Nocturnal Animals : Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Thanks CineasteWest, it's good to know that there are others who found this film pointless.

I may gonna repeat myself, but the Texas story, as a story itself, was so cliche, and uninteresting. Another revenge story in the modern wild West. I'm so sick of seeing actors playing redneck rapists/murders, and get credit because they look so creepy and bad, and evil Taylor-Johnson's performance was so indifferent. Yeah, ok, give him credit for being a Brit and making a good Texan accent. But other than that, that character had nothing interesting on him. Nothing. He was a completely empty character. And worst of all, that character was't even "real", he didn't exist. And he won a Golden Globe...

The main (but shorter) story had material to be interesting. Like I said, the first 5 minutes of the movie really intrigued me. I felt like I was watching a modern Hitchcock movie. They could have made a really interesting erotic thriller with her being "possessed" by her old lover, and cheat on her husband, and her old lover becoming so obsessed with her and all that. Yeah, ok, things we've seen before, but they could make it interesting. And instead, we saw the boring Texas story.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

This mirrors my experience and thoughts watching the film exactly--in particular that both narratives needed to be equally compelling (or even compelling at all) and steadily becoming more disinterested as the 'revelations' fell into place. And just how many cross-fade ablutions do we need to establish parallelism?

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I liked the movie, but that opening scene seemed cruel and abusive. I kept wondering what those poor women thought about being treated like that. I did not like it at all, it seemed like mean fat shaming for the shock effect. I felt really bad for those women. There was no reason for that at all.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I didn't feel bad for them since they agreed to do it, and they got paid. Nobody forced them. But it was an awkward scene to watch.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Well all I expect from a movie is to entertain me, make me think and keep my attention. This movie did that. The story and the characters made me care. I rooted for some, felt sadness for others, loathed and feared a few and wished they were dead. I think maybe you make things too complicated.

As for the obese ladies at the beginning, I read the screenwriter explain they were supposed to represent everything disgusting that America had become. Overfed, gluttonous and disgusting. That made me mad. How would you like to be one of the ladies he exploited and be told that they represent everything that is disgusting about America. This written by a gay man that complains about how gays are treated. Bashing gay men is wrong but fat shaming obese women is art ? What a jerk.

I wonder what he would think of having a bunch of fat gay men dancing naked at the beginning of a film and the director saying that it represents everything that is disgusting about America.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Righto.

If the beginning featured obese "bears" to make such a statement, he'd likely decry the state of homophobia and offer some platitudes about "community."

Then on his gay online 'dating' profile state "No fats or fems. Just a preference."

Then he'd speak of gay people as though they were beyond reproach because they were "born that way"--as if there were something morally wrong with ANY person choosing to sleep with whatever gender or sexuality they wanted.

His use of the obese ladies in the beginning was another jab at the middle-American masses, which he tellingly views as slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards. His contempt for those who are not of his elite-liberal ilk is palpable.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


His use of the obese ladies in the beginning was another jab at the middle-American masses, which he tellingly views as slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards.

Well, if truth be told, the middle-American masses are: "slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards" - as well as obese gluttons. Your own complacent boasts about mastering basic grammar are a sign of low US standards - not high ones.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Tigerfish, why are you antagonizing me? Can you just relax and not take everything so personally, please?

I said that bit about spelling and grammar on another post, in another forum, because that's how people invalidate others' arguments, rather than dealing with the content of the argument itself. So I told you to comb my words for errors because that's right next door to the ad hominems you launch at me for God-knows-what-reason. I wasn't being complacent or boasting. Please stop mischaracterizing my words and intentions.

***

[back to the discussion]

If, as you say, middle-Americans are these disgusting blobs, then what is the point of this not-so-subtle criticism by Ford? And later, if this exhibit, and the Damien Hurst-esque Sebastian cow, and the revenge painting are slightly-more-subtle ways of indicating that art (i.e., via Edward's manuscript) have insinuated themselves into Susan's life and psyche--that Edward has actually awakened Susan to their power rather than their function as ornaments in an empty, surface existence--do we really need the low-blow jab in the first place?

