Blu-ray Review Nocturnal Animals Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Matt Hough]

Matt Hough

Nocturnal Animals Blu-ray Review

Thought-provoking, achingly personal, and sophisticatedly designed films like Tom Ford’s Nocturnal Animals don’t come along every day.

[review]
Read more.

 

[Will Krupp]

Thanks for the great review, Matt!! I missed this in theater and am really looking forward to seeing it.

 

[TravisR]

It kinda got overlooked but I thought this was a pretty good and very dark movie.

 

[Virgoan]

Sounds wonderful. ORDERED!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Damn you, Matt! You just cost me some money.

Thank you. Bought this blindly.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I bought this title when Target was having their "buy two and get one free" sale last week. I should have it in a few days.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, this film was…well…a bit odd. Honestly to me it felt like a major exorcise in style over substance and I think was a very emotionally distanced piece. I did enjoy the film as it sort of plays like it is a low rent cross between David Lynch and Brian De Palma. Basically, I think Ford’s writing here is pretty weak but the visuals are fantastic and Michael Shannon is a hoot in this…in fact I think he takes the film to a different level every time he is on screen. So, I can say I did enjoy this but when I was reading how some folks did not feel anything for the characters in Manchester by the Sea…well…that’s how I felt about the characters in this film. They don’t come across as people to me…they seem more to be poses and none of them are really likable I thought…not that that is important just seeing them suffer through what happens to them is a pretty emotionless endeavor or at least it was to me. In fact this played for me as a dark comedy where I sort of laughed at the characters much more than cared about them. They are setup in their own little self devised hells and they all seem so ignorant and self absorbed it appears they very much deserve what they are getting. So, it felt as if Ford was mocking/laughing at these people as well.

The tone of the movie is something that is pretty wild from the opening “art” installation of nude fat women dancing about and lying on slabs for wealthy people to gawk at to the comic twists in the “story within the story” where the “drama” is supposed to be playing out but at the same time you have to keep in mind that portion of the film is fiction that Adams is reading…not real drama…just visually showing us the fictional novel her ex-husband has written.

So what the film is really about is and I will put this in spoilers…

SPOILER

Spoiler: spoiler

A bored rich housewife who is a lousy artist and knows it reading a book by her ex-husband (who is a crappy writer) while she knows her current husband (who is just a total piece of crap) is cheating on her and having feelings that she may have made a mistake cheating on/leaving her first husband (as well as aborting his child). And she knows what she did to her first husband was crappy so she knows she deserves to be stood up by him at the restaurant at the end of the film. So, she’s a crappy human being that is living a crappy life as a crappy artist with a crappy 2nd husband that is cheating on her and so she gets exactly what is coming to her.

And while I don’t have confirmation of this I think Ford thinks this is funny and wants us to get a chuckle out of it as well.

- See more at: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/nocturnal-animals-blu-ray-review/#sthash.V33q0iwS.dpuf

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Of course I would love to hear how other people saw this...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I would particularly like to hear what people think the dancing naked fat women with sort of 4th of July decorative stuff at the opening are meant represent and what tone that is meant to set as well as what you feel it might be telling us about the rest of the film that follows.

Tip: I believe at least one character comments on what the dancing naked fat women mean.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, hopefully some folks here will watch this film and want to discuss it because I am really curious to hear other people's thoughts on this one.

For example, consider how the women in this film are portrayed...what do you think this film is saying about women?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Would a good title for this film have been:

Woman Stays Home and Reads a Book

 

[TravisR]

So, hopefully some folks here will watch this film and want to discuss it because I am really curious to hear other people's thoughts on this one.

For example, consider how the women in this film are portrayed...what do you think this film is saying about women?

I'm assuming you think that the movie has a negative view of women which is to fair say but I don't think the film is saying anything about women as a whole as much as just about Adams' character. I think the revenge story being told in the 'real' world and in the novel says more damning things about Gyllenhaal's character. He's a normal modern guy so he's basically a wuss and he needs Shannon's real tough guy to get to him to finally do anything (novel) or he's just passive aggressive (real world). And even when he acts in the novel, he screws it all up which is what would happen to most people (certainly myself included).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Travis! Thank you for commenting. I guess you could say there are some really good things about this film because I can't stop thinking about it and really want to talk about it.

