tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 09:29 AM)

Lame original post. No insight, comment of substance or anything intelligent to contribute. Just another insignificant, prudish nobody with a closed mind who understands nothing. It's people like you that are killing these message boards.

tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 09:29 AM)

Lame original post. No insight, comment of substance or anything intelligent to contribute. Just another insignificant, prudish nobody with a closed mind who understands nothing. It's people like you that are killing these message boards.

bobby_nynex — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 01:59 PM)

thats a good interpretation.

bobby_nynex — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 01:59 PM)

thats a good interpretation.

patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 04:24 PM)

So what? Is how good a movie is determined by how many awards its won? "Crash" has a Best Picture Oscar, does that automatically mean it's a great movie? Even the director came out and said he felt his movie shouldn't have won against the films it was competing against, especially "Brokeback Mountain".
Here's a thing: people like "Nocturnal Animals" for a multitude of reasons. You clearly didn't. Your opinion is your own, but when you make ludicrous statements like
Anyone who enjoyed this , enjoys unmentionable acts performed on them by stiletto's women.
then that means you lack a kind of maturity to be able to discuss a film and would be best off doing something else with your time.
There's a difference between a differing opinion and a forced one.

patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 04:24 PM)

So what? Is how good a movie is determined by how many awards its won? "Crash" has a Best Picture Oscar, does that automatically mean it's a great movie? Even the director came out and said he felt his movie shouldn't have won against the films it was competing against, especially "Brokeback Mountain".
Here's a thing: people like "Nocturnal Animals" for a multitude of reasons. You clearly didn't. Your opinion is your own, but when you make ludicrous statements like
Anyone who enjoyed this , enjoys unmentionable acts performed on them by stiletto's women.
then that means you lack a kind of maturity to be able to discuss a film and would be best off doing something else with your time.
There's a difference between a differing opinion and a forced one.

patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 04:21 PM)

You are aware this is an independent release that was then distributed by a smaller distribution studio, right?
I love how people make a big deal about how "Hollyweird" is out to get everyone, yet they lack the basic knowledge to understand not every movie is made by Hollywood.
Also, bravo on the thinly veiled anti-Semitism in your topic title. I almost didn't puck up on it until I remembered a story I read about what that ((())) symbol means.
There's a difference between a differing opinion and a forced one.

patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 04:21 PM)

You are aware this is an independent release that was then distributed by a smaller distribution studio, right?
I love how people make a big deal about how "Hollyweird" is out to get everyone, yet they lack the basic knowledge to understand not every movie is made by Hollywood.
Also, bravo on the thinly veiled anti-Semitism in your topic title. I almost didn't puck up on it until I remembered a story I read about what that ((())) symbol means.
There's a difference between a differing opinion and a forced one.

patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 07:53 PM)

I just saw it as Ray being a trashy person who thinks he is clever. Also as a way for him to attempt to intimidate people through a false sense of vulnerability. He's sitting completely naked on a toilet in the outside of the middle of nowhere, each something that should represent a form of vulnerability, and openly mocks each one. The look he gives Andes right before he wipes has that distinct "Two can play this game" vibe to it.
There's a difference between a differing opinion and a forced one.

patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 07:53 PM)

I just saw it as Ray being a trashy person who thinks he is clever. Also as a way for him to attempt to intimidate people through a false sense of vulnerability. He's sitting completely naked on a toilet in the outside of the middle of nowhere, each something that should represent a form of vulnerability, and openly mocks each one. The look he gives Andes right before he wipes has that distinct "Two can play this game" vibe to it.
There's a difference between a differing opinion and a forced one.

lindewell — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 03:06 PM)

Watch Marina Abramovic "performances" and let's talk about disgusting exhibiton.

lindewell — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 03:06 PM)

Watch Marina Abramovic "performances" and let's talk about disgusting exhibiton.

tgclark2 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 04:36 PM)

Dreamcatcher9000.You summed this movie up completely. I read some of the posts here and you were totally spot on. This movie was like two completely separate movies, as you stated. The whole large females dancing at the beginning was like a carnival scene and , I am sorry, it was disgusting. I do not care what symbolism was supposed to be communicated, all it did was confuse the hell out of me. The whole revenge date/stand up thing at the end was just flat, ridiculous, and not even shocking. The way Tony/Edward shot himself and diedI laughed out loud at the stupidity of it all. This movie was full of talent and fell flat , sorry is was awful . I could not believe I wasted 2 hours of my life and my money on this convoluted mess.
Much ado about nothing.