'Fat-people-as-art' is just another cultural shorthand as 'nonsense Abstract-Expressionism drip paintings' used to be when symbolizing the emptiness and pretension of contemporary art.

It's actually a low-brow way of attacking high-brow pretension--which is a technique that would register to the very low-brow disgusting blobs he exploits.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


Tigerfish, why are you antagonizing me?

I recommend you pay attention to your hypersensitivity. You do some shallow speculating about the opening titles, and then attack Ford's thinking based on your facile conclusions. OTOH you take it personally and start bleating when your conclusions are challenged.
As far as I'm concerned, the titles herald what was to follow - a masquerade - while also critiquing the vacuous excesses of contemporary art - junk, as Susan describes it. I would imagine Ford is progressive politically, but the film is entirely apolitical, apart from its message that materialism leads to a dead end. Your obsession with Ford's supposed insult to middle America reminds me of Don Quixote's farcical quarrel with the windmills.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


You do some shallow speculating about the opening titles, and then attack Ford's thinking based on your facile conclusions. OTOH you take it personally and start bleating when your conclusions are challenged.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Besides, you haven't substantively challenged a single thing I've ever written; you've only offered your own opinions and tried to legitimate them by denigrating those with whom you disagree.

And considering you wrote something like this...


Well, if truth be told, the middle-American masses are: "slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards" - as well as obese gluttons. Your own complacent boasts about mastering basic grammar are a sign of low US standards - not high ones.


...are you at once conceding that Ford's is a critique of the vacuous excesses of contemporary art via disgusting fat ladies, and then in the next breath denying that he's drawing parallels between these excesses? Are you willing to shift your argument, to the point of self-contradiction...just to attack lil ol me?



"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


His use of the obese ladies in the beginning was another jab at the middle-American masses, which he tellingly views as slovenly, disgusting, stupid, and backwards. His contempt for those who are not of his elite-liberal ilk is palpable.

These are your ugly words, your ugly interpretation and your ugly projection of what Ford intended. You happen to be wrong - something which appears to happen frequently. Ford has asserted the women represent a counterfoil to Susan's obsession with appearances: joy, liberation, exultation, contentment.
Apparently, as far as you're concerned, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. Others have seen the same tendency in you - it must be tough to live with that negativity.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Yes, I read that article too. But I don't think that Ford can have it both ways. I don't think that he can use these women as a cynical comment on the vacuous excesses of contemporary art (as you and I both claim), and then at the same time uphold the subjects of this art as somehow joyful, liberating, exultant, and content. In other words, you can't really use fat people as shock value to suggest the emptiness of shock value, and then when interviewed by a women's magazine, make it out to be some all-inclusive Dove commercial. Seems like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

So you may be correct in the sense that I went too far in my criticism of Ford, but I don't think you're accurate in your Johnny-come-lately uncritical acceptance of what he claims was his intention--the "beautiful" aspect of your trust in Ford's intentions notwithstanding.

When you say that "others have seen the same [ugly] tendency in you," (the irony is real), are you speaking of those who accuse me of internalized homophobia? Or are you merely trying to bolster your argument by claiming that since others believe me to be negative, it therefore must be true? Like, when so many others view this film's central theme as revenge...viewers you refer to as village idiots.

And does being negative, and living a miserable life, invalidate in any way what I observed of Ford's usage of these models? And if it turns out that I'm not negative, and that everyone else is wrong, and that my life is quite joyous as a fat woman who gets more play than I can count on my chubby, Vienna sausage-like toes, does this mean that your argument is meaningless?

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

And why do you insist on bringing me back to comment on this mediocre and tedious film?

I like these little exchanges we have, but couldn't you attack me elsewhere for my comments on films that are actually good?

