CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Tom Ford's NOCTURNAL ANIMALS Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tom Ford's NOCTURNAL ANIMALS Discussion

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 

post #2 of 49
I've heard mixed things about this, but I'm still eager to see it.
post #3 of 49

I really liked A Single Man, and this is a very nicely put together trailer. Having read a summary of the plot, the narrative structure sounds like it has the potential to make for an intriguing film.

post #4 of 49

Really looking forward to this, as that was a hell of a trailer.  Reminded me of the Coen brothers by way of Pedro Almodovar or something.

post #5 of 49
This really is phenomenal. But what's with the opening credits? Is it just to bug the audience out? I liked the surealism, but opening without context like that, they completely lost most the audience there and then. People were walking out. While there is thrill being sat in a theatre with an audience that just turn on the film (see Springbreakers, Cosmopolis) I don't get the artistic purpose of it.
post #6 of 49

Went to a screening and Q&A w/ Tom Ford, and he said the opening credits were

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
women who had completely rejected everything that society said about them and were free and happy and had embraced themselves in a way that Amy Adams' character is not. Hence... fat, old burlesque dancers.

 

Anyway, this was a lot of fun. Really tremendous suspenseful atmosphere throughout, keeps you on the edge of your seat. It's wildly ambitious and I don't know if it fully holds together, but it's definitely worth seeing. And in a cast of great performances (including a surprisingly threatening Aaron Taylor-Johnson), Michael Shannon steals it like a goddamn champion. And shout-out to the people at my screening who laughed in delight (and the one dude who actually briefly started applauding) at his first shot in the film. I clapped along in my heart.

post #7 of 49

Just got out of this. I think Dent is correct when he calls it "wildly ambitious, not sure if it fully holds together, but worth seeing." America's Greatest Living Actor Michael Shannon should definitely be in the Oscars conversation - I was surprised how different he was physically here, gaunt and lean as opposed to his usual broad-shoulders and hulking manner. 

I keep thinking the best way to describe it is "a hot mess." The parts are very, very pretty, and the performances are excellent. I also highly admired a lot of the technical features - the cinematography, the costumes of course, the set design, and the music. I really admire Ford trying to do something tonally different from A SINGLE MAN, and sort of riff on Hitch/De Palma/Vertigo. 

 

That ending, though. What up with that?

post #8 of 49
Thread Starter 

If luck and my work schedule is on my side, I should be seeing this Tuesday or Wednesday. Quite excited.

post #9 of 49
I just saw this at the AFI theater in Silver Spring, Md., and I'd give about an 8/10 overall. First off, best opening shot since Lost in Translation[/l]! Secondly, Adams, Gyllenhall, Shannon, and Taylor-Johnson are are all fucking all-stars in this. Third, I found the Cormac-McCarthy-esque, Texas-at-its-harshest story-within-a-story absolutely gripping, to the point of being painful to watch. It seemed like Ford took the contrast between "artsy-farsty L.A. phoney" vs. "sincere Texas manhood" a bit too far. But I remained riveted (just as Susan herself did) throughout. It ends on an ambiguous note, but I took it as expressing "you can't turn back the clock." Big fan of A Single Man, been waiting anxiously for his next effort, and I'm excited to see what he's got next. (Hopefully we won't have to wait another 5+ years.)
post #10 of 49
Also, it's the 2nd Amy Adams movie to make me glad they didn't use obnoxious make-up to show her aging. (Suspension of disbelief is a thing!)

Also also, I think it's the first movie to take advantage of the verisimilitude of Amy Adams and Isla Fischer.
post #11 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiosity Cosby View Post

I think it's the first movie to take advantage of the verisimilitude of Amy Adams and Isla Fischer.

Not sure 'verisimilitude' is the right word there, unless you're saying they're notably realistic screen presences.
post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Not sure 'verisimilitude' is the right word there, unless you're saying they're notably realistic screen presences.

