Nocturnal Animals

JP Liz V1

Tom Ford's new film out here this weekend, seems to have a David Lynch vibe to it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb6uZHzm3iE

Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal getting some Oscar buzz and some great reviews too

fryup

it got 5/5 in the movie review on the Tom Dunne show on newstalk last night

*just a pity Jake Gyllenhaal is in it, he's a bad actor (imo)

Jimmy Iovine

fryup wrote: »

*just a pity Jake Gyllenhaal is in it, he's a bad actor (imo)

Michael Shannon will make up for that.

2smiggy

ya the lady off Sean Moncrief gave to 5/5 as well. Tom Dunne was filling in for him, it could have been the same lady reviewing it !!

Looper007

fryup wrote: »

it got 5/5 in the movie review on the Tom Dunne show on newstalk last night

*just a pity Jake Gyllenhaal is in it, he's a bad actor (imo)

Haven't read up anything on the film aside from watching the trailer. Loved Tom Ford's last film A Single Man, a fantastic debut. Can't wait to see this

Gyllenhaal is one of the best out there right now, have to disagree with you on him being a bad actor. Nightcrawler, Broke Back Mountain, Donnie Darko, End of Watch, Jarhead, Source Code, Zodiac, Enemy and Prisoners. That's some top quality work there with him given great performance in all. Nightcrawler performance is one of the best around.

johnny_ultimate

An exceedingly feeble piece of work, unfortunately. A potentially loaded opening credits sequence suggests a level of provocation and garishness that the film completely fails to follow through on.

The 'novel' aspect of the story is by far the weakest of the two (although if the dreadfully handled flashbacks are counted as their own section, that'd take the crown), a rote revenge thriller that fails to gain any extra substance due to its heavily emphasised but rather flimsy thematic links with the 'real world' side of the story. A typically assured supporting performance from Michael Shannon just about keeps things alive, but otherwise there's little of note to see here. Sadly it also badly cuts into the more interesting half of the tale, and far too many reaction shots of Amy Adams responding with shock to the book's developments give those events far more emotional weight than they deserve. At leas Adams has some screentime - barely cameos from Laura Linney, Jena Malone, Michael Sheen (who I only remembered was in the film when I googled it afterwards) and Armie Hammer are terribly limited. If they're shallow and satirical caricatures on purpose the otherwise tediously serious film does a very poor job indeed of justifying it (one or two pointed jabs at bourgeoisie culture aside).

There's clearly effort gone into the film, whether that's the fetching (but formally flimsy) cinematography or editing (which manages to fit in some evocative match cuts here and there). But the whole thing is simply too shallow, inconsistent and ultimately frustrating to justify the work. The ending sums up the film as a whole: stylish but shallow; obvious and clunky; but above all just immensely underwhelming.

tunguska

My God this was magnificent. Definitley can see it dividing people though, not a film everyone is gonna dig. But i loved it. Was gripped from the get go, although the dancing obese ladies reminded me of a bizarre "Art" show i went to a few years ago. I know some people think Jake G cant act but i do rate him. He was supreme in Prisoners and also very good in the last film i watched in him, demolition i think it was. And again he puts in a decent turn here. Micahel shannon though is the buachaill. Effortlessly brilliant. Hes like the dimitar berbatov of acting, so natural it doesnt look like he has to even try.. Amy adams is also very good.
Its beautifully photographed and beautifully made as a whole. Id give it 5/5 aswell.

dreamers75

After reading the last 2 posts, should I watch it?

tunguska

dreamers75 wrote: »

After reading the last 2 posts, should I watch it?

I suspect this is a marmite film. Im seeing 5 star reviews and then one star reviews. If youre evem slightly intrigued go check it out, you might love it.

Hrududu

Really enjoyed this. Such an unusual film that will definitely divide people. It's funny to see people say Gyllenhaal is a bad actor only then to praise Michael Shannon, who is one of the biggest hams out there

For me Aaron Taylor Johnson was the standout in this film, but all the performances were very good.

My only issues were the bizarre opening that didn't fit with anything else in the film, and the out of the blue jumpscare that came out of nowhere. And nothing else like it happened for the rest of the film so it seemed out of place

fluke

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

An exceedingly feeble piece of work, unfortunately. A potentially loaded opening credits sequence suggests a level of provocation and garishness that the film completely fails to follow through on.

The ending sums up the film as a whole: stylish but shallow; obvious and clunky; but above all just immensely underwhelming.