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Honestly what is there to argue over? It's not like this movie was complicated. It was a simple straight forward story told in a unique way. The only part for speculation is the ending. Why did Edward stand her up? I think it he was being spiteful.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

There's absolutely nothing to argue about. LOL

Tigerfish just responds to my posts and insults me to be spiteful. It's growing on me.

And yes, I agree with you about the film's narratives not being complicated at all. The novel Tony and Susan was really a meditation on novels (i.e., self-conscious postmodern literature) that was made into a pseudo-thriller. To this end, Edward standing her up certainly was spiteful, but a rather natural conclusion to Ford's attempt to bring the story to the screen. While some people see the end as anti-climactic and elliptical, I see it as beating a dead horse.

(Incidentally, at the end of the novel Tony and Susan, Susan contacts Edward but he never responds. Then she writes some thoughtful criticism [she's an English professor] and then throws it away, instead sending him a note which says that if he wants to meet and hear her thoughts, she's open.)

That would never play on the screen--hence the parallel symbolism and infinitely less subtle "revenge" aspect that Tom Ford injects into the story.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Which character did you relate to more- Susan or Edward? I kind of related to them both. Me having aspirations and dreams that weren't supported or having been criticised by my love ones and Susan's affluent lifestyle and pressure to fit in with her family.

Certainly all elements make a great drama I just felt that the focus on Susan's reactions to the content in the novel took too much time. Perhaps having her do something more interesting besides lying in bed alone reading. I felt it repetitive. They already established that karma of Susan was a lonely wife married to a cheating husband. Instead I was yearning for more cutscenes from Edward's novel.
Amy's acting was kind of weak as well. The emotional connection that I felt for her was from her situation and not from her dramatic acting. I get that Susan was cold and aloof woman though. The character was just boring and one dimensional.

More scenes with Edward would have really set strong empathy towards him and made the ending more satisfying since that's the direction the plot took.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I related to them both too, and saw them as more of a whole (a "marriage")--but at the same time, ultimately, I couldn't relate to either. I was a grad student at Columbia as well, and the glamorous lives they lived, and the kinds of "problems" they had, were just so out-there for me as to have a distancing effect that I just couldn't get over.

And yes, I agree that the focus on Susan just felt out of place (although this would work as being central to the novel Tony and Susan, for reasons I mentioned before.) There's something about it that just didn't translate that well onto film, especially given our automatic tendency to compare the two narratives. According to my understanding, the novelist of Tony and Susan made zero allegorical connections between Edward/Susan's marriage and the story in the manuscript--which kind of makes it more interesting to me. It becomes more about raw emotion as experienced through language than some exercise in seeing what matches up with what.

Susan's life was just so...dull. She's a sad rich girl who has everything and yet who has nothing. Boo hoo. I think the biggest mistake with this film was not making her relatable or likeable enough for us to identify with her--which would have carried with it the danger of making Edward's manuscript damaging for us. On the other hand, if he made Susan really hateful, none of us would tolerate her scenes at all. Amy Adams was maybe a bad choice for the role, and I can't tell if it's her acting that's mostly the problem or the problematic/indecisive direction.

When reading the novel, we're automatically placed in Susan's shoes by virtue of we being the ones reading Edward's manuscript; we don't have to identify with Susan (as we do when watching the film) and also endure her reactions when we might not much care for her in the first place. It's very removed in the film; Susan being cold means a cold and distanced viewer--whereas the medium of the written text bypasses that altogether and yet STILL gives us a sense of Susan as a character. The director doesn't go far enough to make us coldly examine and reflect on the self-consciousness of the film either: he wants to make it a straightforward thriller, but with some aspects of postmodern literature, and ends up doing neither well.