Yeah, "physical similarity" is what I was looking for. Though more to my point, it's interesting that as Susan is reading the book, she imagines Tony as her ex-husband, but Tony's wife as someone who just looks a lot like her. Subconsciously dissociating herself from a story she knows is commenting on her relationship with Edward?
post #13 of 49

Haven't seen it yet, but I found out last week that a co-worker's aunt is one of the obese women in the opening. 400 pounds, left Tennessee to "enter showbiz." Follow your dreams, folks.

post #14 of 49
Thread Starter 
I greatly enjoyed this and think Ford accomplishes something rarely seen in that the metatextual narrative really plays. Despite the intersecting narratives of past, present and fiction, the latter remains completely engrossing from beginning to end. In all of its ambition, I'm not sure if the ending lands, but it's gorgeously bitter in all its anticlimactic glory.
post #15 of 49

Aaron Taylor-Johnson just won the Best Supporting Actor award at the Golden Globes for this, overcoming the daunting challenge of not even being the best supporting actor in this particular movie.

post #16 of 49
Thread Starter 

Oh, are the Golden Globes on? Jesus, I guess that confirms how far my interest in that sort of thing has fallen. At any rate, he's still pretty good in the movie.

post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

Oh, are the Golden Globes on? Jesus, I guess that confirms how far my interest in that sort of thing has fallen. At any rate, he's still pretty good in the movie.


I'm not watching them (Fallon's hosting which, ugh) - just saw the news on Twitter.

 

And yeah, he's good, but - Michael Shannon!

 

It's also really, really weird, because up until this point in the race Mahershala Ali has been absolutely dominating for Moonlight, and would be an extremely deserving winner.

post #18 of 49

Any supporting actor award for this should have gone to Shannon first, and then anyone else in any movie ever. 

post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiosity Cosby View Post


Also also, I think it's the first movie to take advantage of the verisimilitude of Amy Adams and Isla Fischer.

Yeah. Ive always mistook to two of them for each other, so I had laugh when I found out that Isla Fischer was Adam's double in the movie.

I thought this was fucking fantastic.

On the ending: I think it works as the perfect way to end Susan's arc, namely to reject her attempts at reconciliation and go back to her days as a optimistic young girl. Its devasting how mundane it is, since i was expecting something far darker.
post #20 of 49

*grits teeth*

 

mmmm, it's such a bizarro mess.  There are some really interested ideas at play here, but it feels like a movie hopping on one leg that never quite reaches its destination.  Unless it's destination was to confuse the shit out of me.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck the opening had to do with... anything at all.

 

Ending was hilarious.  Not sure what it means but I laughed.  Michael fucking Shannon.  Just a delight to watch.  He should be headlining more and bigger films.  But God this movie... so weird.  On the one hand I was riveted by the book's story, on the other Amy Adams is just kind of wallpaper... I'm still not exactly sure what the point of her storyline was.  Her relationship with Gyllenhaal wasn't all that fleshed out, so any parallels between them and the story she's reading were lost on me.  It's like the book is telling a hidden narrative only she understands, since she's so caught up in it.  I suppose him being "weak" ties into it, but again, since the movie isn't about him, and we never see much of their relationship, none of it resonated for me.  Same with her becoming her mother... again, she spends most of the run time reading a fucking book, so there's little character development.  

 

Looked pretty though.

post #21 of 49
For better or worse, this sounds like a much more interesting film than A SINGLE MAN.

I'll catch it as soon as it becomes available as an Amazon streaming rental.
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

*grits teeth*



 



mmmm, it's such a bizarro mess.  There are some really interested ideas at play here, but it feels like a movie hopping on one leg that never quite reaches its destination.  Unless it's destination was to confuse the shit out of me.



 



I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck the opening had to do with... anything at all.



 



Ending was hilarious.  Not sure what it means but I laughed.  Michael fucking Shannon.  Just a delight to watch.  He should be headlining more and bigger films.  But God this movie... so weird.  On the one hand I was riveted by the book's story, on the other Amy Adams is just kind of wallpaper... I'm still not exactly sure what the point of her storyline was.  Her relationship with Gyllenhaal wasn't all that fleshed out, so any parallels between them and the story she's reading were lost on me.  It's like the book is telling a hidden narrative only she understands, since she's so caught up in it.  I suppose him being "weak" ties into it, but again, since the movie isn't about him, and we never see much of their relationship, none of it resonated for me.  Same with her becoming her mother... again, she spends most of the run time reading a fucking book, so there's little character development.  



 



Looked pretty though.


 



OH YEAH!! I Totally wanted to respond to this post--but Big Navy got in the way. So....


Except the movie totally is about Gyllenhall's character. If you want to look at it one way, Nocturnal Animals (book) is Gyllenhall's character entire pov of the events leading to his and Adam's divorce and Adam's abortion in the form of a "revenge story." Though, it's not really a revenge story, more of a deconstruction of one. And while it's not meant to be a 1-1 comparison to Adam's flashbacks, it's absolutely meant to be his thoughts on how he felt (and currently feels) about everything that happened. I think some of the marketing for Nocturnal Animals sold this film short: I got the impression that it was totally about how this book was supposed to symbolize how Gyllenhall wanted to inflict violence against Adams for what she did to him.