Your whole review sums up how I feel this morning after seeing it last night.

mikhail

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The 'novel' aspect of the story is by far the weakest of the two

I don't agree. Yes, the novel is fairly rote, but at least it's a story. The other half of the film is a dull portrait of moping and ennui that goes nowhere. It had the potential to be an original story, but it's little more than an opening act on its own.

johnny_ultimate

mikhail wrote: »

I don't agree. Yes, the novel is fairly rote, but at least it's a story. The other half of the film is a dull portrait of moping and ennui that goes nowhere. It had the potential to be an original story, but it's little more than an opening act on its own.

Yeah probably giving the 'other half' of the story more credit than it deserves for its potential and its semi-committment to more visual storytelling (it helps that Adams knows how to handle a close-up). Don't get me wrong, I don't think any of the film works. But there was at least the foundations of something interesting in the Adams side of the story - albeit something that was only hinted at here - and most of the interesting cinematic ideas were in the 'real world' side of the tale as opposed to the pedestrian revenge thriller.

cailinoBAC

Has anybody read the book and seen the film? I picked up book as sounded really intriguing but was disappointed, read the reviews of film and thought maybe a case of film better than book, however now thinking I might have same impression of film

Protest the Zero

Wasn't the novel intentionally a bit trite and clichéd? It justifies Adams's character's cynicism and critical attitude towards Gylenhaal's initial novel, maybe her view of his writings were somewhat justified, and it wasn't the pragmatic choice.

I was wondering, is the Michael Shannon character supposed to be an allegory for something else? He just disappears near the end of the movie, I was wondering if it was something I missed.

Tar.Aldarion

Quite jarring but overall I loved this film.

Decuc500

I thought it was a fairly gripping film. Quite odd and nightmarish in places. Very good cast and well acted all round.

Loved this. Beautifully shot and sucked me in from the start. It's not for everyone though.

Outlaw Pete

Loved this film.

Have to say I am surprised how many people did not pick up on the message of this film and the reasoning behind why the main character wrote the story he did (in Ford's adaption at least, as I have't read the book) and what his motives were for sending it to his ex-wife.

I read people saying the end was odd and all I can say to that is, if you think that then I would suspect then that you haven't really understood what was happening in that final scene and also that Amy's character had just realised herself what was happening and why it was that she was sent the story.

One of the things I really like about the film in fact was that it doesn't batter people around the head with it's premise (or what I see as it's premise anyway).

Amy Adams was superb by the way. She can say so much with the smallest of gestures and subtlest of facial expressions.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Saw it last night. It might be arty and full of hidden meanings or whatever, but I almost fell asleep at one stage and just felt a huge sense of relief when it was finished.

It might be a film that appeals to "film buffs" and critics, but I was bored most of the time.

Tar.Aldarion

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Loved this film.

Have to say I am surprised how many people did not pick up on the message of this film and the reasoning behind why the main character wrote the story he did (in Ford's adaption at least, as I have't read the book) and what his motives were for sending it to his ex-wife.

I read people saying the end was odd and all I can say to that is, if you think that then I would suspect then that you haven't really understood what was happening in that final scene and also that Amy's character had just realised herself what was happening and why it was that she was sent the story.

One of the things I really like about the film in fact was that it doesn't batter people around the head with it's premise (or what I see as it's premise anyway).

Amy Adams was superb by the way. She can say so much with the smallest of gestures and subtlest of facial expressions.

Way I see it there was little ambiguity, only one thing which I will mention at the end. This film was about power. Gyllenhaal was constantly being emasculated, constantly referred to him as weak and not enough of a man. Her mother got to her and this became a source of tension in their lives, their fight was quite believable when they broke up, just the erosion of her love over time through her doubt and her background raising, even though she railed against such an upbringing.

"The book he wrote mirrored this, as the protagonist failed to protect his family in their time of need. Jake Gyllenhaal's character lacked power but craved it.
Amy Adams was the opposite - in her world, power was everything. She was given it from a young age, with money and influence inherited directly from her parents. For her, the big ambition was to become independent of power - to rid herself of her mother's expectations and allow herself to be vulnerable.
The end scene was the manifestation of both of their desires - when Amy Adams turns up to dinner with him she allows herself to be vulnerable. She forgoes her power and allows herself to be weak, in a way her mother would never have done. When Jake Gyllenhaal's character fails to turn up to dinner he claims power from her.
I think Tom Ford was highlighting one of the constant battles he faces personally, but LA faces in general - balancing creativity and vulnerability with money and power. To really create something powerful you need to relinquish power.
I loved the film, and thought Tom Ford was perfectly positioned to create it."

The ending was just where I have some doubt, he may have used the standing up as a way to show he had "moved on" with his life, became what she did not believe he could be and was showing her the err of her ways, that she must live with her choices. Or he may have used it as such but as a suicide note and was now dead mirroring the character in the book, his only point in continuing his life was completed, a broken man since the abortion.