And for me, maybe more scenes with Tony, not necessarily Edward, would have been better. But I think Ford was careful and thoughtful in giving us a zoomed-out picture of the two (or three? Edward-Tony and Tony-Susan?) of them interacting solely through the medium of the manuscript--with the cost being, as you say, a less satisfying ending because no strong allegiances could be made towards either by the viewer.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


As for the obese ladies at the beginning, I read the screenwriter explain they were supposed to represent everything disgusting that America had become. Overfed, gluttonous and disgusting.
Did he really mean that? Maybe he meant that that was what Susan wanted to say by making these videos? Maybe there is a deleted scene where she explains this. If it's the character's point of view, it's ok, but if it's his, then he's a jerk, as you said.
Yes, those bodies were ugly, but saying that they represent the "disgusting" side of America is worst and more demeaning than many things that even Trump would say.
And yes, some people can become fat because they're gluttonous and stupid for not caring about their health, but if I'm not mistaken, it can be a biological factor. Just like being gay.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


I read the screenwriter explain they were supposed to represent everything disgusting that America had become. Overfed, gluttonous and disgusting. That made me mad.

Where did you read this? Because I heard him say exactly the opposite.
In any case, America is "overfed, gluttonous and disgusting". You don't get to be world champion in obesity without over-indulging somewhat.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

The movie is pure trash, no sense violence.

Oscar
Hablo mejor español :)

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I didn't think the movie was a masterpiece or even close to it but individual performances of Jake and Michael were impressive. I thought Amy did a good job of playing two versions of her character- young idealistic, naive and ambitious and then as older more businesslike, lonely, cynical.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Adams was good, but unfortunately she was in the wrong movie.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Why do you say that?

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Because 70-80% of the movie was that Texas story that could be a completely different movie. They could have made a good movie with only the main story, and they screwed it. And she would have a better chance to give a really good (and bigger) performance, and take an Oscar nomination. Which she would lose, as always. :p

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I think it was an okay role for Amy. The role was more of a dramatic challenge for her than the character she played in Arrival. And I felt that this movie was actually a better movie.

Why does every performance need to be award worthy? Sometimes actors (true actors) take roles that they are drawn to or can relate to. Sometimes they want a challenge or the opportunity to work with whomever in the industry: other actors or directors. Not always do they go into a role thinking that they will earn critical acclaim or the film be a blockbuster or get positive reviews.

I really don't think Amy has that much to prove. She's a solid actress. Not on the level of Streep, or old Hollywood stars like Betty Davis, Ingrid Berman, or 90s movie stars like Susan Sarandon, Nicole Kidman or any other Oscar winner. Or even among her peers like Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, Ashley Judd, Natalie Portman or Bryce Dallas Howard.

I think the important thing is to play as many different types characters. Have fun with it. Be totally committed to playing a role that is completely against type where they change their appearance. Get an acting coach. The only gripe I have about Amy is that she always looks like Amy in every movie like her red hair is her trademark or something. That's not acting in my opinion.



Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

TerryGG

Well, just like brunette actresses has brunette hair in every movie, Adams is a red hair who has red hair in every movie! Yes, it's a rare color, but it's her color! Why change it?

I agree with what you say, no (serious) actor should have to win an Oscar in mind when they accept a role, and they shouldn't get obsessed about it if years go by and they don't win one. It's just an extra thing. Oscars don't define an actor's (or a director's, a composer's, etc.) career. Hitchcock and Kubrick never won one (for directing), and Ennio Morricone never won one until last year (which was more like a "career" Oscar, which is kind of unnecessary since...they had already given him a career Oscar in 2007!).

But anyway, just like DiCaprio, Adams is in that list of actors over a certain age with lots of nominations who have never won, and this year they didn't even nominate her for neither those 2 movies (many expected her to be nominated for Leading Actress in "Arrival" and for Supporting in "Nocturnal Animals" -which is considered a jinx, rarely one wins if they're nominated two times in one year-), so there's an issue about the Academy snubbing her, that's why I made the comment.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


Well, just like brunette actresses has brunette hair in every movie, Adams is a red hair who has red hair in every movie! Yes, it's a rare color, but it's her color! Why change it?