In terms of if I think it has a negative view of women...well...I would say it does not portray any of them in a positive light. However, I did listen to Tom Ford discuss the film because I wanted to hear what he said about it and I think to some extent he is portraying them negatively but I am not sure he means to do so in all instances.

Spoiler: SPOILER

He does appear to want to portray Susan in a negative light and she is basically being punished for in his words "not being loyal" to Edward. Ford claims he really frowns on people that are not loyal. So, she betrays Edward by aborting his child and dumping him for Hutton. Her punishment appears to be that Hutton could care less about her and is cheating on her. So, she ends up unhappy, realizing her "art" stinks and then when she receives the novel dedicated to her by Edward suddenly starts having second thoughts about if she should have dumped him and been so "brutal" to him. So, it's established she's a horrible human being. The bizarre opening of the film of the dancing naked fat women, Ford calls "beautiful" and says these women are all incredibly "beautiful" and they sort of represent joy. This to me sounds like utter bullcrap and I don't believe Ford on this. However, Ford also says that this art exhibition of dancing naked fat women is meant to represent empty American consumer culture. This I can believe. I think in one interview he says something like the fat women dancing represents how Europeans see America and all things American. So, he has sort of a duel meaning with this in that he thinks these women are beautiful and joyous and free in that they are doing something that fat women would not normally do and goes against social norms...dancing nude celebrating who and what they are without shame...but Susan means them to portray how bloated and empty and addicted to "junk" consumer culture we are. So, Susan means them to be negative but he, Tom Ford, thinks they are beautiful and joyous.

Now, there is a third way I think we need to look at that scene and that is how it impacts the audience and what tone it is setting for what comes after it.

What happens to Tony at the end of the "novel" story I don't think is meant to be taken as him screwing up.

Spoiler: SPOILER

I think that the fact that Tony stumbles out and shoots and kills himself (which I actually laughed at) was meant to represent a message from Edward to Susan...meaning "I'm over this now. I've killed off my feelings for you. This novel is telling you that and that part of me is dead now. I am no longer weak." and Edward's show of "strength" in the "real life" part is he does not need to go back to her or see her again so he stands her up at the restaurant.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Hopefully some more people will check this film out and comment on it.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Well I just watched it. I was into it and it was engaging to me. Then it ended. And I said 'Uhhhh... Wut?'

Now I love films like David Lynch's Mullholland Drive where there is a twisted deeper meaning to unravel with thought and discussion. Unfortunately this film seemed to have none of that. There was no hidden theme I could discern. When it ended, it just all seemed completely pointless. That's the word I would use to describe the film. Pointless. Ultimately nothing happened, nothing changed, no plot arc was resolved.

What was frustrating to me was unresolved things from the actual novel. I wanted to know what happened to the sheriff, 'cause he was awesome. How many times do we see a story where the police actually are interested in solving cases and able to? I wanted to know about the third car at the scene, and who the passenger in that was?

When I care way more about the fiction within the fiction, something is wrong with the overall story.

 

[moviefanatic1979]

I watched it on Blu-ray yesterday, here in Norway.

I gave this movie 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

I agree it's a style over substance movie. The dark look with the nice lighting is beautiful.

The half star is for the style.

The story / stories are kinda obvious. How they relate to each other I mean.

The fictional story was the most intriguing, though not very original.

Adams played a bored, rich wife leading a boring life.

In this piece an author tries to explain the ending. I believe he overexplains things.
The movie is not that complicated, but he mentions aspects I hadn't thought of, I'll give him that:

https://www.filmcolossus.com/single-post/2016/11/19/Explaining-the-end-of-NOCTURNAL-ANIMALS-why-Edward-didnt-show-up-why-this-is-existential-revenge-and-why-Susan-is-doomed?comment_id=1175808222501150&fb_comment_id=1165171283564844_1175939519154687&reply_comment_id=1175939519154687

Here's a imdb viewer's take on the ending and I agree:

SPOILERS AHEAD!

"8/10
Reviewers are getting the ending wrong
abstractrick23 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The consensus amongst the reviewers here, and elsewhere, is that the last scene in the restaurant depicts Edward (1st husband) "standing up" his date, Susan (his ex). Everyone here is cheering on Edward for his sweet revenge. But that is not how it ended. You guys are wrong. Ed killed himself.

