Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.
-
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 09:42 PM)
You might say there are things in the film that 'we've seen 1000 times before' but as a whole I see something I've never seen.
That's not THE problem with the film. We've seen everything 1,000 times. The thing is HOW you do it, if you succeed to make people feel something, and have some honesty about it. I just pointed that this movie's two main stories say nothing new. Especially the revenge story, just imagine if it was a separate movie. What would it give you that you haven't seen so many times before? A typical story of the ugly side of America, some hillbillies kidnap and rape and kill the wife and daughter of a guy, he wants revenge, he gets it, he dies at the end. It's a movie that keeps you in tension as you watch it, but you forget about it 5 hours after you've seen it.
One of the main characters we never actually meet.
That would be interesting, but the whole movie was so pointless to me, that made this idea pointless too.
Everything we learn about him, his name is Edward btw, not Tony, we learn from Susan's point of view.
Ok, Edward is the fictional character, and Tony the real one? I guess I mixed them up.
Everything in the film is precise. We don't learn anything more about Hutton because it's not necessary to the story. There's no fluff in this film. Some people will like that and others will not. Point of view. Personally I love films where every single word means something. Everything you see has meaning and in this film, with so much symbolism, a lot of what is said and seen has more than one meaning, such as Tony's death, as an example. It also symbolized Susan's abortion.
Ok, thank you for your kind reply, butyou don't explain why this movie was so important. You just describe what you saw. When you say that a movie is a masterpiece, and someone asks you "why do you say that?", and your answer is "because every word in it had a meaning, everything was precise", etc., is not exactly an enlightening answer.
And so, Tony's death symbolized Susan's abortion? Why? Why Tony's death and not his daughter's or wife's? And whatever, isn't this symbolism a bit flat and simplistic? "So, ok, my wife had an abortion of my child, so I'm gonna kill my character in my novel to make her understand that it hurt me". I don't know man, it doesn't make much sense to me.
And why did Tony die so stupidly anyway? We assume that he had died after Ray stroke him, then next day he wakes up alive, he walks a bit, he falls on his gun, boom, dead.
So in a nutshell, I found the one story written by Edward being an allegory of his relationship with Susan, telling her exactly how he felt by telling a story, to be an extremely entertaining tool and really puts this film a top of the heap.
Again, you don't answer my question. What was so significant about this specific story (in the book he wrote) that made it an allegory to their relationship? Can you just analyze it, bit by bit? In simple words.
There are many elements of this film which I could go on about, such as the acting, or the score, or the directing, the raw, gritty nature, there's really so much to relish.
Of course, everything you said was terrific. Especially the music was superb. And actually, the whole first 5 minutes of the movie (excluding the opening credits) was awesome, it got me excited with how it was showing a mysterious gloomy L.A., like a modern film noir. And then, it all collapsed.
I don't see why some films can't be made for intelligent audiences?
I'll give a recent example. Did you see "The Man Who Knew Infinity"? It's a real story about a mathematic genius from India. I knew nothing about him, I know nothing about math, and actually, I hate math. But I liked the movie. Because the director didn't make it for people who know about and/or like math, but for people, period.
I think you got my point. You have to find a way to make all people (with some sort of intelligence, I'm not talking about a redneck who lives in a swamp in Louisiana and drinks beer and watches wrestling all day) understand what you're talking about. If I have to know about math to understand and appreciate that movie I mentioned, you lost me. Just make a movie with an interesting story and character, and which makes some sense, and we're good.
About 80%, if not 90%, of the people who saw "Enemy", didn't understand it. Because they hadn't read the book by Jose Saramango, and they haven't read Freud. Because they didn't HAVE to. You should transfer to the audience what you got from reading these things, not to be a smart-ass and throw them a spider at the end (spoiler alert) and tell them to go and figure out what you meant. And make those who have read the book and all that Freudian stuff, feel "superior" that they understood it. MOVIES ARE NOT AN IQ COMPETITION. No matter how complicated your movie is, if you didn't give to the audience all the clues and keys to understand it within the movie, at least from a second viewing, you failed.