Because that's part of acting. Not every character has the same hair color as the actor- red hair or brunette or whatever. Pick your color.
C'mon now. I feel like you're turning this into an argument. Arguments are for kids.

The bottom line is that Amy doesn't deserve a nomination this year and that is her own fault for choosing those roles. It's not the director's or writers fault. It's Amy's fault.

Better luck next time.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


C'mon now. I feel like you're turning this into an argument.

You state an opinion - a foolish one IMHO - somebody disagrees with you, and you complain they're starting an argument. See anything wrong here, Mr Passive-Aggressive?

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Sorry but I think that your opinion is foolish. To understand what I'm talking about all one has to do is look at Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchet or Tilda Swinton to see how real actresses completely get into different characters. And yet their fans still know who they are.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

And now you're arguing with me, Mr Passive-Aggressive. When will the complaints begin about me starting arguments?
As for foolish - take a look at your silly comments about Ms A's red hair, which would be the director's decision. That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on IMDB, and you have plenty of competition.
Bottom line - she's a very highly respected actor with a long list of excellent work. Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchet and Tilda Swinton have all made dreadful films in their time. Oscars are a nice treat for actors, but they're no measure of excellence - just look at who has won some of them. Why are you so obsessed with these awards?

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I feel as though I am not arguing with you. I'm just having a discussion about this movie and the actor's performance. You're the one that started name calling. I think that's very immature of you.

I get that you like Amy Adams and you have limited knowledge on what constitutes a "quality" acting performance and an actor's range. You blame the director and writer for Amy not getting a nomination when the truth of the matter is that Amy didn't have to be in this movie. She chose to be in this movie and gave us a weak performance.

So I suppose we could agree to disagree. Although my opinion is based in reality whereas yours is from ignorance.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


C'mon now. I feel like you're turning this into an argument. Arguments are for kids.
I don't try to make an argument, I just say my opinion. It's not a big deal that most of her characters have red hair. Especially since it's her hair. People like to see most actors because they're beautiful, and Amy's hair is part of her beauty.
Joaquin Phoenix has a scar on his upper lip, and he carries it in every movie he plays. Does this also bother you? Should they erase it with CGI every time? It's part of his body. Jeez...
And you know what? I think red hair was the right choice for Amy's roles in "Nocturnal Animals", "Arrival", "American Hustle", as Lois Lane, etc.. It suits those characters. Whenever there is a reason to change her hair, they do it, like in "Big Eyes", in which they made it blonde because the real character was blonde. If you just don't agree with all that, then you don't agree, end of story. No argument here.


The bottom line is that Amy doesn't deserve a nomination this year and that is her own fault for choosing those roles. It's not the director's or writers fault. It's Amy's fault.
She's a good actress. And sometimes, people give a script to a good actress, she reads it, she sees some potential in it, she agrees to shoot the movie, and the result is not very good. If you give a very good screenplay to a bad director, he'll make a bad movie.

I guess she saw some interesting elements in those scripts/projects, but, for me, they didn't turn into interesting movies. The majority seems to disagree, every critic praised "Nocturnal Animals", and "Arrival" got 8 Oscar nominations, so she thinks that she made good choices. And even "American Hustle" which was mediocre to me, it got 10 nominations. And "The Master" was a total b/s* to me, and still, it got good reviews, and 3 Oscar nominations, from which one for her.

So, I guess she thinks her career is in a good path with all these "Oscar" films, but, me personally, I really don't see any great movies in her recent filmography. It's not really her fault, since this is the "best" out there. She works with some of the "best" directors available, what else can she do?
But yes, it is true that she could make better choices. But better according to who, me and you? We're the minority, the majority says that she has a great career, so, this is how it goes.

But if you ask me, no, I think the biggest fault is the directors', not hers. Ford and Villeneuve had interesting material, they could have done two really good movies with it, and they screwed it up. Villeneuve is a good director, I liked "Sicario" and "Prisoners", and Amy liked them too, so why not play in "Arrival", she trusted him. And I repeat, although the majority says it's an awesome movie, I just don't get what was so great about it. It was really nothing, and even ridiculous in many scenes.

