|
(there's no fashion icon so i went with art) Nocturnal Animals is the new movie by Tom Ford, starring Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal, with Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Isla Fisher along the supporting roles. It's played a few festivals and was just released in the UK, with a limited American release at the end of the month before it goes wide on December 9th. This is one of those movies where I absolutely believe you should keep yourself in the dark about the story, as I did, but here's a brief synopsis: Amy Adams is an art gallery owner in LA who seems super unhappy. She receives a letter from her first husband (Gyllenhaal) who she hasn't spoken to in 19 years, including a manuscript of his first novel. As she reads we see a dramatisation of the novel, with the lead also played by Gyllenhaal, and we flip between the story and how it affects Adams. Here's a trailer (although, again, I really don't think anyone should watch this) And the RT page if you wanna read some reviews. I saw this today and really loved it. The cinematography is pristine and gorgeous, while the editing moves between the sections perfectly. I'd also say this is one of the best casts of the year - all the great actors are as great as you'd expect, but I also have to give props to Taylor-Johnson - this has to be his best role yet, he's almost unrecognisable. The story is gripping, visceral, and incredibly intense. The most common complaint about this movie is that it's so stylised as to be somewhat detached - with many people saying they felt once removed from the characters. I sort of understand this complaint, but I truly didn't feel that way at all - I had a hell of a lot of different emotional reactions to the movie, and when certain things are revealed it's goddamn heartbreaking. Definitely a favourite of the year. Really spoilery bit where I discuss the story and ending: I absolutely loved that Edward proved himself to be the kind of person Susan could be with, and gave her hope for a future away from Hutton, only to give one last gently caress-you by standing her up, but it doesn't hit very hard compared to the best moments in the movie in my opinion. I've seen a few people say they believe he killed himself after arranging the get-together, but there isn't more evidence for this other than "he dies in the book". Anyone else who's seen it, what did you think? Also for some reason when I was in the cinema I thought Adams' face had been aged in the very very final shot, but the more I ruminate on this it was probably just my dumbo eyes playing tricks on me. Shannon gave my favourite performance, as usual, and I loved his ridiculous melodramatic character who seems to basically exist to have the strength Tony doesn't. The whole scene where Tony and his family get run off the road is really intense and somewhat upsetting.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
This is out in NY/LA today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Wife and I are going to see it tonight, been looking forward to it for a while. I place a lot of weight into aesthetics, and the general plot seems like it would be right up our alley. Will report back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Thought it was fantastic, and the forms of masculinity it showed were all horrible in their own way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:Thought it was fantastic, and the forms of masculinity it showed were all horrible in their own way. Yeah, but the female characters only exist to be punished. Amy Adams is miserable because she "became her mother" and aborted this poor guy's child (against her religion!!) and cheated on him, so now she's condemned to a life of loneliness and despair. The wife and daughter in the "novel" are brutally murdered, the details of which are relayed back in monotone by Michael Shannon to a crying Gyllenhaal, and the shot we see of their dead bodies is consumed by this weird glamourized, glowing sexuality. Meanwhile, poor poor Jake Gyllenhaal who's bitch of a wife didn't believe in him proves her wrong by being this master author/his fantasy version of himself kills these leering redneck stereotypes. Honestly, I'll complain about this movie, but I loved it. It's terrible. It's amazing. It's high camp of the likes of Mommie Dearest and I firmly expect to see it on John Waters' Top 10. I honestly thought it was tongue-in-cheek until the ending when I realized it was taking itself seriously this whole time. I mean, the great, emotionally devastating novel he's written is a cheap convenience store thriller filled with every cliche of the genre you can think of. Amy Adams spends every scene looking beautiful and miserable like it's the goddamn 70's. It's a fantastic bad movie and y'all should see it and I hope the Oscars get sucked into awarding the hell out of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Watched this the other week and LOOOOVED it. Absolutely floored me and my girlfriend, we were both very quiet for about an hour after while absorbing it. Hits very hard and is just fantastically well put-together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Absolutely hated the awful dialogue and one-scene characters in this. So clumsy it was an embarrassment. Amy Adams' co-workers get one scene each and they honestly feel like bad youtube skits. It's also pretty gross that Amy Adam's character has a fan-fiction about her being raped and murdered written. She finds this hot enough (replete with scenes of her reading and moaning) that she tries to hook up with her ex who wrote it. Additionally gently caress this movie for having a jumpscare in it. Not the time nor the place. Nice looking film, bad, bad dialogue and characters. Some good acting but overall not recommended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:snip I thought the same thing! Glad it wasn't just me. Also, Abel Korzeniowski scored this film too and the main theme is just gorgeous. The rest is a bit more understated than his usual fare but I loved the song in the final scene as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