The opening scene during the credits? -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 08:12 AM)
Again, you don't answer my question. What was so significant about this specific story (in the book he wrote) that made it an allegory to their relationship? Can you just analyze it, bit by bit? In simple words.
Edward writes a story to describe his feelings about his relationship with Susan to Susan. Instead of standing in front of her and screaming he instead expressed his feelings to her with this story. It helps to show Susan exactly how deep it hurt Edward and it also shows Susan she was wrong about his writing. The story Edward writes might not be any big deal to most people but to Susan it means everything and we find it hits her pretty hard.
When Susan reads the story she places Edward into Tony's role. We see that through her eyes. She does this ASSUMING way too much. She puts Edward in the weak role. While reading the story, after finding out the wife and daughter are killed she is so shaken she calls her own daughter. Why? Well maybe at this point she believes Edward has bad intentions. She aborted his daughter, so maybe he is plotting some type of revenge against Susan involving her daughter. Susan finishes reading the novel and she believes Edward has accomplished what he set out to do. To write a good novel. She contacts Edward and wants to see him. He agrees. She dresses up in a fashion that suggests she has some intentions of her own when she sees Edward again.
What I believe is while Susan is sitting at that table at the restaurant she has some realizations, including that Edward is not going to show up. She has a few hours sitting there and she thinks more about the novel. She had assumed that Edward was Tony, the weak character, but in the end she finally realizes that she is Tony, the weak character. The one who wasn't strong enough to follow her heart. She instead left Edward, aborted his baby and married Hutton. She is now miserable and Edward not showing up will hit her very hard. When we see Tony accidently kill himself at the end of Edward's story it is symbolic of Susan's abortion. Tony shoots himself in the stomach after being blinded in the stomach by Ray. We see the blood on Tony's shirt as he slowly bleeds out and we can hear his last breaths in slow motion, so symbolic of ending a life, like an abortion. Ray may be thought of as Susan's mother who helps to blind Susan. There is much more symbolism in Edward's story, just as there is symbolism in the main story.
I believe the opening credits can be interpreted a few different ways. One way would be show these obese naked women happy in their own skin while Susan, slim and beautiful, totally miserable in hers. Another might be what passes for art these days. The viewer, you and I, don't actually see the real art being displayed at Susan's exhibit, instead we the ugly truth of what some people believe passes as good art. Everyone told Susan her exhibit was a great success, but Susan had problems with it. She didn't believe in what she was doing and in a way we were seeing Susan's disgust in her own work.
I consider Nocturnal Animals a masterpiece for many reasons, some I had stated in my first response, but the use of Edward's story, the way Susan first interprets the story and then realizes her mistake at the end, the moment Susan realizes she was the weak one, the last few seconds of the film, that's what makes this film a masterpiece. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 10:23 PM)
Farshnoshket
Edward writes a story to describe his feelings about his relationship with Susan to Susan. Instead of standing in front of her and screaming he instead expressed his feelings to her with this story. It helps to show Susan exactly how deep it hurt Edward and it also shows Susan she was wrong about his writing. The story Edward writes might not be any big deal to most people but to Susan it means everything and we find it hits her pretty hard.
Ok. We are not Susan, so she knows better than us what Edward wanted to say with this story, since she lived so many years with him. But YOU, as a viewer, didn't you feel like you were watching a completely different movie? Honestly.
While reading the story, after finding out the wife and daughter are killed she is so shaken she calls her own daughter. Why? Well maybe at this point she believes Edward has bad intentions. She aborted his daughter, so maybe he is plotting some type of revenge against Susan involving her daughter.
Oh, brother Do we ever see Edward in present time? No. We see him just for a few flashbacks scenes. So why would we assume that he would want to hurt her and especially her daughter? Is he a psycho? How do we know? I never sensed that he wanted to hurt her in any physical way. All that you say doesn't exist in the film. We never see him, we don't know what kind of person he has became. All we know is that he wrote this novel, sent it to her, and asked her to meet him at a restaurant when she read it. At a restaurant, not to an isolated place in the wilderness. To me, none of this sounds like he's a psycho. Killing her or her daughter because she cheated on him and had an abortion of his baby after SO many years doesn't make sense. And if this was in Tom Ford's mind (or the guy who wrote the novel the screenplay was based on), then it's poor writing, a plothole.