But that's not what that book (and the film) is really about...and understanding Adams' arc plays into that. Throughout the entire film Adams' character, while incredibly wealthy, is miserable: Her husband is always away and probably cheating on her, her entire work seems to be hosting other artists,' and complains that she feels empty for not being a creative. She longs for the days when she was with Gyllenhall because it represents a more innocent and optimistic time in her life, which is why she mistakenly believes that "Nocturnal Animals" is Gyllenhall's way of reaching out to her when it's in fact his way of completely forgetting about her. "Nocturnal Animals" is his way of getting closure, and the actual revenge is denying Adams' that. Living well truly is the best form of revenge.
post #23 of 49

It's great! It's really grown on me since I saw it. 

post #24 of 49
I'll be seeing this this week.
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

*grits teeth*

 

 

 

mmmm, it's such a bizarro mess.  There are some really interested ideas at play here, but it feels like a movie hopping on one leg that never quite reaches its destination.  Unless it's destination was to confuse the shit out of me.

 

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck the opening had to do with... anything at all.

 

 

 

Ending was hilarious.  Not sure what it means but I laughed.  Michael fucking Shannon.  Just a delight to watch.  He should be headlining more and bigger films.  But God this movie... so weird.  On the one hand I was riveted by the book's story, on the other Amy Adams is just kind of wallpaper... I'm still not exactly sure what the point of her storyline was.  Her relationship with Gyllenhaal wasn't all that fleshed out, so any parallels between them and the story she's reading were lost on me.  It's like the book is telling a hidden narrative only she understands, since she's so caught up in it.  I suppose him being "weak" ties into it, but again, since the movie isn't about him, and we never see much of their relationship, none of it resonated for me.  Same with her becoming her mother... again, she spends most of the run time reading a fucking book, so there's little character development.  

 

 

 

Looked pretty though.

 



OH YEAH!! I Totally wanted to respond to this post--but Big Navy got in the way. So....


Except the movie totally is about Gyllenhall's character. If you want to look at it one way, Nocturnal Animals (book) is Gyllenhall's character entire pov of the events leading to his and Adam's divorce and Adam's abortion in the form of a "revenge story." Though, it's not really a revenge story, more of a deconstruction of one. And while it's not meant to be a 1-1 comparison to Adam's flashbacks, it's absolutely meant to be his thoughts on how he felt (and currently feels) about everything that happened. I think some of the marketing for Nocturnal Animals sold this film short: I got the impression that it was totally about how this book was supposed to symbolize how Gyllenhall wanted to inflict violence against Adams for what she did to him.

But that's not what that book (and the film) is really about...and understanding Adams' arc plays into that. Throughout the entire film Adams' character, while incredibly wealthy, is miserable: Her husband is always away and probably cheating on her, her entire work seems to be hosting other artists,' and complains that she feels empty for not being a creative. She longs for the days when she was with Gyllenhall because it represents a more innocent and optimistic time in her life, which is why she mistakenly believes that "Nocturnal Animals" is Gyllenhall's way of reaching out to her when it's in fact his way of completely forgetting about her. "Nocturnal Animals" is his way of getting closure, and the actual revenge is denying Adams' that. Living well truly is the best form of revenge.

 

Yeah I got all that.  

 

But it's one of those things where the reading a movie is more interesting than the movie itself.  At least for me.

post #26 of 49

Single Man is a masterpiece. This is just pretty great. 

post #27 of 49
Single Man is aight.

It's an impressive film debut with a great central performance, but its stylizations too often play like Diet Wong Kar-Wai.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 2/22/17 at 10:52am
post #28 of 49
Oh, I quite liked this. Significantly more interesting than A Single Man in terms of form and content, albeit thematically of a piece with it (this is kind of Single Man's darker side).

The "novel" portions end up being the most successful (the framing scenes and the real-life flashbacks don't quite click in the same way). Harrowing, suspenseful stuff.
post #29 of 49
The entire 10 minutes of the novel is just relentless in how it presents how helpless Gyllenhall is in that scene.
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

The entire 10 minutes of the novel is just relentless in how it presents how helpless Gyllenhall is in that scene.
Absolutely. A sustained nightmare of powerlessness. And in the landscape of that "realistic" novel, the interjection of stylization (the bodies on the red couch) is pretty striking in its effect.

