Nocturnal Animals (2016)

[CJohn]

Discuss it

[filmlover]

Nocturnal Animals doesn't completely succeed due to having to juggle three different narratives (one of which is completely made of fiction, and provides the most compelling parts of the movie), but is an intoxicating and visually arresting (unsurprising, given writer/director Tom Ford's success as a fashion designer) noir-ish thriller that will give audiences, who are sure to be divided on the film, plenty to chew on afterwards no matter what they think of the film as a whole. That fictionalized section provides the film could stand on its own as an effective short film (the abduction scene will definitely go down as one of the most tense moments of any film this year), but the whole film is a fascinating experience that comes together as it all leads up to a searing ending. A lot of the credit belongs to the actors and the performances Ford draws out of them: Amy Adams is incapable of doing any wrong as her work here compliments her excellent performance in Arrival (and it must be said that no movie has perfectly captured the haunted nature of her beautiful blue eyes as much as this one). Jake Gyllenhaal also continues his recent string of excellent performances as two very different characters. Michael Shannon provides a fun take on the cop role, while Aaron Taylor-Johnson is very creepy. This is certainly a very chilly film that isn't worth seeking out if you want an escape to the multiplex, but Nocturnal Animals does its job of crawling under your skin nonetheless. B+

[filmlover]

Also, it'll be a crime if this gets snubbed for Original Score.

 

 

[CJohn]

The opening credits lmao  

[filmlover]

Just now, CJohn said:

The opening credits lmao  

Told ya.

 

What did you think of the movie overall, though?

[CJohn]

2 hours ago, filmlover said:

Told ya.

 

What did you think of the movie overall, though?

I liked the movie very much except for the very random jump scare. What the hell was that?

 

The fictional story was really good. The abduction scene was nerve wrecking, IMO. ATJ was the MVP, IMO. Jake Gyllenhaal and Amy Adams were terrific too (especially Jake playing two characters). 

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, CJohn said:

I liked the movie very much except for the very random jump scare. What the hell was that?

 

The fictional story was really good. The abduction scene was nerve wrecking, IMO. ATJ was the MVP, IMO. Jake Gyllenhaal and Amy Adams were terrific too (especially Jake playing two characters). 

I just mentioned earlier in the Classic Conversation thread that that scene (Adams seeing ATJ suddenly pop up on Jena Malone's baby monitor) nearly gave me an actual heart attack. lol.

 

The only thing that bothered me is that we're supposed to believe that Edward's novel is supposed to make Susan feel remorseful for cheating on him with new husband Armie Hammer (who, as it turns out, is now cheating on her) and has gone so far as dedicating it to her. Anyone would've been glad to have dumped a creep like that. Even though it does make the last scene (Susan waiting at the restaurant for Edward for hours only to realize he stood her up and broke her heart like she broke his) all the more biting.

[CJohn]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I just mentioned earlier in the Classic Conversation thread that that scene (Adams seeing ATJ suddenly pop up on Jena Malone's baby monitor) nearly gave me an actual heart attack. lol.

 

That person was ATJ?!?! Well, that makes even less sense now  

5 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 

The only thing that bothered me is that we're supposed to believe that Edward's novel is supposed to make Susan feel remorseful for cheating on him with new husband Armie Hammer (who, as it turns out, is now cheating on her) and has gone so far as dedicating it to her. Anyone would've been glad to have dumped a creep like that. Even though it does make the last scene (Susan waiting at the restaurant for Edward for hours only to realize he stood her up and broke her heart like she broke his) all the more biting.

It works if only for the last scene. I stayed a bit in my seat absorbing the ending. 

[Hatebox]

Haven't seen the film, but the book is great. It really gets you thinking about how confessional writing is, and how much intent we can presume of an author before it becomes counterproductive. 

 

In fact I'm surprised a film adaptation exists at all, given the conceit is uniquely literary, and allows you to read and interpret the murder story exactly as its written and as Susan reads it. But I'll certainly catch it at some point having enjoyed A Single Man.

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Hatebox

[La Binoche]

NA is all style over wannabe substance, but that doesn't mean it's not watchable. Style counts for something. 

 

My first thought was that Amy Adams was miscast. I had trouble buying her as the icy gallery owner isolated in her glass mansion. I imagined Isabelle Huppert or Magnolia-era Julianne Moore instead. But Adams' inherent warmth and humanity serve her and the movie well during very last last scene. She makes you care what happens to her. 

 

As a critique of the Los Angeles art/celebrity scene, NA is way too on the nose. In one scene, Adams attends a party hosted by an eccentric woman married to a gay man. The eccentric woman  throws around her psychopharmacologist's name while an actress loudly talks about her pussy. Come on now. 