well why not posted:Absolutely hated the awful dialogue and one-scene characters in this. So clumsy it was an embarrassment. Amy Adams' co-workers get one scene each and they honestly feel like bad youtube skits. Yep, sounds like a movie made by a fashion designer to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Hahah, fair enough. I will mention now that it was much as I expected. I won't be rushing back to the cinema for his next film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
hahaha she doesn't find it hot she's gasping in shock not moaning in pleasure
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
I disagree, she's in bed reading and is all MMMMMMMmmmmDATSIT and then sets up a date with him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
I basically felt zero investment in the inner story, which is probably a quirk on my part. When I watch a movie (or read a book, etc) I suspend my disbelief and get engaged in the 'reality' of what I'm consuming, but since the book Nocturnal Animals is itself fictional within the 'reality' of the film I felt like I was too far removed from it and didn't really have any reason to care what happened in it beyond how it affect Amy Adams. Although I didn't have this problem with The Princess Bride but that's because it was entertaining and funny for more than one line. Michael Shannon, Jake Gyllenhaal and Amy Adams are all great actors, Isla Fischer and the bad guy and the daughter did a good job with what they had, the whole thing looked nice, but the story and script was just so very blah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
I expected something a little weirder (weirdness peaks in the opening credits) but thought it was great. Michael Shannon was hilarious, loved Jena Malone's leather trashbag dress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
well why not posted:Absolutely hated the awful dialogue and one-scene characters in this. So clumsy it was an embarrassment. Amy Adams' co-workers get one scene each and they honestly feel like bad youtube skits. You basically wrote exactly how I felt about it. It had it's moments and the highway scene was intense, but I just couldn't really connect with the story or characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
What's the jumpscare? I hate jumpscares so I'd rather be prepared than be scared. prescared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
It's when Adams' character is given a tablet to look at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
as is cinema tradition, a baby monitor is mentioned and appears, so there has to be a jumpscare, no matter the tone of the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
I really disliked this movie. I thought the dialogue was too soapy, and the characters too boring. It made me want to watch A Single Man, to see what all the Tom Ford buzz was about. This movie felt like a bunch of really talented people signed on to Ford's name, and then did their darndest to make something out of a frustratingly wooden script. I appreciate that he's trying to bend some of the rules to tell a simple story in a different way, but I think the film comes across as a sanitized Lynch film. He didn't go weird enough. The highway scene was genuinely tense, and really unpleasant. There was no joy or satisfaction in the revenge story, but also no sense that their ever would be. There wasn't even a sense that he wanted revenge, and then realized that he could never fill the hole in his heart. The movie felt like it was just one long bleak march. And the Los Angeles people were infuriating, mostly because they were too realistic, yet spoke like cartoon characters. Actually, I hated this movie!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Power Walrus posted:The highway scene was genuinely tense, and really unpleasant. There was no joy or satisfaction in the revenge story, but also no sense that their ever would be. There wasn't even a sense that he wanted revenge, and then realized that he could never fill the hole in his heart. Ya I just finished watching this and felt the same way as you did. And the highway chase scene is probably the best moment of the entire movie. I thought it would be more tense like that. Even though that scene was fictional in the movie you felt like it was real. Also the ending is kinda weak imo. It feels like they didn't want to write it either way so they left an opening ending. They could have been more explicit about what happened to Edward whether he was alive or dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Ulio posted:Ya I just finished watching this and felt the same way as you did. And the highway chase scene is probably the best moment of the entire movie. I thought it would be more tense like that. Even though that scene was fictional in the movie you felt like it was real. The story within the story being established as pretty overtly allegorical, I think it was pretty clear that Tony represented Edward's weak, sensitive self, Isla Fischer and daughter represented the life that was ripped from Edward, and Ray represented Susan Morrow (both being the ruthless authors of Tony/Edward's pain). All of the allegories are in relation to Edward's perspective. In the novel, Ray "dies" but Susan is clearly alive at the end. Instead, her "death" is in relation to Edward. Edward, by "killing" Tony (the representation of his weaker self) has become free of Susan so she has in a sense become dead to him. In both the story and in reality, Edward achieved revenge against both Ray/Susan but there was no vindication in it. It was dirty, unnecessary and Pyrrhic. I don't think Edward is dead, enacting this vengeance and knowing he has beaten Susan by making her fall for him again is probably the first time he's felt alive in 20 years, considering how petty and calculating he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Oh thanks that makes it more clear. I knew about the allegory being there but for some reason I didn't put it together that Ray represented Susan and not her husband.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
