Nickel Boys

'Nickel Boys' tries new methods in the film. The camera stays at the eye-level of young Elwood, and this is effective because it embodies the happy and cozy childhood of small Elwood. This eye-level camera movement implies that he's taken care of, given attention, and loved. That's the only good part of RaMell Ross's 'NEW methods'.

I'm now going to list all those 'fresh' approaches of the director. However, I cannot find the 'purpose' of these approaches. Why does he choose these specific tools and forms to create what effect on the audience? None of them are answered. First, screen ratio. The director chooses a 1.33:1 ratio. It rather feels stuffed, blocking a wider view. My sight is blocked the whole time. Second, lots of montage, jagged editing, and lots of quick cuts. Again, I don't know why the director chooses this way, and I'm sure his intention has failed because It feels chopped and segmented, hindering the continuity and the flow of the movie and making the ending more confusing. In addition to these editing problems, story development is slow, making things worse.

I enjoyed the artistic stylings of the cinematography. They were as much a part of the story as the plot and characters.

This was hard to watch mostly becausse of the unfortunate truths it portrayed.

Injustice is never an easy thing to swallow. At least for me.

This movie is definitely worth watching if only to inform yourself about the darkness of our past.

But at a 2:20 runtime, it felt somewhat tedious.

I get that the long runtime was meant to correspond to the long suffering of african americans and the lengthy civil rights struggle, but ultimately, it's message suffered for it.

Its poignant story might've been better served as quick, aggressive and brutal. Rather than as the slow and painstaking story it told.

This is by no means a bad film, but it is a frustrating one. Sure, we all appreciate a movie that tries to do something different-but let's not confuse "different" with "successful."

The film is shot in a POV style where the camera is meant to represent the character's perspective, which ends up being wildly distracting. Not only does this approach pull you out of the action, but there are moments where you're left wondering what the hell you're even looking at. For example, there are several shots of the back of someone's head. Who is seeing that? Are we supposed to believe the character can see the back of their own skull?

I shouldn't have to ask questions like that. And I wouldn't, if the film had drawn me in. But the overly gimmicky style makes that impossible. This could have been a very powerful movie-the subject matter certainly deserves it. However, the overly clever filmmaking drains it of any real impact.

The acting and writing just barely manage to save it from being a complete disaster, but you still leave the theater wanting so much more.

I respect this film much more than I enjoyed it. While the director really took a big swing here, this film is a tad overrated. I think that's for two reasons: the way in which this is shot, and the subject matter. While both certainly have merit, simply because a film is doing something innovative, doesn't necessarily mean the film itself is very good. While the film certainly is a real technical achievement, and the subject is touching, I wonder if shooting it in a traditional manner would've made this more palatable and improved the film overall.

If you go into this film without knowing what it's about, you'd never know it's based on a true story. There are scenes, particularly in the beginning, that don't really add up to much ultimately. For a film about such bleak subject matter, the film feels very dreamlike, fantastical, and over-stylized. Because of this, the film almost feels like a projection or rosy retrospection of the abusuve reform school, in lieu of a realistic portrayal of what that must have been like for the victims. Off of that point, it felt like the director was unsure what he wanted the film to be about: the horrors of the reform school or the power of friendship between the two central boys. Much of the abuse is implied or heard off-screen, so how trying and scary the environment must have been for the boys is never really fleshed out, it's mostly implicit. And while the friendship between the boys is shown, how they went from being bunkmates to being best friends isn't necessarily limned or shown for viewers. The story is quite jumpy, at times includes arbitrary scenes, and thus the plot can feel confusing.

How nice the film looked took away from how impactful it could've actually been. The cinematography is certainly beautiful to look at, but the use of the first-person shots were unnecessary and don't really add much to the story. There are many scenes of characters talking to one another and because the film is in first-person POV, you have the actors talking straight into the camera; it more often than not feels awkward, stilted, and contrived, almost reminiscent of a video game or hologram. It just felt bizarre much of the time.

This easily could've been told in a traditional, third-person way and the film would've been much better than it is. The first-person gimmick also sullies the experience of understanding just how bad things are for the characters because we literally only see two perspectives, not an objective view or the totality of the mistreatment. And the pacing much of the time is unfortunately mediocre. A good half hour could've been trimmed from this film.

The performances are good though, and really carry the film. Aujanue Ellis-Taylor gives a great performance, portraying a grandmother trying to come to grips with a deeply unsettling situation she finds her grandson in. The acting of the two leads is also quite good.

Overall, it's beautiful to look at with some strong acting, and I appreciate the big swing that was taken here by the director, but the story could've been told and edited better than it was.

The story this movie tells is fantastic and heart wrenching. The acting is superb. At times the director makes brilliant choices. Ok done with the good stuff.

What a train wreck. Seriously. I think this director has a great future, but he threw everything into this film but the kitchen sink. I hated the hand held shaky cam stuff. Why did he do that? It tended to be more shaky early in the film so it kind of set me off early and the story and acting had to win me back. The way POV was utilized throughout was very distracting. We are seeing everything unfold through the character on the screens eyes. At times it is really confusing. The camera is the character. No normal film type interactions at all. Sure if works from time to time, but overall it is annoying. The set up to when Elwood gets in trouble is very long and not well constructed. I have not read the novel but I would guess it has a section about the (limited?) legal process that occurs. It would have been a nice touch. Loved some of the odd montages. Hated others. I still gave it a 7., for the gripping story this film tells, but man ,what a weird film.