Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: Nightmare Alley

r96sk
10/10  2 years ago
This is great! I loved it!

'Nightmare Alley' is a superb watch! I particularly enjoyed the beginning and end, which are truly excellent; the middle part isn't as strong, but is still top notch in its own right. I love the dark atmosphere it sets from the get-go, the sound design is outstanding - some bits are so striking and I love it! It has a quality, engrossing story to boot.

Bradley Cooper leads the cast with quality, though he isn't even the sole standout of the film. He is joined by a whole host of terrific performers: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Richard Jenkins, David Strathairn ... I could go on, simply phenomenal casting! I wanted more of them all, and yet felt I got the perfect amount too.

The 150 minute run time went by incredibly quickly for me; if I hadn't known it was on for that long, I would never have guessed its length to be anywhere near that. It's a slow burn, but a slow burn done tremendously. Guillermo del Toro - this is the first film of his I've seen - & Co. did a super job, I have no complaints at all. I was toying for ages between a 9 or a 10 rating, it just about creeps its way into the latter.

Just brilliant. Go watch!
Like  -  Dislike  -  40
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
SkinnyFilmBuff
CONTAINS SPOILERS7/10  2 years ago
As is expected from Guillermo del Toro, this is an interesting one. The universal positive here is the acting. Bradley Cooper and Rooney Mara are both excellent, as is the entire ensemble, with Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, and David Strathairn being the standouts. Cate Blanchett was perhaps the only one who I was less on board with, but I think that has more to do with the writing than with her performance.

As far as the story goes, this film is divided into two very distinct segments: (1) Stan's life with the carnival; and (2) Stan's life with Molly in the city. For me this structure resulted in what felt like a pacing issue. After moving very quickly through the first segment, with numerous time jumps keeping things progressing, things seemed to slow down in the second segment. This might have to do with the fact that the story narrows significantly. The opening segment was more slice of life; establishing the setting, the characters, and their relationships. Character driven rather than plot driven. The second segment flips this around and becomes very plot focused. I can't help but compare the two segments and unfortunately the second doesn't quite deliver on the promise of the first. Character reversals and reveals felt rushed or unearned (e.g. [spoiler]Cate Blanchett's final scene in particular felt very contrived[/spoiler]) and the main conflict itself felt somewhat half baked. At the heart of the story is also the phony mentalism, which started to wear thin for me, as it doesn't exactly make for exciting cinematic material and starts to strain my suspension of disbelief. Luckily, even some of these questionable elements are largely saved by the fact that everything else about the film is so damn good, including not only the aforementioned acting, but also the stellar costumes, set design, directing, dialogue, and pretty much everything else that goes into filmmaking. And beyond that, the movie is also able to steer itself into an appropriately nightmarish ending, tying back to all of the great groundwork from the opening section. [spoiler]I found it quite appropriate that Willem Dafoe's tremendous monologue about recruiting geeks would be the critical building block of the final scene. Plus Tim Blake Nelson does an excellent job in his brief cameo executing the devilish plan Dafoe outlined.[/spoiler]

As an aside, soon after finishing this film I learned that it was a remake of an apparently well reviewed 1947 film, which was in turn based on a 1946 novel. While I'm not normally one to watch two versions of the same story back to back, in this case I'm tempted to watch the original, as I'd be interested to see how this story was told back when it was more contemporary (the story takes place from the 1930s-1940s). The period piece elements of this film are so intentional and well realized that I can't help but wonder if the original would feel a bit bland in comparison, as the setting/era might be less of a focus.
Like  -  Dislike  -  21
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by DastenHero
2 years ago
The original can be found on YouTube. It's not nearly as good. My guess would be that they had to confine themselves to what was acceptable to put on screen at the time. It's good, just not great as so many people say.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
r96sk
/10  2 years ago
This is great! I loved it!

'Nightmare Alley' is a superb watch! I particularly enjoyed the beginning and end, which are truly excellent; the middle part isn't as strong, but is still top notch in its own right. I love the dark atmosphere it sets from the get-go, the sound design is outstanding - some bits are so striking and I love it! It has a quality, engrossing story to boot.

Bradley Cooper leads the cast with quality, though he isn't even the sole standout of the film. He is joined by a whole host of terrific performers: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Richard Jenkins, David Strathairn ... I could go on, simply phenomenal casting! I wanted more of them all, and yet felt I got the perfect amount too.

The 150 minute run time went by incredibly quickly for me; if I hadn't known it was on for that long, I would never have guessed its length to be anywhere near that. It's a slow burn, but a slow burn done tremendously. Guillermo del Toro - this is the first film of his I've seen - & Co. did a super job, I have no complaints at all. I was toying for ages between a 9 or a 10 rating, it just about creeps its way into the latter.

Just brilliant. Go watch!
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
CinemaSerf
/10  2 years ago
Bradley Cooper picks up the baton from Tyrone Power (1948) as the ambitious "Stanton Carlisle", a shrewd young man who works the travelling shows with an eye for the main chance. That chance comes when he hooks up with Toni Collette's "Zeena", who shows him the tricks of their mentalist trade. Pretty soon they are fooling the great and the good - and he meets "Dr. Ritter" (Cate Blanchett). She is a psychiatrist, every bit as ambitious and ruthless as he and is content to share some of the innermost secrets of her clients with him so he can exploit their suffering. To the top of their list goes sceptical millionaire "Ezra Grindle". Together they conjure up one hell of a sting on this man - but can they succeed? This film looks great, but I found it took too long to become interesting. Cooper is handsome, but struggles with the unscrupulousness that the part needed to convey, and his scenes with Blanchett lack chemistry, indeed it is Collette who really steals the few scenes she is in - especially towards the rather twisted end of the tale. It is good, but maybe just had too much time and money and the story sacrificed some of it's soul here.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
garethmb
/10  2 years ago
Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper); is a man trying to get by in late 1930s America in the new film "Nightmare Alley". Our first introduction to Stanton is less than flattering and he soon finds himself employed at a Carnival after coming upon it by chance.

The eager Stanton is given advice and tools of the trade by his boss Clem (Willem Dafoe) as well as the mystic Zeena (Toni Collette) and Stanton eagerly wants to get ahead. While striking a friendship with fellow employee Molly (Rooney Mara); Stanton learns that Zeena's older and alcoholic husband has a skill from a former act where he learns to read people and use verbal cues to appear to have the power of clairvoyance.

Eventually, Stanton seeks bigger opportunities and leaves with Molly for the city where they in time develop a successful act that offers them two shows a night at a fancy hotel and some of the finer things in life.

Unwilling to be content with what he has; Stanton becomes involved with a Psychologist named Lilith (Cate Blanchett) and uses her knowledge to set up higher-profile marks who will pay well for his supposed abilities and in doing so; sets a dangerous chain of events into motion.

The film is based on the 1946 book of the same name and an earlier 1947 film, and while it does an amazing job with the visuals and moody atmosphere of the era; it is a very long and slowly-paced film. The movie is over 2.5 hours long and comes across as overly long and self-indulgent as Director Guillermo del Toro could easily have shaved 30-45 minutes from the film and told the story without losing much.

The cast and performances are very good but a slow-paced and dour film is not an ideal way to spend 2.5 hours at the movies no matter how much it has going for it. The movie does have some good points but I think it will do much better on streaming and home video where audiences can pause and take a break.

If you are a fan of the Noir style of old; then this may be just what you are looking for, but I think it should have been so much more.

3.5 stars out of 5.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top