*Pun with "Batman vs. Superman" not intended... :p

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

In my opinion the most critically acclaimed actors have all gone outside of their typical typecast/comfort zone to win prestigious awards. And history proves it. She can certainly have a successful career as a movie star but at this rate, don't expect Amy to win a coveted SAG or Cecile. B DeMille award.

Edit: Or if Amy can successfully master playing in a biopic about a famous red head like Lucille Ball or Rita Hayworth. The Academy adores biopics when done perfectly.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


In my opinion the most critically acclaimed actors have all gone outside of their typical typecast/comfort zone to win prestigious awards.
I don't think that Adams is typecast. Sure, she's not a chameleon like Meryl Streep, but she plays different roles. She has played comedy, musicals, drama, sci-fi, blockbusters, biopics... You can't say that she doesn't have variety in her films. She just hasn't found yet that movie that will give her the big chance to really prove that she's a great actress.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Omg you are really grasping at straws or trying to prolong this convo.

Amy Adams isn't a great actress, bottom line. Maybe she will be one day when she learns how to act.

And that's it.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


And that's it.

Just another pathetic internet nobody throwing shade and hoping to convince others he knows better than professional casting directors, producers, awards committees, critics and investors - and comprehensively failing to do so. That's what it is.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Correction: I don't think that I know more than anyone in the business. What I do know is what they have said in countless interviews. Sorry that your friend lost the argument. However the truth remains that real actors-the ones that win multiple awards and establish themselves as lengends in the business- they all are chameleons (their range) because they get into character rather than never changing their appearance or type. To name a few:

1. Robert DeNiro
2. Daniel Day Lewis
3. Cate Blanchet
4. Gene Hackman
5. Al Pacino
6. Bette Davis
7. Vivian Leigh
8. Susan Sarandon
9. Nicole Kidman
10. Tom Hanks
11. Sean Penn
12. Meryl Streep
13. Halle Berry
14. Viola Davis
15. Gary Oldman
16. Lawrence Olivier
17. Sally Field
18. Natalie Portman
19. Elizabeth Taylor
20. Katherine Hepburn
21. Michelle Pfeiffer
22. Jennifer Lawrence
23. Danzel Washington
24. Angelina Jolie

And they all have played leading roles so they aren't character actor.

Do I need to list their award nominations and wins for you too?

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


Do I need to list their award nominations and wins for you too?

Sure, go ahead. Every single one, please.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

If you were an actual movie buff or film geek you wouldn't need a list. Instead you are just a common obssessed Amy Adam's fanatic. People like you creep out us normal fans.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


What I do know is what they have said in countless interviews.

Please also identify who they are - and cite every single one of those "countless interviews".

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Do your own work.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


I don't think that I know more than anyone in the business.

It's transparently clear you know next to nothing. You scoff at the decisions of professionals, draw up pointless lists like an imbecilic teenager and pontificate about the meaning of silly awards.

Instead you are just a common obssessed Amy Adam's fanatic.

Your lamentable grammar and spelling reveals your ignorance across a wide spectrum. I'm not the fan of any actor - they're simply vehicles for the screenwriter's ideas. OTOH I do have the wit to recognize talent, and when I see a jealous dullard carping at a consummate professional, I call it as I saw it.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

No, that's not it.

Because here's you, TerryGG on iMDB message boards who nobody has heard of saying with some kind of arrogant assertiveness that Amy Adams "isn't a great actress" and that she needs to "learn how to act".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Amy_Adams

And here's an entire page dedicated to listing all 136 of her nominations for acting. Including five Academy Award nominations, six BAFTA nominations, seven Golden Globe nominations, of which she has won twice, four Screen Actors Guild (who you seemed to single out as being particularly prestigious so you clearly respect their view) nominations.

But yeah, sure, you know best.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


TerryGG on iMDB message boards who nobody has heard of . . .

