Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.
-
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!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
bensfiction — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 05:42 AM)
Dude stop pretending like this movie was some sort of objective masterpiece. The New York Times wasn't very fond of it and they get paid to critique films. You're just some pretend to know it all douche on IMDb. You gave Allied an 8 for crying out loud. You are NO "student of film."
-
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 10:24 AM)
The New York Times wasn't very fond of it and they get paid to critique films.
I don't review films based on what others do, whether they get paid or not. I'm pretty sure the people that pay them for their opinion know little about film themselves. I won't bother mentioning all the awards the film has won and nominations it received because, again I don't base my opinion on others.
You're just some pretend to know it all douche on IMDb.
I never claimed to be anything.
You gave Allied an 8 for crying out loud.
More like a 7.5, but I round up. The film's average is 7.2, so sue me. Plus the fact you don't rate any films probably because you are scared how others will receive them.
Thanks for stopping by. -
bensfiction — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 08:50 PM)
No, I just know that I actually studied film, and your borderline obsession with this ok film and your ridiculous confirmation bias shows that you think movies are better than they actually are in a lot of instances. If you actually studied film and looked beyond your own self delusional deconstruction of every breath in this film, you'd probably discover that it's really well shot, but lacking a lot of substance.
-
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 10:44 AM)
You're just some pretend to know it all douche on IMDb.
How could you say such cruel, unfair things about FartyKat? He's the (self-)recognized galactic expert on Nocturnal Animals, and certainly knows more about the film than Tom Ford himself.