Ok, I read the rest of your thoughts, and I guess everyone is entitled to have their own interpretation about this or any movie. But in the bottomline, I realized that I don't care about the movie's symbolisms (anymore), because I didn't care about the characters at all. These characters meant nothing to me, they're so poorly written and empty. If we exclude all the parts of the revenge story, which is like 70% of the movie, it could have been a magnificent atmospheric mysterious thriller, if only it had focused in just the main story. Because I loved Amy Adams' look, and the photography, and the music, and all that, it could make an awesome modern film noir. But the revenge movie just spoiled the whole thing. I never cared about the sheriff, I never cared about Ray, these characters meant nothing to me, especially since they didn't even exist!
I believe the opening credits can be interpreted a few different ways. One way would be show these obese naked women happy in their own skin while Susan, slim and beautiful, totally miserable in hers. Another might be what passes for art these days. The viewer, you and I, don't actually see the real art being displayed at Susan's exhibit, instead we the ugly truth of what some people believe passes as good art. Everyone told Susan her exhibit was a great success, but Susan had problems with it. She didn't believe in what she was doing and in a way we were seeing Susan's disgust in her own work.
Ok, these were interesting thoughts. But still, the opening credits felt very out of place with the whole film. You'll say, so what, so many movies have weird opening credits that have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Whatever.
I consider Nocturnal Animals a masterpiece for many reasons, some I had stated in my first response, but the use of Edward's story, the way Susan first interprets the story and then realizes her mistake at the end, the moment Susan realizes she was the weak one, the last few seconds of the film, that's what makes this film a masterpiece.
Just reading the word "masterpiece" in a text about this film kind of "hurts" me. I'm pretty sure you consider "Gone Girl" a masterpiece too. I really can't make a comment on that. I guess I belong to a different species of an audience.
You know what I would call a masterpiece of a film? Something like that:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10054632/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Consider this film as "university", and "Nocturnal Animals" as "kindergarten". In nowadays, we call masterpieces some films because they don't make real masterpieces anymore, so we just have to call some movies masterpieces. It's like a sport team of a low category, it may be the best of its league, but its the best of a low league. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 07:28 AM)
Interesting. You had to go back over 50 years to find your masterpiece to attempt to put down this film.
I believe they still do make masterpieces. I believe Birdman is a masterpiece. The Master is a masterpiece. No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece. Cloud Atlas is a masterpiece.
I do not believe Gone Girl is a masterpiece. Not sure why you would bring that up?
I film does not have to be in black and white to be a masterpiece.
Masterpieces can come in all shapes & sizes and I also believe a film being a masterpiece is a very personal thing. Each film touches each person differently. I might be the only person who feels one particular film is a masterpiece, but that's good enough for me.
As far as Edward being a 'psycho'At the moment Susan is reading Edward's novel she has no idea of Edward's intent. The story kills off the person who Susan believes is her and her daughter. At that moments she has thoughts and calls her own daughter. Why? Why did she call her right after she finds out those characters are dead?
btw, Edward personally dropped off the novel. He drove from Texas to LA to do so. Did you know that? -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 09:22 PM)
Farshnoshket
Interesting. You had to go back over 50 years to find your masterpiece to attempt to put down this film.
I didn't use that film to "put down" "Nocturnal Animals". I didn't use it as a comparison, they have practically nothing in common, except both being "brainy" films. But I used it as an example of what a real masterpiece is. And you know what's funny? That I didn't even get that film. So, I can't say that I liked it. But in that case, I DO understand that people liked it and consider it a masterpiece. It's a very difficult film to understand, and I guess I'm not smart enough to get it (at least from one viewing). But in a film like "Nocturnal Animals", I can see that it's pointless, very simplistic in its core, but it presents itself as something very intellectual. And that's bollocks.