 

The movie works better as a thriller. The long attack/abduction scene on the freeway is incredibly tense - you can't keep your eyes off the screen. The problem with the book's story, however, is that you quickly learn that it's fictitious, which robs it of suspense and tension. 

 

NA is never as deep as it wants to be, but for the most part it's engrossing, well acted and great to look at. B

 

[La Binoche]

Oh and bonus points for the score, which evokes LA noir thrillers of the past. 

[Water Bottle]

Simply fantastic with a truly ballsy ending.

 

A-

[DeeCee]

I found it tedious and boring. 

 

Maybe as @Hateboxsays above the conceit of the story works better in a literary form where the reader has to insert themselves into the characters. Here, that's all done for you by Ford and for that to work you have to care about the characters.

 

It is an interesting idea to explore. How we as the reader invest our own thoughts and beliefs into fictional characters on the page. 

 

For me, except for Shannon's character none of the characters were interesting in any way and I had no care for their fates.  Shannon's characterisation was great and he was definitely the best performance.  However, even there the hodgepodge of policing procedures was annoying.(Granted it is west Texas)

 

Also, the fiction within a fiction nature of the novel part of the story lead to it lacking any tension. Plus the whole idea is kind of silly. She deeply wronged him 19 years ago and his big plan is to write a novel specifically tailored so that she would invest their possible life together into the story. 

 

I regret going to the effort to see it. 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by DeeCee

[The Stingray]

On 2016-11-28 at 3:50 AM, La Binoche said:

NA is all style over wannabe substance, but that doesn't mean it's not watchable. Style counts for something. 

 

My first thought was that Amy Adams was miscast. I had trouble buying her as the icy gallery owner isolated in her glass mansion. I imagined Isabelle Huppert or Magnolia-era Julianne Moore instead. But Adams' inherent warmth and humanity serve her and the movie well during very last last scene. She makes you care what happens to her. 

 

As a critique of the Los Angeles art/celebrity scene, NA is way too on the nose. In one scene, Adams attends a party hosted by an eccentric woman married to a gay man. The eccentric woman  throws around her psychopharmacologist's name while an actress loudly talks about her pussy. Come on now. 

 

The movie works better as a thriller. The long attack/abduction scene on the freeway is incredibly tense - you can't keep your eyes off the screen. The problem with the book's story, however, is that you quickly learn that it's fictitious, which robs it of suspense and tension. 

 

NA is never as deep as it wants to be, but for the most part it's engrossing, well acted and great to look at. B

 

 

Those nighttime desert highway scenes were the highlight for me as well. Plus the soundtrack, which was gorgeous.
 

[Kvikk Lunsj]

So Fucking great. 

[Blankments]

Nocturnal Animals is an intriguing beast of a film that never really finds what it's looking for. Its themes are blatant but yet constantly intriguing, even in the lesser scenes involving Amy Adams' Susan. It's clear Ford is trying to say something about artifice and how emotional mere stories can make us, but when it's more interested in stale commentary about how the 1% are out of touch, it just feels like a huge waste. Thankfully, the cast doesn't disappoint, giving generally good performances to mostly mediocre characters. Michael Shannon and Aaron Taylor-Johnson both stand out as actually exemplary actors in this, and they're both fascinating to watch. McGarvey's cinematography also really delights in this. Overall though, Nocturnal Animals is a movie that feels exquisite but actually contains very little substance. A true shame. C+

[Jake Gittes]

Taking the Classic Conversation talk here

 

31 minutes ago, filmlover said:

The whole movie is basically Jake Gyllenhaal trolling Amy Adams. Her character should've been happy that she dumped that creep.

 

Yeah, and I think Ford might be similarly trolling us and our tendency to encounter a work (more specifically, your typical serious, provocative, edgy arthouse movie) and immediately start thinking about What It All Means. I especially like this angle because it gives all those Amy Adams scenes where she's staring into the middle distance and taking sad baths a darkly comic, even mocking edge, while, if I were to take the movie seriously, I'd say it fails to develop her character, etc., etc. (which was my big issue with it right as I left the theater). In a way, it might be the ultimate movie whose "quality" depends entirely on how much you choose to take away from it, one that openly acknowledges that it's a two-hour piece of postmodern wankery and laughs at itself and the audience. (The opening credits are actually perfect in this sense). Yet it's not trying to be a deliberately bad movie that tries to fool you into thinking it's good, because there are so many legitimately terrific scenes and performances (not to mention the gorgeous cinematography and score), you don't feel like you wasted your time in the end. 