well why not posted:Absolutely hated the awful dialogue and one-scene characters in this. So clumsy it was an embarrassment. Amy Adams' co-workers get one scene each and they honestly feel like bad youtube skits. This is an... Interesting interpretation. I liked the jump scare because it was so bizarre, and I was hoping things would go even further off the rails. That's my main complaint, really. I wish it had taken a turn to the surreal instead of being so overt. I thought it was fantastic, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
God Hole posted:The story within the story being established as pretty overtly allegorical, I think it was pretty clear that Tony represented Edward's weak, sensitive self, Isla Fischer and daughter represented the life that was ripped from Edward, and Ray represented Susan Morrow (both being the ruthless authors of Tony/Edward's pain). All of the allegories are in relation to Edward's perspective. I liked the movie and I agree with everything you wrote, that's why the ending was so underwhelming for me. He stood her up. That was his revenge after stewing on this for 19 years? Really? The truth is that 19 years had passed, it's a lifetime! Even if he knew her that well and guessed right that she'd live to regret her choice he had no way of knowing at which point in her life she was. He didn't know about her husband's "financial troubles", he didn't know she knew she was being cheated on or that she was feeling empty nest syndrome. For it to be any sort of revenge he had to hurt her emotionally, just standing her up would be the equivalent of Tony telling Bobby he was fine with Ray walking away with it. Given that Tony kills Ray only to die himself I expected Edward to pull a Vicomte de Valmont, show up for dinner, chat with her, quickly realize she was ripe for being seduced and then dump her after sex with "wow, you really did become your mother" or something else really cruel and personal. You know, really drive in the dagger even if it hurt him as well and still left him empty after 19 years. For all he knows she got annoyed and bitched about how her loser ex-husband and his lovely novel wasted her time while she and her husband planned their upcoming scuba diving vacation in Bora Bora over the phone. I dunno... seems strangely  for something that took 19 years to serve.e: that jump scare surely belonged to another movie, it must have been cut in by mistake 
MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
So was there a serious reason the movie opened with fat flub bouncing everywhere, or was that just to tell people with children and other 'prudes' (I don't know a better way to say this, it doesn't encompass everything) to get out of the theatre?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
I believe Ford said it's meant to show people who are happy and comfortable in a way Adams is not, despite her being more conventionally attractive and healthy etc. It's an arresting opening by itself, but not so sure it works for THIS movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
This movie sucked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:So was there a serious reason the movie opened with fat flub bouncing everywhere, or was that just to tell people with children and other 'prudes' (I don't know a better way to say this, it doesn't encompass everything) to get out of the theatre? The entire point of the movie is that Amy Adams' character is a lovely artist whose work expresses little more than banal disgust at 'flyover states'. Her ex-husband, Jake Gyllenhaal, is a hugely superior artist who wrote a 'trashy' airport thriller about rednecks specifically to attack her spiritual emptiness. The novel, Nocturnal Animals, is simplistic in plot but psychologically nuanced in ways Adams can't really comprehend. She perceives the characters in the novel as straightforwardly analogous to their relationship (i.e. that Gyllenhaal badly misses her) - not realizing that Gyllenhaal now identifies with Michael Shannon's character, and ultimately based the rapist villain on her. Adam's desire for some violent disruption to her empty life (hence the amazing Paranormal Activity reference) is what Gyllenhaal targets with pinpoint accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
How do you relate that to the fat ladies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:How do you relate that to the fat ladies? The entire film is a recontextualization of the opening credits sequence, where you are pushed to (and Adams fails to) reinterpret the artwork on display - the same way Adams suddenly pays attention to the artworks in the gallery, as if for the first time (e.g. Hirst's "Exquisite Pain", the made-for-the-film REVENGE painting, etc.). The point is that, despite being celebrated, Adams' work is just rote blah blah hyperreality and blah blah abjection where she strives to showcase the ugliness and obscenity of American culture. By the end of the film, you hopefully are moving towards something like Ford's own interpretation - that Adams envies her nude models. The monolithic stature of the HD projections is not oppressive, perhaps the figures' deserved place. The entire film is basically about how to read art. In the case of the movie-within-the-movie we're interpreting Adam's interpretation of a book interpreting her relationship with her ex-husband. And the point of the last scene is that she's reached the wrong conclusion. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The entire film is a recontextualization of the opening credits sequence, where you are pushed to (and Adams fails to) reinterpret the artwork on display - the same way Adams suddenly pays attention to the artworks in the gallery, as if for the first time (e.g. Hirst's "Exquisite Pain", the made-for-the-film REVENGE painting, etc.). Nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Not bad but I should point out Adams' character isn't an artist, she just owns the gallery
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
I got the sense that both the mom in the novel and the rapists represented Amy Adams, like the Old Amy Adams (Isla Fischer) and the kid are both killed by the New Cheater Amy Adams (the rapists). If present day real life Amy Adams is identifying with the mom in the novel, why is she played by Isla Fischer? Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:26
|
|