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.

But still the idea of him having cancer if we look at it literally then it will also mean he is blind in real life because in the inner story he was blind as well.
I think it's easy to see how the 'blindness' symbolism translates into Edward's real life. Initially he was blind to Susan's romantic interest in him - later to her insecurities, her infidelity, her abortion, as well as his own shortcomings, both as a husband and writer. With good reason, blindness is a pretty common metaphor for the human condition.
I wish it was according to your theory but I don't think Ford meant it to be that way.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

allegory about Edward's grief at their divorce.
Exactly allegory is perfect way to put it. I agree also if we take the abortion out of the story like in the original source revenge is completely out of the picture. But still the idea of him having cancer if we look at it literally then it will also mean he is blind in real life because in the inner story he was blind as well. If he was blind in the book as a reflection of his current state in real life how can he write those text message to Susan. I think his story means nothing more than metaphors of his relationship with Susan. I wish it was according to your theory but I don't think Ford meant it to be that way. Yeah it could have been done better. The inner story could use more depth. It could be more cryptic and convoluted like Memento where he leaves messages for his future self like how Edward used metaphors to leave a trail of clues about the journey of their relationship for his reason for not showing up. But it's not. Edward no-show or current state is not really a Da Vinci Code that needs to be cracked.

But I think he meant (revenge) for the inner story not the outer story. But what the outer mean is more like a revenge through metaphors or poisoning through a pun.
IMO there's zero element of revenge in the outer story. At one point Susan suspects there's some kind of threatening intent contained in the novel, but by the time she's agreed to the dinner meeting, she's realized it's an allegory about Edward's grief at their divorce. Sitting in the restaurant, she understands it also sends a message about his imminent death from cancer.
As others have also pointed out, the idea of Edward seeking revenge through his dinner no-show is pathetically juvenile. The concept of him making peace with her before dying is mature, beautiful and backed up by plot elements in the novel. That's a story worth telling - it could have been done better though.

I don't think Nocturnal Animals is a masterpiece, but I do think it's much deeper than a simple revenge story.
As I've mentioned in my previous post one interviewer concluded why Edward didn't turn up was because of revenge. And you get that wounded face from Ford. It's not literal revenge he said it was more like Edward was using that visceral feeling and turn it to make a powerful novel.
As far as being a masterpiece I don't think so. I wish Ford had tweak the inner story like he did with the outer story.
Edit:
I must've misheard him. The interviewer mentioned revenge was at the heart of the film. Ford said yes it was literal revenge. But I think he meant for the inner story not the outer story. But what the outer mean is more like a revenge through metaphors or poisoning through a pun. When we talked about the language of revenge there are different types there are literal and there are figurative. Violent and non-violent. Like a sports team talking about a payback to avenge a loss to a rival team. Some revenge are crafty but fatal. Like poison being the women's choice of weapon. In this case since Edward is 'weak' his weapon of choice may not be through physical contact but rather revenge through art. But I rather think he used that visceral feeling of revenge to craft a novel. That was what Ford said.
but revenge is literally the painting in the film. In case someone is not figuring it out. But revenge is Susan's regret. It make her look back "Oh this is what I did to you and I'm sorry"
When he said in case someone is not figuring it out that is him saying obviously. I take it he purposefully put the revenge painting there so that audience won't get lost trying to figure out the meaning of all those symbolism. When people said he failed to communicate the message to the audience I think he just did. He communicate it through art. I'm afraid it is really as simple as that. And the tagline "hold on to someone you love" is really a no brainer. However the style of filming isn't really a novelty as you mentioned it Wild at Heart already did that. So it is not really a masterpiece at all far from it. Hey it's only been what like his second film I'll cut him some slack. Given the fact that the original source wasn't that much to work on. The writing is a bit daft and odd at times. For example:
When that young Susan on Edward's bed saw Arnold Morrow's alarming penis suddenly come into view with swollen purpose, she heard a gong in her head. She heard another soon after, when she decided to let it in.
I don't see how can it be a masterpiece or end up as a classic given the fact that the characters seemed to be one-dimensional. Bobby Andes was just looking to capped some delinquents. I don't hold any particular fondness toward Susan's ordinary suburban lifestyle. Seems like a boring and uninteresting group of people.