The stuff in the "present" isn't as well-realized. Too much of Amy Ryan looking blank and depressed in a world of chilly artifice (the facile visual parallels between her world and the novel don't make this stuff any more dynamic). That said, the opening stretch of this section (including that striking title sequence) is impressive, even if Ford ends up leaning on some too-obvious symbolism as it goes on (also an issue with Single Man), like that "Revenge" painting or the dead bird.

The weakest stuff is the real-world flashbacks to young Amy and Jake. They're the most pedestrian sections of the film in terms of writing and direction, which is a significant failure because, really, these scenes need to be immediate and pulsating, since they inform everything else. They never feel that explosive. They just feel functional and expository.

Still, I can't help but admire that this thing exists in 2016. It feels like the kind of pretentious project that would have emerged in the late sixties and early seventies (the period that gave us pretentious thrillers like Games and The Magus). This movie doesn't rank among the best of that category, but it's strikingly strange, nonetheless.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 3/5/17 at 7:36am
post #31 of 49

This movie.  That opening credit sequence.  How did I not hear anything about that?  wow.  I was not expecting that...at all.

 

There are some great moments in the movie(the opening scene from the "book" is fantastic), but they lean a little heavy on JG crying, and crying, and crying.  Also, while Michael Shannon is great, the whole revenge part near the end just seemed so far fetched.  I mean, I get you are not going to arrest him because you want some "frontier justice", but I don't see how the bad guy would just go along with it.  It was so sloppy.  Also, when he finally does get his revenge it is not very cathartic because...tears.

 

That ending though, definitely a winner.  I don't know if it was supposed to be devastating, but my wife and were laughing out loud.  The whole movie is basically one big fuck you to an ex.  She tried to get him to change to be more like her mother(and she) wanted and resisted, ultimately choosing to follow his heart instead of what people expected him to be.  The line where they are breaking up and he says something to the effect of "I love you.  If you love me, let's work on it, because you might not get this chance again" is basically the point of the movie. 

 

She chose status and financial security over listening to her heart.  By the time she realizes how empty and shallow that decision was, and wants what she lost back, he dangles the memory of what a passionate and caring man he is, and how he was broken by what she did(in the most incredibly melodramatic way possible by writing an entire fucking book), teasing her with the illusion that she could have it back...and then basically saying "Fuck you. You don't deserve a man like me. Bye bye" by not showing up to dinner.  That was gold.  I also love how his e-mail to meet her for dinner is written like he can't wait to see her again, making the fact that she was so excited, getting dolled up an everything, only to be stood up, all the more potent.

 

Great movie?  No, I think it definitely has issues, but it was worth a watch and a lot of the performances are great despite the plot being kind of wonky.

post #32 of 49

TBH I have no idea what went on between Amy Adams' character, her husband, and her mother. The focus for me was all about that novel.

Michael Shannon is always great IMHO.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

I found out last week that a co-worker's aunt is one of the obese women in the opening. 400 pounds, left Tennessee to "enter showbiz." Follow your dreams, folks.

 

Ha, I was actually sitting here watching the opening sequence & thinking, "Where the hell did they find these women?"

One of them was borderline malformed or in the process of transforming, amazing.

post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradW View Post
 

TBH I have no idea what went on between Amy Adams' character, her husband, and her mother. The focus for me was all about that novel.

Michael Shannon is always great IMHO.

 

 

Ha, I was actually sitting here watching the opening sequence & thinking, "Where the hell did they find these women?"

One of them was borderline malformed or in the process of transforming, amazing.

Pretty sure what happened was that Gyllenhaal's character got her pregnant and she had an abortion. Then again, she did have a phone call with her daughter, but maybe that was a later pregnancy.

post #34 of 49

There are two timelines: the timeline of the main story, and the timeline of the novel.

 

In the timeline of the main story, Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhall hook up when they're young. She's from big time Texas money, and he's a poor writer type, so her mother doesn't approve of the marriage. They go ahead and get married anyway, have marital troubles, culminating in her having an affair with Armie Hammer. She's planning to leave Jake when she gets pregnant. On the way back from having an abortion, to which she is driven to by Armie Hammer, Gyllenhall catches them. Flash-forward to ten or twenty years later - I think Adams and Gyllenhall are meant to be playing either much younger in the flashbacks or much older in the main storyline - and Adams and Hammer have a daughter together, but a chilly marriage - when a book from Gyllenhall arrives.