I'll give you another more recent example of a mysterious brainy masterpiece. "Lost Highway". Or "Mulholland Drive". You can't say that Ford wasn't influenced by Lynch (besides Hitchcock) to make his film. But he's like a little kid next to giants.
I believe Birdman is a masterpiece. The Master is a masterpiece. No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece. Cloud Atlas is a masterpiece.
Man, you and me, we live in a different movie planet Besides "Birdman" which I kind of appreciated for some elements, I hated all the others you mention. "Cloud Atlas"? Can you name me ONE film that it was a MESS to you? Because if "Cloud Atlas" wasn't, then what was? Or do you find ALL films with complicated mixed-up storylines masterpieces? Just because they're complicated mixed-up storyline movies, and you wanna feel smart for liking every film that presents itself as intelligent? I guess you consider "Interstellar" a masterpiece too? Murph, Murph, Murph, Murph, Murph! Oh, man, that ending with that watch
By the way, did you like "Enemy"?
I do not believe Gone Girl is a masterpiece. Not sure why you would bring that up?
Because it's another very recent overrated kind of thriller, quite similar to "Nocturnal Animals". Not in the story, but the style and genre and intentions and all that.
The story kills off the person who Susan believes is her and her daughter. At that moments she has thoughts and calls her own daughter. Why? Why did she call her right after she finds out those characters are dead?
Because as a mother, she was affected to read about a teenage girl being killed, so she felt like calling her daughter just to hear her voice. Even if this was just a random book she bought, she would still be affected by what goes on in it. She identified her daughter with that girl because they were both teenagers. And in her mind, she projects the dead body of the girl with the body of her own daughter (you forgot to mention this). But it's like herself could identify with any character in a book she was reading, for whatever reason. For me, it didn't have to do with being afraid that Edward would kill her daughter, a teenage girl he had never met and never harmed him. He would be a psycho if he even thought to do something like that, and from what I saw in the movie, I didn't see anything psychotic about his behavior (from the 5 minutes that we saw him). So WHY would I think that he wanted to harm either of them? It doesn't make any sense. If you think that the movie gave you clues to think something like that, sure, be my guest. You might as well think that Susan is the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Queen Victoria, who am I to say otherwise?
btw, Edward personally dropped off the novel. He drove from Texas to LA to do so. Did you know that?
No, I didn't notice that. But, so what? I guess it makes sense, since he DID want to meet her (like ANY man would want to meet his ex-wife for a cup of coffee after so many years), and tell him what she thought of the book. But no, your guess is that he wanted to slaughter her and drink her blood, right?
And as for why he didn't show up at the restaurant eventually, I don't know, and I frankly don't care anymore. Maybe a truck hit and killed him? He got abducted by aliens? He changed his mind? e got cold feet? Maybe he really did want to hurt her, by not showing up? Who the fk knows But one thing for sure, he doesn't wait for her outside the restaurant with a chainsaw. Trust me. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 01:42 PM)
ok, we've got an awful lot here. Soon we'll have our own novel.
So you brought up what others called a masterpiece, but you admit was just too much for you. My thought, as I believe I mentioned earlier, is a masterpiece is a piece of work that touches you in a special way. Now I understand other people will have other definitions for that word, but just like someone giving a film a "10" and another person giving a film a "10" may also have 2 different meanings I believe there's enough room for different interpretations of what a masterpiece means. So for that reasons the films I listed are all masterpieces to me. Cloud Atlas? Cloud Atlas wasn't a mess. Cloud Atlas was a map that needed to be studied. I spend plenty of time studying the film, found it's many connections through time and understood every single second of it. It was, in my humble opinion, one of the very best films every made, a true masterpiece.
Or do you find ALL films with complicated mixed-up storylines masterpieces?
Like I said, once I absorbed the film and studied it everything came together. It's like one of the pictures that you stare it and if you stare long enough you'll find the hidden picture within the picture. After that it's pretty simple to see.