I haven't watch Wild at Heart. If it's Willem Dafoe then I'll definitely must put it on my must-watch list.
Dafoe's performance in Wild At Heart is riveting. Although the film isn't my favorite Lynch, I'd still give it a 9.5 rating, along with Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Inland Empire etc. IMO only Mulholland Drive earns the 10 - every frame and line is perfect in that one.
FWIW I don't think Nocturnal Animals is a masterpiece, but I do think it's much deeper than a simple revenge story. It seems Ford saw the potential in an undistinguished messy novel and turned it into something much more profound. Personally I would have admired it more if the novel's abduction and revenge sequence had become more nuanced and mysterious.

I haven't watch Wild at Heart. If it's Willem Dafoe then I'll definitely must put it on my must-watch list. Usually a cryptic movie like this requires me to relate with other movies like the great gatsby or revolutionary road or inception in order for me to get similar feelings. Unless I've been through similar trials like the director or author have been through I won't know what they feel or how to relate to them as Ford pointed alot of the movie is actually autobiographical about him. So I don't know. I never been a successful fashion designer cum director I don't go through similar trials as him.
Regarding the metaphors in the movie for me it's like a narration by iconography because the images somehow open up all wound in Susan. You can't have Susan narrating like Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby about the book. That would be awkward. That's why we have her traversing around the gallery and musing on the art around her house mulling about her past.
That's why it's different from the actual book because Austin Wright using different prose for Susan and for Tony. Some people may say it's rubbish prose but actually I think it's intentional to reflect different perspectives from different characters. And Tom Ford prohibited his actors from reading the original source because they deviate too far because the movie stands on its own. But he did encourage people to read the original book.

David Lynch did the something similar with Barry Gifford's Wild At Heart
LOL

Why did Ford throw all this symbolism in there . . ?
David Lynch did the something similar with Barry Gifford's Wild At Heart - which is particularly interesting since several posters have seen strong comparisons between the two films' Bobby Peru and Bobby Andes.