 

The book timeline is a rape-revenge thriller that's basically meant as a prolonged "fuck you" to Adams. 

post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

I keep thinking the best way to describe it is "a hot mess." The parts are very, very pretty, and the performances are excellent. I also highly admired a lot of the technical features - the cinematography, the costumes of course, the set design, and the music. 

 

Watched this last night. Pretty much in line with what Boone wrote. The novel storyline was far more compelling than the "real" one. Amy Adams looks amazing in it, though.

 

Sands called it "pretentious" and I'd agree, though I don't mean that in a harsh way. I think the film knows it's pretentious and just rides with it.

post #36 of 49

Just saw this recently and it touched me deeply.

 

I agree that the novel storyline is compelling but I was totally with the "real" one as well. There's an exploration of "weakness" in men (or people in general). This film confronts it head-on in two different storylines. Basically, that sensitivity does not equal weakness yet the "evil" that that was inflicted causes them to rise up. 

post #37 of 49

This is the dumbest "smart" movie I've seen in a while. It sits in that uncomfortable intersection between independent art film and Hollywood prestige awards-bait. The casting tips the bias more towards the latter.

 

Amy Adams is good in anything.

 

Michael Shannon's role comes across pretty broad in this, though. It's no fault of his, the movie just stinks.

 

ATJ gets no points from me just for playing against type. He left zero impression.

 

After watching Jake G movies, I find myself wondering "Is he actually a good actor? Am I missing something? If he keeps getting all these roles, he must be good, right?". I've decided now that he's not good. He comes from the Leonardo Dicaprio school of "Can't you see I'm acting as hard as I can??". Yes, Jake, I see the effort.

 

I get the main metaphor, or whatever. "Feel my pain through this book, Amy Adams!". It's not exactly a Charlie Kaufman mindblower. With a well written script and a better director, I could see the concept working, though.

post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post

 

After watching Jake G movies, I find myself wondering "Is he actually a good actor? Am I missing something? If he keeps getting all these roles, he must be good, right?". I've decided now that he's not good. He comes from the Leonardo Dicaprio school of "Can't you see I'm acting as hard as I can??". Yes, Jake, I see the effort.

 

I understand people not getting Jake G, and he can be hit or miss with certain things, but the dude's talent is undeniable at this point, and Nightcrawler pretty much destroys any argument to the contrary.  

 

But yeah, this sucked.

post #39 of 49

Agreed. Jake G is the real deal. 

 

And NOCTURNAL ANIMALS wasn't very good.

post #40 of 49

Hey look, I wrote an article comparing Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" and Nocturnal Animals! 

 

https://litreactor.com/columns/road-trip-horror-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-and-nocturnal-animals

post #41 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Hey look, I wrote an article comparing Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" and Nocturnal Animals! 

 

https://litreactor.com/columns/road-trip-horror-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-and-nocturnal-animals


That actually was the short story I was thinking of when watching the movie. 

 

Also, a pox on both Ambler and MichaelM.  This movie was great.

post #42 of 49

Jake G sort of falls into the Chris Evans/Pine/Jude Law problem, in that all those guys clearly want to be character actors, but have had a hard time finding their way between "leading man" and "character actor." I'd say that Law has only recently gotten good at it as he's passed 40 (with a few exceptions, see AI/Road to Perdition), and it's taken Jake a while as well. However, I think Jake has always had a sense of how to use his attractiveness to his advantage - lately, he's been doing the "method" thing, but I do think he knows that he's a goofy, if handsome, looking guy. Brokeback is a great example of that. 

I also think he's an actor that is maybe dependent on the director. He's always pretty solid but certain directors seem to be able to push him to the next level. Nightcrawler is one of the best performances of the decade. 
 

Finally, it's morbid to say, but I think Jake is getting a lot of the parts that Heath Ledger would have gotten. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Hey look, I wrote an article comparing Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" and Nocturnal Animals! 

 

https://litreactor.com/columns/road-trip-horror-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-and-nocturnal-animals

 

This piece is particularly interesting (and good!) because it gets at one of the things that a lot of people forget about what we think of as "classic, modernist, capital L literature" - a lot of these guys (and gals) were being published in pulp mags as what we think of as "genre fiction" and being sold as dimestore paperbacks. (When I went to a Faulkner conference a few years back, there was a whole panel about how Faulkner was sold as pulp literature.) This article hit a lot of sweet spots for me in terms of my interests and passions. Good job! 