How can you dismiss Terry in such a cavalier manner? He's a world famous critic - no doubt IMDB is re-configuring their Amy Adams page to correspond to his negative opinion of her.
I was even more impressed with her work on second viewing of the film. I knew she was widely respected but had no idea she'd received so many plaudits

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I mean, I was already of the opinion that Amy Adams was a great actress, but I don't see how anyone could watch her in this and think of her as even remotely bad. She portrays two different versions of the same character and is believable in both. Not to mention that a lot of her scenes in the 'present' require her to simply act a lot with just her face and no dialogue and it's always very believable and clear what she's feeling. The scene where she's reading the moment Tony finds the bodies of his wife and daughter and her reaction to I think is a pretty good reflection of that and her reaction alone was powerful in and of itself.

Bizarre posts by ol' Terry.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


Bizarre posts by ol' Terry.

If you can stand a little home-spun psycho-analysis, I suspect the venom directed at Adams is transference from the character she plays. Like many of us, Susan behaved poorly when she was younger, but she's clearly reflected on her actions in the interim. In the film we see how she judges herself fairly harshly and openly admits regret to her assistant.
I feel the hate directed at this character is inappropriate. Various posters have asserted she has been irrevocably 'crushed and destroyed' by Edward's dinner no-show, and that Susan's inescapable destiny is to spend her declining years in solitude and misery. It's disturbing how many drool with vindictive pleasure over this prospect. I think these sentiments are a reflection of our deeply misogynistic society.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

I think she's a decent actress too. I first saw her in Junebug (which I highly recommend) and can recall her in that movie with Christian Bale (I'm forgetting the title) and most recently this--all of which demonstrated her ability to play a range of roles with depth and nuance convincingly (perhaps least of all in Nocturnal Animals, though).

But there's something about her in this movie that just didn't sit right with me. I don't mind her trademark appearance (though I can see how that affects how viewers can 'allow' her to fit certain roles in their minds)--but I wonder how someone like, say, Nicole Kidman would have been received.

If Kidman were in this role, I think all allegiances would have gone to Edward straight away--but maybe that would have been an even worse decision. Amy has something more approachable about her; it's perhaps that she's less glamorous per se that allows us to be ambivalent about whether we like her character or not.

By the way, by way of comparison, Nicole Kidman is incredible in Birth. If you want to check that out and maybe compare the two roles, let me know what you think.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.


If Kidman were in this role, I think all allegiances would have gone to Edward straight away--but maybe that would have been an even worse decision. Amy has something more approachable about her; it's perhaps that she's less glamorous per se that allows us to be ambivalent about whether we like her character or not.

By the way, by way of comparison, Nicole Kidman is incredible in Birth. If you want to check that out and maybe compare the two roles, let me know what you think.


Nicole is one of my favorite actresses! She is so talented. I have been a huge fan of Nicole Kidman since she starred in Dead Calm. I am so confident in her skill set that I would go see her in a movie if she played a homeless woman.
I think that Nicole's range could play any type of character and be convincing including as Susan.

That said, I have seen Birth. It's an okay film, not my favorite of hers.

Re: Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

Birth gets lots of mixed reviews, and I'm in the camp that loves it. Glazer came pretty far from his days directing music videos, and I thoroughly enjoyed Sexy Beast and Birth (although I wish they had left it more ambiguous at the ending) and Under the Skin (which I consider a masterpiece.) That close-up scene of her at the opera was absolutely riveting.

I bring up Kidman because in a sense, her character in Birth and Susan in Nocturnal Animals are somewhat similar (socioeconomically, both in stifling circumstances given their stations/choices in life and dealing with some wildly out-of-the-ordinary situation) but Kidman, I feel, has so much more depth in that role and elicits far more empathy. Again, maybe it's the point that we're not supposed to feel all that sympathetic towards Susan, but I just thought the comparison might help us evaluate Amy Adams' performance.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.
Top