Fysh

It would've helped a great deal if the generic thriller that is the book's story didn't rely on fridging two female characters to provide motivation for the male characters. And if less of the dialogue had been so baldly expository.

Overall I was pretty unimpressed by this, it had some nice moments and great performances by Adams and Shannon, but also seemed to think it was a much deeper and cleverer film.

Looper007

Fantastic film had me gripped from the very start.

Loved the ending that

The Book is a middle finger to Amy Adam's character and Instead of getting to make amends and hopefully get her ex husband back or at least redeem herself, he leaves her wallowing in the life she chose, with her husband cheating on her and more then likely leaving her and her all alone. She insisted she wasn't like her mother at the beginning but ended up being like her, and did leave him because she thought he was weak, which he knew and it devastated him. In the book he wrote he blamed himself for being weak and not stopping what happened to his wife/kid, which he also felt, at least subconsciously, in his real life.

.

Amy Adams was excellent although I thought Michael Shannon and especially Aaron Taylor Johnson were the stand outs, I expect Shannon and Adams to get Oscar nods for this. Jake Gyllenhaal is always great so no surprise there. amazing that Tom Ford can get Laura Linney (fantastic), Jena Malone and Isla Fisher (she does look the splitting image of Amy Adams, which is why she was probably in the film) to do parts that don't last more then 5 minutes. Tom Ford definitely knows how to make a beautiful film. Definitely a talent to look out for.

Did anyone jump

during that scene when Adams sees I think Aaron Taylor Johnson character on the baby monitor

. I swear I think nearly everyone jumped off their seats.

jimmy blevins

I really liked it while the framing story was a bit shallow it more than made up for it in style. The novel part had a strong Cormack McCarthy feel to it that left me wanting more.

Noise Annoys

Gripping and very enjoyable. The cast were all excellent bar one - Laura Linney's mix of Southern Belle and Margaret Thatcher was awful. It was a clichéd stereotype and really jarring. Not enough to spoil the film mind you, but unintentionally comical.

Other than that, it looked wonderful of course (as did A Single Man) and had a tense, menacing feel throughout.

TerrorFirmer

Just watched this and thought it was absolutely stellar, very powerful film with outstanding performances all around. I'm shocked that someone could consider Jake Gyllenhaal a bad actor - maybe not for everyone, there are actors I recognize as being good at what they do, but dislike their on screen presence - but objectively, he is a very good actor with some heavy hitters under his belt. I think Michael Shannon dominates in this though, you almost forget at points what you're watching isn't real.

A really excellent movie - someone suggested a while back that it might be one for 'film buffs and critics' - don't let this put you off as I'm pretty much an average joe film viewer and certainly no fan of overly artistic movies but it's hands down one of my favorites movies of 2016 and it would be a shame for people to write it off without giving it a chance.

LionelNashe

It didn't work for me. The pacing of the present-day story was annoying. The story within the story had been done before and done better in other films. The connection that is supposed to exist between the strands is too subtle.

So subtle that they had to put a big painting of the word "Revenge" on a wall and have one of the main characters draw attention to it. A device like that wouldn't have been needed if the story worked by itself.

Shane St.

Really enjoyed it. I have to laugh at some1 saying Gyllenhaal is a bad actor on the 1st page.
Was there a need for that opening scene though

Frank O. Pinion

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

An exceedingly feeble piece of work, unfortunately. A potentially loaded opening credits sequence suggests a level of provocation and garishness that the film completely fails to follow through on.

Yes, I agree. I had the impression that this film was going to be a mystery thriller, with a weird vibe, (I try know to little about a film before watching), after that interesting and beautiful opening, I was very excited for a bizarre film...that never happened.

Shane St. wrote: »

Was there a need for that opening scene though

What was wrong it?

Hrududu wrote: »

It's funny to see people say Gyllenhaal is a bad actor only then to praise Michael Shannon, who is one of the biggest hams out there

Yeah, I like Michael Shannon, but I was laughing at some of the stuff he was doing here. Like in the police interview room, standing over the one criminal, so close against the wall, arm above his head leaning on the wall, with his crotch nearly rubbing against the criminal's. Odd. Shannon was in 10 films in 2016, he needs to give himself room to breath.

GuessWhoEh

cailinoBAC wrote: »

Has anybody read the book and seen the film? I picked up book as sounded really intriguing but was disappointed, read the reviews of film and thought maybe a case of film better than book, however now thinking I might have same impression of film

Both the book and film, were a tad naff. For me anyways but given a choice, the book was a lot more detailed. The film was brutal. They missed loads of little bits which would of helped viewers understand the complete gaps, especially between finding the murders and killing them etc. There was so much missing that at one point I had to try and figure out the timeline. I wasn't overly impressed with the film