The 70's are probably my favourite decade of film too, but let's not put it on such a ridiculously high pedestal. Sure, there were a ton of masterpieces (although many of those now considered classics were ripped apart by critics and audiences as much as you are doing with Nocturnal Animals).
I'm aware of that. But the difference is that nobody is gonna remember "Nocturnal Animals", in, say, 5 years.
Man, of course there was garbage in EVERY decade. There was a ton of garbage in the '50s, and lots of mediocre boring films in the '40s and earlier. But my point was, look at the (big) movies they were making in the '70s, and look now. Godfather, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Deliverance, Serpico, The Deer Hunter, Close Encounters, Clockwork Orange I can't even go on throwing titles, it could go forever. And I just mentioned a few of the REALLY famous ones, there are so many other masterpieces that didn't get much attention. Like Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia, Bobby Deerfield The list is endless NOTHING today can compare with them. The best movie today is like a fingernail of one good movie from the '70s.
And if you think I'm just picking on the low budget crap, don't forget this was also the decade Hitchcock made Topaz, Scorsese made Boxcar Bertha, Spielberg made 1941, Hopper made The Last Movie, and so on. No one was completely safe.
"Topaz" was from 1969 actually. Yeah, ok, Hitch made one mediocre movie after 4 decades of great movies, give him a break!
"Boxcar Bertha" was a fine movie! It's not a masterpiece, but it's interesting, especially if you see it now and see how Scorsese's filmography has evolved.
"1941", yeah, it was Spielberg's weakest (until he made "BFG"), and sure, "The Last Movie" is a mess, but at least, even in not good movies from back then, you good see some "authenticity", it was the '70s, drugs and all that To say it otherwise, a mediocre film from the '70s is much more interesting than a mediocre film from the 2010s.
You said films in the 70's were without "puzzling storytelling and multiple twists" but man, that sounds like you haven't seen many 70's films at all! Even the most famous ones were often so artsy and obtuse and puzzling that they can be a chore to sit through.
Trust me, I've seen a lot of films, not only from the '70s, but fromforever. I have seen 10,000-15,000 films in my life.
I was referring to the great and known ones, like the ones I mentioned. All o them had "clear" storytelling (except "Clockwork Orange"). None of them had a mind-puzzling screenplay like "Interstellar" or "Inception". What I want to say is that today's cinema tries to impress us with complicated storylines. And that's because they're unable to impress us with normal, plain, well-written storylines. I said above that "Nocturnal Animals" could be a perfect modern Hitchcokian thriller, if it had a linear story. But instead, it chose to be another movie for which people will make an "ending explained" video on You Tube. It seems like for every fking movie now, there is a 10-20-60 minutes "ending explained" video on You Tube. Like, suddenly, after 120 years of cinema, the world is full of philosophical genius masterminds directing movies. They refer to Nolan like he's some kind of deity from another planet, and for me, he has made some of the worst movies I've ever seen. "Interstellar" and "Dark Knight 3", fro example. These 2 were quite unbearable to watch, because I didn't feel like I was watching a honest film, I felt like he was trying soooo hard to make an intelligent screenplay that is gonna impress everyone. When I see a movie in which I can clearly see that the director's first (and probably only) intention is to impress us by how smart he is, I give up on it.
I'm curious though, can you name me 5 (or less) films from the '70s that did have this puzzling/twists intentions? And please don't tell me something like "Murder by Death", because if yes, then I guess you don't understand what I'm saying.
I guess my point isthere are always great movies, and always bad movies, and always will be.
Yes. But the good were better before, and the bad are worst now.
Back in the '90s, I used to write down every movie I was watching, and I was rating them from 1 to 5 stars, and at the end of the year, I was making a list with the best of them. And every year I had at least 3-4 movies rated with 5 stars.
I have not rated any movie with 5 stars (or 10, in IMDB) at least the last 5 years. Actually, the only movies I remember now that I rated with 10 stars from 2000 and after, were "The New World" and "Toy Story 3". And if I was alive back in the '70s, or the '60s? I would rate with 10 stars a movie every month
I don't know what kind of music you like, but I guess that you'll agree that music back in the '60s-'70s was amazing, and now it's st (and ok, don't tell me about 4-5 bands you like, I mean IN GENERAL!). Back then, the top names were the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, etc., etc