I liked Interstellar and thought it was a great film with a lot to say, but it did not touch me enough to be called a masterpiece. Gone Girl was a fun movie. Any film where we can watch NPH get ripped to shreds is a fun film. I like Pike. I think she's a really good actress, but Affleck with always be Affleck. He will never be his brother. He think he needs to do a few comedies and relax a little. That girl he cheats with in GG, now she was a honey! lol Def not a masterpiece. Far from it.
Ok, you've got the whole daughter thing with me all wrong.
From the film we know Edward did drop off the book. We don't realize that when it happens, but later on we connect 2 and 2 because of the Mercedes in the story. We can think back and see the same Mercedes in Susan's driveway. It was and someone got out. The same someone who dropped off the novel. It was Edward. That's a simple conclusion that can be made.
Why does Susan call her daughter? Well first off, Susan did not know Edward was in LA. She did not know he dropped off the novel, but I guess if she did her homework she might have figured it out. The package the novel was dropped off in had no mail markings. Now Susan hadn't seen Edward in 19 years. She probably didn't think too much about how much she might have hurt Edward, probably. She did say she was going to regret the abortion and knowing Edward knew probably did weigh on her a little, but she was basically a shallow person, so she probably didn't let it bother her. And then she reads his novel. So the question becomes at what point does Susan realize that the story written by Edward was some type allegory for their relationship, and in what way?
Susan gets to the part where the 2 women are found dead. Now you believe she called because she just wanted to check in on her
I believe this was the part where Susan drops the novel on the floor. Maybe a little much, but it certainly indicates shock on Susan's part. From my perspective that says that Susan has some concerns and might be wondering the intent of the novel she has not yet finished. She does not really know much about Edward's past 19 years and how much of a grudge she holds toward him. There has to be a reason the writer/director decided that Susan should call her daughter. I don't think either of our reasons are unreasonable. The writer made it a point that Susan was calling at a time she usually wouldn't be calling, very early in the morning. She was startled enough to call her at an unusual time. For me that means concern, concern that she's safe. Edward does not have to be a psycho, it's just that Susan thought Edward might have some intension. That doesn't make Edward a serial killer, although that might have been an interesting way to go?
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
Edward never had any intent on showing up at the restaurant. When someone doesn't show for a 'date' in normal circumstances it can certainly sting a little, depending on how much you know them. I think in this case it cut Susan pretty hard because of what she realizes as she sitting there. As Susan sat there she thought that Edward had forgiven her for her shortcomings and how she left Edward, but as she sat there she realized something much different.
a dish best served cold.
If you didn't or still do not believe he had no intent on showing up then yes indeed, we live in 2 different worlds. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 04:59 PM)
Edward never had any intent on showing up at the restaurant.
And you know this because . . . ?
#1 - you wrote the script and not Tom Ford
#2 - you're Tom ford's BFF
#3 - you're cleverer than everybody else
#4 - you're omniscient
You don't know - and you're just a 'know-it-all douche' as somebody else called it. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 05:21 PM)
Farshnoshket
Like I said, I don't know why he didn't show up, and if he intended to or not. But who was that character to make me care what was his intentions? It's a character that we DON'T KNOW. We saw the (real) Edward for like 3 minutes in total in the film. What was so interesting about this character, or should I say, those characters (he and Susan), that would make me care if they had a reunion or not? 80% of the total movie was the Texas story. So Susan was in the movie for 20%. It's not enough for me to care about her. She was an empty character to me. What was interesting about her? All we see her do in the movie is reading the book. We never see her have a crucial moment with someone, a collision, something. What do we know about her, that she lives an empty life and her husband (another non-existent character) cheats on her? Boooo-hoooo, bring me some tissues
This movie was full of indifferent characters. I remember watching the opening credits, and I counted like 10 famous actors in it, and I wondered, how all of them can fit in a 2 hour movie? Well, I tell you, they can't, because half of them was like if they weren't in it at all. I just checked the cast, and I read that Michael Sheen was in it. I don't even remember him in the film!