CineasteWest — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:28 PM)

To answer your question, there is NOTHING great about this film. It's lousy.
It's as if it was penned by a second year NYU film students who had a flash that he could create a parallel structure to create something brilliant and new, a PARALLEL STRUCTURE, I should say that in all caps, because that's as subtle as the screenplay is. I don't think I've ever seen a more flaccid attempt at trying something "different" in my life. Using a PARALLEL STRUCTURE is hardly a new idea and it's so poorly implemented as to make me think it should forever be eradicated by the Directors Guild of American to prevent it happening again.
The number one failure of this film is DON'T TRY TO TELL TWO STORIES IF THEY'RE NOT BOTH EQUALLY INTERESTING. There was a fairly recent British film where a writer is investigating a historical romance found in a series of letters, and that was tied to her own love story. Unfortunately, and as exactly what happens in "Noctural Animals" is that one story is fairly intriguing while the other is dull, so one instinctively starts reaching for that FAST FORWARD BUTTON IN ONE'S MIND to skip the doldrums.
That was exactly what happened with Noctural Animals with me. I gave the film a good hour to convince me that Amy Adam's melancholy baths (and baths, and baths, and baths) were somehow going to be ingeniously shadowed by the parallel story that the film would click at some point. However it never clicks. Adam's mundane story slowly became more and more of a roadblock to the interesting (if cliched) advances of the crime story so instead of creating a sense of intrigue, all that's created is a sense restlessness.
Directorially, don't think I've ever more amateurish attempt at linking transitions in my life. There must have been twenty of them. Jake Gyllenhall takes a shower, cut to Adams in the shower. Adams wake up from a dream, cut Jake wakes up from a dream. OKAY WE GET IT ALREADY. Absolute overkill and lazy, lazy direction. David Lean would be rolling over in his grave.
If the film showed any real originality, I might call it a failed experiment. But as I can't even credit the film with a smidgen of originality for its amateurish PARALLEL STRUCTURE 101, and so I can only call it is a lousy, no, TWO lousy films.

CineasteWest — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:28 PM)

To answer your question, there is NOTHING great about this film. It's lousy.
It's as if it was penned by a second year NYU film students who had a flash that he could create a parallel structure to create something brilliant and new, a PARALLEL STRUCTURE, I should say that in all caps, because that's as subtle as the screenplay is. I don't think I've ever seen a more flaccid attempt at trying something "different" in my life. Using a PARALLEL STRUCTURE is hardly a new idea and it's so poorly implemented as to make me think it should forever be eradicated by the Directors Guild of American to prevent it happening again.
The number one failure of this film is DON'T TRY TO TELL TWO STORIES IF THEY'RE NOT BOTH EQUALLY INTERESTING. There was a fairly recent British film where a writer is investigating a historical romance found in a series of letters, and that was tied to her own love story. Unfortunately, and as exactly what happens in "Noctural Animals" is that one story is fairly intriguing while the other is dull, so one instinctively starts reaching for that FAST FORWARD BUTTON IN ONE'S MIND to skip the doldrums.
That was exactly what happened with Noctural Animals with me. I gave the film a good hour to convince me that Amy Adam's melancholy baths (and baths, and baths, and baths) were somehow going to be ingeniously shadowed by the parallel story that the film would click at some point. However it never clicks. Adam's mundane story slowly became more and more of a roadblock to the interesting (if cliched) advances of the crime story so instead of creating a sense of intrigue, all that's created is a sense restlessness.
Directorially, don't think I've ever more amateurish attempt at linking transitions in my life. There must have been twenty of them. Jake Gyllenhall takes a shower, cut to Adams in the shower. Adams wake up from a dream, cut Jake wakes up from a dream. OKAY WE GET IT ALREADY. Absolute overkill and lazy, lazy direction. David Lean would be rolling over in his grave.
If the film showed any real originality, I might call it a failed experiment. But as I can't even credit the film with a smidgen of originality for its amateurish PARALLEL STRUCTURE 101, and so I can only call it is a lousy, no, TWO lousy films.

tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 12:15 PM)

Not a fact - just an alternative fact - aka a lie

tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 12:15 PM)

Not a fact - just an alternative fact - aka a lie

TheGuy974 — 3 years ago(September 25, 2022 06:14 AM)

DoodleBoy, who hurts you? Amy does not serve enthusiasm? But flopstar like Anniston does? I think you are jealous to see her recognition. So sad for you. People go to see her movies based on her name bro. Don't hurt yourself like this. That woman did Blockbuster hit Enchanted in 2007 and Night at the Museum 2 in 2009 by herself as lead actress. That woman made indie movie Junebug a hit. She is 6 times Oscar Nominee. Oh my sadistic boy. God Brace yourself.
@
@
@