Howdy Dreamcatcher:
I agree with almost everything you said in your first post. It's been a long time since a film angered me, and this one accomplished that by being the most beautifully made pointless story I've seen in quite some time.
However, there's a couple things you've said I want to address:
The 70's are probably my favourite decade of film too, but let's not put it on such a ridiculously high pedestal. Sure, there were a ton of masterpieces (although many of those now considered classics were ripped apart by critics and audiences as much as you are doing with Nocturnal Animals). But there were also a LOT of total crap. That was the decade that brought us Empire of the Ants and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and Old Boyfriends and Lovers & Liars and Frogs and backward reeleth the mind.
And if you think I'm just picking on the low budget crap, don't forget this was also the decade Hitchcock made Topaz, Scorsese made Boxcar Bertha, Spielberg made 1941, Hopper made The Last Movie, and so on. No one was completely safe.
You said films in the 70's were without "puzzling storytelling and multiple twists" but man, that sounds like you haven't seen many 70's films at all! Even the most famous ones were often so artsy and obtuse and puzzling that they can be a chore to sit through.
I guess my point isthere are always great movies, and always bad movies, and always will be. 2016 is probably the worst year for quality films I can recall. But that's not to say it was entirely without merit. Despite your claims, I thought Arrival was a pretty wonderful flick. The little-seen rotoscoped documentary Tower is absolutely fantastic (check it out if you can). Eye in the Sky, Red Turtle, Neon Demon, and even Captain America Civil War were all awesome flicks. Far from perfect, and of course don't compare to some 70's flicks like Jaws or Godfather but then, hey, how many movies do?
I don't think flicks like Arrival, Nocturnal, and Ex Machina are being praised as "cinematic art" so much as really good movies (except stupid-ass Nocturnal) in a time where many people often don't see really good new movies. There's masterpieces coming out every year, but you usually have to get to a film festival to see them. In terms of mass-produced Hollywood movies, yeah, this is a pretty rough time.
But shouldn't that mean it's a GOOD thing when people see some small movie like Ex Machina or a big risk like Arrival and really dig it? Perhaps if someone enjoys them so much, they'll take the risk and go watch something like Last Year at Marienbad (which, by the way, was not a well loved film upon it's release, and was entered in a book called The Fifty Worst Films of All Time in 1978).
Trust me, there were MANY smart people in the 70's calling it a time of "artistic mediocrity and decadence". Perhaps 50 years from now Nocturnal Animals will be praised as a masterpiece and 2016 a wonderful year for art. Perhaps in 50 years Nocturnal will be completely forgotten as the pretty-looking tripe I think it is and 2016 looked back on as a pathetic time to go to the movies. Who knows.
But let's not discourage too much, eh?

I understand where you coming from because I myself not a big fan of melancholic and morose style of movie like ex machina. So depressing. But I will try my best to explain why people like this movie. You already took the trouble of writing so much might as well I return the favor. When you watch nocturnal animals the feeling is a combination of birdman, the great gatsby and revolutionary road. When I say birdman it's in terms of cinematography, when I say great gatsby maybe I mean the ending is kinda tragic and when I say revolutionary road maybe it had to do with melodramatic and abortion.
Why some people who don't get it will say that it's style over substance but in fact the opposite. As a director the challenge is to try transfer the story from a book to a film but the meaning of a word is subjective and to transform metaphors to reality is hard. That's why Ford uses symbols to relate the inner story to the outer story. That's why in Austin Wright's novel there's no symbolism whatsoever reflected in Edward writings. Instead of substance over style it's style emphasizing substance. Some people may misread the signals to construed it as clues why he didn't show up. No. Ford style as he pointed out is that he is intuitive meaning whatever he do is a result of his subconscious mind. The movie is autobiographical same like how Edward always write about himself. Edward subconsciously relate the green GTO, the red sofa, the gold chain, blinded eyes shot in the gut etc etc to relate to his relationship with Susan. It's actually a subconscious reflection of Edward. Alot of the outer story is change. Like how Susan is too cynical to become an artist. That's actually Ford. He said that directing the movie is the closest thing he will get to be an artist. I think when people say it's a masterpiece it's not the movie as a whole is a masterpiece. Maybe just the style of cinematography is masterpiece. That word gets thrown alot but maybe it just means ingenious. Like the single continuous shot in Birdman movie or like the inception that used different color palette to distinguish different level of dream world.
And about the ending one interviewer concluded why Edward didn't turn up was because of revenge. And you get that wounded face from Ford. It's not literal revenge he said it was more like Edward was using that visceral feeling and turn it to make a novel. That's why he didn't showed up because he didn't want to ruin it. Yeah you get the ending I was telling you in previous post right?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

And the worst part is when one comes out there are people who complain about them because 'they don't get them' or they use the word 'pretentious' when in fact they just don't get them.

I like intellectual films that are artistically pulled off. There are so few intellectual films being made anymore, and yet they used to be fairly commonplace. Sad.

It was artsy and intellectual

This message has been deleted.

His arm must be tired from jerking off Tom Ford so hard

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.

So says the person who can't stop reading what I write.
Talk about obsession?
You believe this is just an ok film and yet you keep coming back to see what I wrote next.
Hilarious.