And since that Texas story was fiction, and these things never happened, why should I care about any of these characters? Besides the fact that the sheriff and the redneck were so, so void. Well, of course, they threw a bit of cancer to the sheriff to make him a more "tragic" figure. But who the fk cares?? He's not an existent character!
Dude, whatever. These characters meant nothing to me. And for me (and for everyone I guess), the characters in a movie is everything. I didn't sympathize any of them. And it's a pity, because Adams, especially in this film, she's so beautiful in a "dark" way, they could have done so much with her look and all. Waste of chance. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 06:15 PM)
And since that Texas story was fiction, and these things never happened, why should I care about any of these characters? Besides the fact that the sheriff and the redneck were so, so void. Well, of course, they threw a bit of cancer to the sheriff to make him a more "tragic" figure. But who the fk cares?? He's not an existent character!
Dude, it's all fiction. Wake up! Both stories are fiction. I think your biggest problem in trying to appreciate what was brought to the screen is you keep trying to separate the 2 pieces, but it's really the 2 pieces together that make the film what it is.
The film is about relationships and how you should cherish whatever relationships you have.
The film speaks for itself. Won plenty of awards and has lot of nominations, but none of that means anything to me. Not every film is about liking characters.
A big mistake a lot of people made when they watched No Country for Old Men is they grew attached to Llewelyn. But what happens to Llewelyn? That film won best picture. Films are not always about liking characters, so you can whine all want about not falling in love, but that's your tragic mistake. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 08:47 PM)
Dude, it's all fiction. Wake up! Both stories are fiction.
For once more, I think we have a communication problem.
Every movie is fiction. Except the ones that were based on a true story. Ok? Butevery one of these moviesis SUPPOSED to REALLY happen. Even something like "Star Wars". That's why people like them. All these movies, all these characters, are supposed to exist in the REAL world (or A real world). Including "Nocturnal Animals". BUTthe story that Susan reads, and those charactersthey don't exist IN the movie, thus in the world. They exist in Edward's mind. We, the viewers, feel that Susan could exist in the real L.A., but not the characters of the book she reads, that's PURE fiction. So, I don't care about characters who don't exist in the movie I'm watching.
If you still don't understand what I'm saying here, let's just drop it. I'm not implying that you're stupid and/or I'm smart, but we just can't communicate, we see movies in a totally different point of view.
A big mistake a lot of people made when they watched No Country for Old Men is they grew attached to Llewelyn.
Did I mention that movie before? If not, it's funny, because the Texas story in "Nocturnal Animals" reminded me so much of it. Maybe they had a different story (not that I remember the story of "No country"), but for me, they were both laggish, pointless, pretentious movies, that were showing so simple stuff like they were Greek or Shakespearean tragedies or something I'm tired of Americans being so obsessed with stories about kidnapping and rednecks killing innocent people for fun. Can I have the right to be tired of these movies? With your permission, of course.
Anyway, I don't care if a character is good or bad. A movie may have the worst person in the world as the main character, but if he's written well, I will like the movie and the character. Who doesn't like Hannibal Lecter? Or Darth Vader? Or Freddy Krueger? And so many others. My problem is not if a character has flaws, it's if they're written bad.
So, I don't care if a character is the most perfect or the worst person in history. Or the strongest or weakest. All I need is to care about WATCHING them. I don't (necessarily) care if they end up happy. I care to carry on watching them, to their victory or downfall. All the characters in Scorsese's movies were weak and had a downfall at the end, and he was (once) my favorite storyteller.
And yes, of course I can like a character and feel sorry if they die, and/or get pissed off with the writers/director for "killing" him (I was outraged with Han Solo's death, at least because of the way and timing it was done). But that's another story, it's not my problem with "Nocturnal Animals". If it had a good screenplay and a good story, I wouldn't mind if those character were the most weak/flawed characters in the world. Actually films noir MUST have weak/flawed characters. Give me a film noir where the good guy dies at the end, and the femme fatale who framed him flies to the Bahamas with all the money he stole for her. If it's done well, I'll love it. If the characters are indifferent and it has an unrelated story within the story, fk it. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 08:20 AM)
We definitely are coming from 2 different worlds . . .