I'm not sure if Nocturnal Animals is dumb but thinks its smart, or is smart but thinks its dumb, but I love it. 

post #43 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

I also think he's an actor that is maybe dependent on the director. He's always pretty solid but certain directors seem to be able to push him to the next level. Nightcrawler is one of the best performances of the decade. 

 

Finally, it's morbid to say, but I think Jake is getting a lot of the parts that Heath Ledger would have gotten. 

 

Agreed with both of these points. Gyllenhaal's not a Fassbender, classing up the joint regardless, but with the right helmer, he's good-to-great.

 

And yeah on roles that likely would've gone to Ledger. :(

post #44 of 49
Jake G and actually everyone is great in this (see why Michael Shannon got an Oscar nomination). This movie is also great with so many interesting ideas. I get if you dislike it but can't see how you can flat out dismiss it.
post #45 of 49
I liked it while not caring much for the 'How you like me now?" aspect. Which it's probably saying more than that, just haven't teased it out yet.
post #46 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turingmachine75 View Post

I liked it while not caring much for the 'How you like me now?" aspect. Which it's probably saying more than that, just haven't teased it out yet.

I just finished this, powerful stuff. Hits hard and well executed. 

 

My first reaction,  I hated the ending, standing her up just seemed like a dick move and weakened the writer. However, on reflection, I think I get it.

 

Both the novel and the 'real world' stories were revenge stories. The title of the book and dedication, the sending of the proof, all were meant to inflict pain in Adams' character, the standing up made sure there was no mistake about the intention. If he had showed up and they had some type of resolution, the whole 'wow, you wrote a great book'/'gee thanks if it was not for the pain I experienced with you I could never have written it', it would have taken away from the emotion and tone of the film.

 

The novel was a standard revenge story, however, the main character barely rises to inflict his revenge, but the smile at the end tells you it was worth it to him. But murdering a guy who murdered your family is not the Religeous/Moral/Evolved thing to do. In that moment he is the same as the guy who raped his wife and daughter for insulting him. But it still feels right to most of us.

 

Amy Adams aborting his child, seeing another man and dumping him was quite a bit for a husband who seemed to truly love. And while sending her a hate book and standing her up are not the Religeous/Moral/Evolved things to do, it still feels right to a certain degree.

 

The fact that it also feels wrong is a great commentary on the revenge genre in general. 

post #47 of 49
Good stuff, 3nnui.
post #48 of 49

Ennui, great post. I think I liked this movie more than others did, but I've never been 100 percent sure why. As a crime fiction guy, your post gets to the heart of it. 

post #49 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3nnui View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turingmachine75 View Post

I liked it while not caring much for the 'How you like me now?" aspect. Which it's probably saying more than that, just haven't teased it out yet.
I just finished this, powerful stuff. Hits hard and well executed. 

My first reaction,  I hated the ending, standing her up just seemed like a dick move and weakened the writer. However, on reflection, I think I get it.

Both the novel and the 'real world' stories were revenge stories. The title of the book and dedication, the sending of the proof, all were meant to inflict pain in Adams' character, the standing up made sure there was no mistake about the intention. If he had showed up and they had some type of resolution, the whole 'wow, you wrote a great book'/'gee thanks if it was not for the pain I experienced with you I could never have written it', it would have taken away from the emotion and tone of the film.

The novel was a standard revenge story, however, the main character barely rises to inflict his revenge, but the smile at the end tells you it was worth it to him. But murdering a guy who murdered your family is not the Religeous/Moral/Evolved thing to do. In that moment he is the same as the guy who raped his wife and daughter for insulting him. But it still feels right to most of us.

Amy Adams aborting his child, seeing another man and dumping him was quite a bit for a husband who seemed to truly love. And while sending her a hate book and standing her up are not the Religeous/Moral/Evolved things to do, it still feels right to a certain degree.

The fact that it also feels wrong is a great commentary on the revenge genre in general. 

I can't see it as any kind of commentary on the revenge genre at all, as the only person hurt by the revenge is the target of the revenge. This might be the cleanest revenge I've seen in a recent revenge film in some time.

Anyways, I loved this movie. It's pretty fantastic. There was really only one part that annoyed me, and it was the bit where Adam's character is at work and the characters start talking about what the movie is about with "REVENGE" literally on the wall behind them like we're too stupid to get what's happening up to this point.

The story within the story in this movie really reminded me of something else I've seen before...but I can't think of what it's called at all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Tom Ford's NOCTURNAL ANIMALS Discussion