 

I don't know if I should be giving Ford this much credit, and I definitely want to see it again before deciding. But even if this isn't one of my favorite movies of 2016 (yet), it's definitely among the most rewarding and fascinating. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Jake Gittes

[ChD]

The Amy Adams part was very bleak. I don't know what it is about her, but the way she never changes her voice, the way she talks, no matter the role she plays, can become really boring really fast. I've never really been amazed by one of her roles - I can't say she lost herself in a role so much that I believed I looked at an actual person and not an actress playing a character. Let's call it the present timeline. Really bleak, monotonous, with no stand out performances from anybody.

 

The alternate timeline, starts extremely strong. It was amazing up until he reaches the police. From there on, it just kind of loses steam. It's not a thriller anymore, but a really mediocre looking revenge movie. Gyllenhall disappointed me with his performance. He never actually seemed like a grieving father/husband. He accepted it quite fast and just moved onto the investigation while many men would be crippled by something that traumatizing happening to them. Say whatever you will about the will to avenge, Gyllenhall didn't play the role properly. Aaron Taylor Johnson was solid, but that's about it.

 

Bottom line. First part of the alternate timeline is brilliant. The rest is mediocre at best.

 

B-

 

[baumer]

Liked it a lot.

 

First half hour absolutely terrified me. And also made me really mad at Jake Gyllenhaal's character in that story. Acting in it was pretty incredible and the ending was a big f*** you to everybody LOL

[somebody85]

This is another one of those movies that is open to many interpretations. Like The Neon Demon nothing is spelled out and I'm looking forward to a second viewing after reading many of the theories people have come up with. Maybe Ford didn't intend to make this movie that deep but it's certainly there to discuss.

There is a lot of Lynchesque symbolism in this film along with a few lines outside of the story that are very telling. That final scene can also be interpreted in so many ways. Did Susan know he wasn't going to show? Was she was punishing herself for what she'd done? Or as she sat there for hours, did she realize that she read the book wrong and realize what the story was actually about?

 

I know we are supposed to believe that Tony is Edward but was he actually supposed to represent Susan? Were all the characters in his story supposed to represent portions of her?

We see the story from her eyes so she see's Tony as Edward. Tony is implied as a weak character and Susan implied Edward was weak a few times in flashbacks and that he needs to stop writing about himself. Tony shot himself in the stomach symbolizing Susan's abortion. Ray could have been Susan's mother who he felt blinded her. 

"She is that which was taken away from from Tony. (Wife and Daughter) 

She is the one that took it all away by leaving him and getting an abortion. (The Gang) 

She is the weak one who could not see her own strength and fight for what she loves. (Tony) 

She is the one who helped Tony realize he was weak and needed revenge. (Bobby) 

And they're all dead. Just like Susan is now dead to him (No show)."

 - From IMDB (damn I'll miss those forums)

Maybe Edwards goal was to show Susan that she was actually the weak one in the relationship. Instead of writing about himself maybe he chose to make the characters her. She was the one who cheated on him and got an abortion without telling him. She was the one who became like her mother. And ultimately she helped him write his book (and in turn make him a stronger person) from her actions which is why he dedicated the story to her.

If Tony and Bobby are supposed to represent Edward then that makes sense as well. Tony shooting himself in the stomach would still symbolize the abortion. That's like saying "you killed me when you did that." Writing could have been the outlet he used to express his grief and now that person he was is dead and gone.

Outside of the interpretations of who represents who in the story: in real life it's mentioned that Susan was suffering from insomnia...could she have been seeing things that weren't there? It's implied that she has sad eyes a few times in flashbacks. Maybe she viewed her art displays from a depressing world view? That would add another layer to the opening credits along with the Revenge painting hanging outside Susan's office that she doesn't remember purchasing.

But...another theory that is really intriguing is the story involving present day Susan didn't happen at all. The entire film could be Edwards revenge fantasy of how Susan would react to reading his book. He imagines that she turned out like her mother (materialistic and unhappy). He imagines that his book would crush her and that she would immediately get all the symbolism in the story. He imagined that she would see how successful of a writer he had become from the hurt she had caused him. And than he imagines standing her up as a final punishment for what she had done to him. This would explain all the sad scenes of Susan staring out the window or taking a bath after reading portions of the book that Jake Gittes mentioned. - This idea falls right in place with a few scenes and lines involving surrealism and reality (like the bird hitting the house - which is never explained or Susan's daughter being in the same position as the daughter on the couch).

But yeah, I liked it a lot - right on the edge of a B+/A- right now. Like The Neon Demon it left me thinking about it for awhile afterwards.

Edited February 9, 2017 by somebody85