True enough - I would guess you're lost in a world where the sun don't shine, as the saying goes. Nobody else would want to visit that place - land of endless night. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 09:23 AM)
And in such a feminine way.
It's always good to keep in touch with one's feminine side - that way you can understand Susan's POV.
You want to know what
weak
really means? It means poor old Edward couldn't cut it in the sack, sweetie. Very sad case - ED Eddy, as he was known at college, and premature also on the rare occasions he could get a
weak
woody.
Of course, Susan had confided in Mommy dearest, who sensibly tried to talk her out of marriage. Couple of years pass - and she realizes Mommy knew best all along. Now you know the real story, you can't really blame her for jumping onto Hutton's tent-pole, can you?
As for the restaurant no-show - Susan always felt sorry for Soft Eddy and wanted to show support, but unfortunately he couldn't face her - he's playing for the other team now. Susan felt a bit sad about it, but what can you do?
So there you are - all NA's loose ends neatly tied up. It's amazing what a little feminine intuition will do for you. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 09:24 AM)
I wanted to ask you if you liked "Under The Skin", because it's one of those rare exceptions of "weird" films that I did like, and I see that you have rated it with 9. At least we found a small bridge between us
I'm also curious to know what's your rating for "Enemy". I'm sure that you liked that one too. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 07:43 AM)
When most people go see a film they expect that what's presented will be done in a way that is straight forward enough to understand, however there are films that are made that ask the audience for a little more. A foreign film has subtitles. If you don't read the subtitles you'll probably miss a lot. That's an easy example. Under the Skin is a tougher one and films like Under the Skin. The ask the audience to think about what they've seen and process it. If you went into Under the Skin completely in the dark I'm not sure if anyone would realize they were watching a film about aliens or some type of other being until close to the end of the film. With that in mind the process of figuring out what you just watched probably does not occur until the film ends. Then you take what you learned and process that over the entire film. Now that you know she was an alien things make a lot more sense. If one does not process the film properly they'll wind up with a mess and usually walk away saying wtf? Some people simply prefer not to think so much, or at least that's what they admit.
Have you seen Holy Motors?
Enemy is on my list. I'll have to catch it soon. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 12:10 AM)
No, I have not seen "Holy Motors", and I don't think I'll like it. I have seen only one film of Carax ("The Lovers on the Bridge"), and it's not my thing. I'm not saying he makes bad movies, it's just notmy thing, it's not the style that I enjoy to watch. But I'll watch it because I'm curious about Kylie Minogue's performance. I like to see pop-stars, and generally "celebrities" play in weird films. Like Madonna in "Dangerous Game", or like Scarlett Johansson in "Under the Skin".
Before you watch "Enemy", I suggest you do some googling on the symbolism of spiders, otherwise you're lost
"Spiders symbolize the feminine energy, ability to be receptive to new environments, creativity, patience and dark life aspects. The spider is a unique symbol because it has dark and light aspects to it, meaning that it connects with many areas of life."
"The Spider is an ancient symbol of mystery, power and growth. We take our first lesson from the ancient symbol of the Spider by contemplating its web. Just as the Spider weaves a web, so too must we weave our own lives. The Spider symbol meaning here serves as a reminder that our choices construct our lives."
http://www.shamanicjourney.com/spider-power-animal-symbol-of-creation-weaving-our-realities-infinity-balance-past-present-and-future -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 08:02 AM)
But the revenge movie just spoiled the whole thing.
There are a lot of posters with a teenage mentality on this board who think Edward wanted revenge, and ultimately succeeds in 'crushing' Susan with his dinner no-show - but perhaps they're not very bright, and it's not a revenge story at all. Perhaps there's another narrative lurking under this simplistic infantile interpretation. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 08:13 AM)
Or perhaps you're just some twerp that has little understanding of anything, much less film and likes to jump on threads adding nothing but nonsense.
Oh I know! The painting was a "red herring"! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!