Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.
-
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. -
jimmer69 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 08:32 AM)
Yeah it is sad. Just depends on if you consider this movie as one that falls into that description.
There was a movie critic who compared this to classic Hitchcock movies. Not sure I think of it that way, but that's obviously high praise from the critic.
This movie was interesting. Not overly difficult to understand as some try and make it out to be, but there are some good performances (like from Taylor -Johnson) and the movie sticks with you. Won't be forgetting it any time soon. Which, you know, is a plus.
Overall, I didn't recommend it to anyone. I wouldn't bother with it again, myself, but it was worth seeing once. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 09:55 AM)
My friend's wife had said she wanted to see it during the Golden Globes. She stated so on Facebook when I made a comment about Johnson winning his globe. I told her I didn't think it should be on her menu, knowing her taste in film. I don't believe she'd be able to get through the first 90 seconds. lol
-
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 09:43 PM)
jimmer69
There was a movie critic who compared this to classic Hitchcock movies.
Yes, the beginning of the film did remind me kind of a modern Hitchcock film. Susan could be a Hitchcock character. It's a pity that this chance was lost.
Not overly difficult to understand as some try and make it out to be.
The only difficult part to understand is why it got so much praise. -
RoloTomassi777 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 05:09 PM)
Alright alright let me ease your pain. This is what Tom Ford's own interpretation of the movie so pseudo-artsy detractors won't be able to deflect you from real one, creator of the movie itself. Here's the link to the interview if you're interested.
http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/2016/11/15/13499342/tom-ford-interview-nocturnal-animals-amy-adams-jake-gyllenhaal
As other poster has pointed out when I made this post the ending was more about freedom than revenge. Exactly what Ford had said.
Does he not show up as an act of revenge, or does he not show up because he just literally cant face her? [The ending] seems the correct conclusion to me, because she falls in love with him again through reading [the novel]. She is
liberated
, by the way, at the end. This has been painful. Shes taken those rings off. Shes wiped off that lipstick, and she is not going back to that life. We dont know what the next chapter is for her, but [the previous] chapter is over.
Either he still love her but can't bring himself to face her again. Or he wants to continue to use that tragedy as an inspiration to help him keep on writing. Meeting her might compromise that. By not knowing the outcome of the meeting with Susan it allows him to continue to keep writing powerful novel as this one. What drives him to write such powerful novel. Another quote from Tom Ford:
"This is what you did to me. You stole my life. You killed me, in a sense." But at the same time, we learn in the opening letter that he says that in the end, she left him with the strength to survive from the heart. He takes his damage and turns it into the thing that has always eluded him, which is the successful novel that he knew he had in him.
So what is the message Ford is trying to deliver? Another quote:
The central theme, which is don't throw people away in your life. Don't throw people away. When you find people you love, hang on to them.
Why did Ford throw all this symbolism in there whereas in the Austin Wright's book there's no symbolism to connect the fictional story from the story in the reality?
I think that's a very hard thing to do. People expect you to be quite literal, and a book is subjective. If you read the line, "She's the most beautiful woman in the world," every single person will come up with a different vision in their head, and so it'll always be disappointing when you see that onscreen. Not always, but most of the time, because it's not going to match your idea.
In the end the ending kind of ambiguous similar like gone with the wind. That's why Ford mentioned Scarlett O'Hara who vow one day she'll win Rhett back. Ford answered from Susans assuming point of view.
Am I going to move out of the house, be a Scarlett OHara and get up the next morning and get on a plane and go, and maybe Im gonna become that artist? I dont know. She doesnt know. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 11:15 PM)
RoloTomassi777
First, is your last reply addressing to me? Just checking.
Second, I don't know why you deleted your first reply (which was clearly addressing to me), but fortunately I read it, and after a couple of hours I came here to reply to you, and I saw that you had deleted it. Maybe because you felt like you "insulted" some people. But anyway, I just wanted to thank you for what you wrote, because it was exactly my thoughts, 100%.
I don't know what has happened to movies and people. Years ago, even if I didn't like a movie, at least I could understand why somebody else liked it. But now, when I see so many mediocre films being praised as masterpieces so easily, it feels so depressing. I'm not saying, or should I say better, I don't want to say that every person who says that "Nocturnal Animals" (or whatever else movie) isn't honest or doesn't have a clue about cinema. I want to believe that many of them just sincerely liked it for their own reasons. I don't have the right to enter their minds and tell them if they should like a movie or not.
But on the other hand, I'm afraid there are also some people who just want to praise a movie (and especially a "weird" movie with lots of enigmatic endings, twists, mind puzzles, etc.) as a masterpiece, to show that they're smart and that they know about movies. For most of them, their perception about cinema and good screenwriting is not only poor, and not only they haven't seen/understood what a REALLY great masterpiece is (or maybe they've seen a couple very famous ones), but also they just don't be honest and say "ok, it was just an interesting weird film, but with some flaws/stuff that didn't make much sense". Noooo They're gonna come in IMDB, rate it with 10, and call people who didn't get it "idiots". They want to convince themselves that they saw a great movie, when deep inside, they know that it wasn't. And as I said in my above reply to the other user, a reason for that is that because they don't make real masterpieces anymore, but they (the audience) feel the need to praise something, even if it's not really great. If "Passengers" is a bad sci-fi movie, then "Arrival" must be the good one, with all its (flat) allegories and (superficial) deep meanings That's how they think.
So, we live in an era where "Nocturnal Animals" and the "Arrival" and "Ex Machina" are praised as monuments of cinematic art. Three films full of storytelling flaws. Especially "Arrival", wow And I saw "Ex Machina" just recently, and I came here and wrote a huge topic analyzing its flaws, but my Internet crashed before I posted it, and then I didn't have the courage to write it again.
We live in an era of artistic mediocrity, if not decadence. Take a look at the music they used to make in the '60s and '70s, and even the '80s and '90s, and the music now. Who was No.1 in the '60s? The Beatles. Who is No.1 now? Taylor Swift (or Katy Perry, whatever). Just a small example of the path humanity has taken.
And cinema isn't much better. Take a look at the American cinema of the '70s. Countless of great, great, GREAT directors, making GREAT movies. Without puzzling storytelling and multiple twists and all that crap. Clear movies, with clear storytelling, which were great just because they had something to say, and they had real characters, made from flesh and bones and soul. But, since Tom Ford and all the others can't make this kind of movies, becausethey just can't, they make pretentious movies like this one, trying to think complicated mind-puzzling situations, the audience bites, they come here and rate it with 10, and good cinema goes to oblivion.
