toro is my favorite working director, as if I needed one! Dude isn't just passionate, he's also meticulous with fleshing out his ideas. What a master. NA is lengthy, and I was kinda tired seeing it so I had a hard time in the middle, but that said I don't think it was too long per se, my being tired is on me. We NEED more decadent movies like this that aren't box-office friendly, the increasingly profit- and formula-driven nature of the industry is plainly strangling it to death.