Keep in mind, the film depicts updates on Susan's current day life with Gyllenhaal, while also depicting scenes from the book with the lead character, also being played by Gyllenhaal. This peculiar character coincidence is planned and helps to illuminate why Gyllenhaal (1st husband) doesn't show up for the date. It is because he killed himself in both story lines.

Let's ask ourselves, why was Tom Ford was drawn to this story? Was it because of some ha-ha dating trick at the end of a script? No. It was for the brutal honesty of confronting one's mistakes and shortcomings that ultimately leads to an honor killing of self. Yes, dealing with suicide can be very uncomfortable. In fact, Ford depicts the event somewhat ambiguously, but if you rewind the tape you will see that Gyllenhaal doesn't accidentally shoot himself. It was a choice.

Remember, Gyllenhaal is weeping at the end as he admits to those quick, yet monumental mistakes with the car chase, not defending his family, and then failing to keep the murderers subdued. Yes, he does kill the murderer on a 3rd chance, but after that justice is achieved, he ends his life as a self-punishment for the dishonor he brought to his family, self, and others. The cinematic beauty and talented acting deliver this message with raw beauty.

Perhaps the Nocturnal Animals were more than just those backwoods road killers. Maybe Nocturnal Animals are the small failures in our quick decisions that give birth to animals that gnaw on us every night."


In the end I'd rather watch Secret Ceremony (1968), the Joseph Losey movie, for the third time.
If you have to watch an arty psychological drama it's a much better choice, in my opinion.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Keep in mind, the film depicts updates on Susan's current day life with Gyllenhaal, while also depicting scenes from the book with the lead character, also being played by Gyllenhaal.

I don't agree with the suicide thing. Essentially that would make the novel he wrote one long suicide note to Susan. That is not at all the purpose it serves though to the characters or to the story. What I would keep in mind here is when we see the scenes from the novel that is how Susan envisions them. So, she envisions the husband in the novel as Edward because that's how she sees things. She also envisions the wife as someone that looks like her but is not really her...also because this is how she wants to see the novel. Edward may be writing about her but can't quite capture her in Susan's mind because Edward, in her mind, really does not know her. She sees the husband in the novel as Edward because she completely identifies this weak "loser" with him.

However, Edward wrote the novel and so he does not view the characters in the novel the same way somebody reading the novel would. In a way all the characters in the novel are him because he created them and they all serve a purpose to the story he wants to tell. He also certainly would know that Susan is going to see the husband that loses his family as him because that's what she did to him.

So, the characters in the novel do represent the real life characters. The wife is meant to be Susan, the husband is meant to be Edward as he was, the crazed disgusting killer is meant to be Hutton, and the cop in the novel, Bobby Andes, represents what Edward has become...as he shows how cold and decisive time has made Edward about the whole situation. This is why in the novel the husband ends up paired with the cop...it is two sides of the same coin that is Edward.

I believe what Ford intends his film to do is to be a look at how we interact with "art" as creators of it, consumers of it, as viewers watching his film. This is in part why he begins the film with the dancing fat women. We are looking at an "art" exhibit to open the film and a very in your face one at that and one that challenges the audience right from the jump.

The film is highly stylized and heightened to just about a tipping point because what Ford wants this whole thing to be is a film for "artists" by an "artist" and a discussion of "art."

It is sort of interesting that in the real life part of the film nothing is really happening. Susan is home alone reading a book, her shit husband is off cheating, and Edward is not really around at all...only his novel is.

 

[moviefanatic1979]

Thanks for the reply, Reggie!

I'm glad I prompted you to write this post.
You make some valid and very interesting points here.
I hadn't thought about it in this way.

I guess there's more to the movie than what I initially thought.

It will never be great to me.
But a film which triggers this much thought and discussion can't be bad.

Not to say it's a bad movie. Far from it.
It's stylish and thought provoking.

How you take it and if you like it or dislike it is, of course, a personal thing.

I've seen art movies which are boring no matter how beautifully shot they may be.
This is not one of those.

It's intriguing in it's plainness and plain in it's intriguementness (if that's the way to put it ).

And the acting is stellar. No doubt about that.