Artivels Undescribable Perfection

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

seymourblack-1 An L.A. art gallery owner who's beautiful, affluent and seemingly successful is surprised to find herself miserable, disillusioned and unfulfilled. Intriguingly, about this time, she receives the manuscript of her ex-husband's debut novel and when she reads it and recognises its metaphorical nature, becomes consumed by feelings of guilt, regret and the desire to meet up again with the man who was her first crush.Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) and Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal) had fallen in love as students in New York and the idealistic couple later married despite the opposition of Susan's mother who considered Edward to be unsuitable because he lacked the necessary ambition and drive to be a good provider. Susan, at this time, detested her mother's preoccupation with materialism but later in the marriage, became frustrated at Edward's lack of success as a novelist and broke up their relationship because she considered him to be too weak and not a very good writer.Edward's novel is a revenge thriller about a family of three who are driving along a West Texas highway at night when they get terrorized by a gang of vicious thugs, two of whom, kidnap Tony Hastings' (Jake Gyllenhaal) wife Laura (Isla Fisher) and teenage daughter India (Ellie Bamber), while the third gang member takes Tony to a remote spot in the desert where he leaves him stranded. Later, local detective Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon) is assigned to the case and together the two men eventually discover the bodies of Laura and India who had both been raped and murdered. Tony, who is portrayed as a rather weak man, becomes obsessed with the need to wreak vengeance on all the gang members and with Andes' assistance, does so very effectively.As she's reading, Susan reflects on the cruel way in which she ended her first marriage by cheating on Edward and secretly having an abortion when she was carrying his child. She also recalls him saying that "when you love someone, you work it out. Don't just throw it away. You have to be careful with it. You may never get it again". In the years since their divorce, she has learned that those words were true and that her choice of opting for materialism over love was misguided. She also recalls him saying, after she'd been denigrating his work, that "nobody writes about anything but themselves". This makes his story about a man who was driven to revenge following the loss of the woman and child that he loved even more poignant and moves her to respond positively to his suggestion that they meet up to discuss his book. This reconciliation, however, doesn't materialise in the way that she had expected it might.Based on Austin Wright's 1993 novel "Tony and Susan", this absorbing psychological drama is incredibly stylish, well paced and a visual treat. The ways in which the action slips back and forth between different periods of Susan's relationship with Edward and the events described in his novel are also masterfully done so that the coherence of the whole story and its natural momentum are beautifully maintained throughout.The entire production is well acted with Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal faultless in their lead roles and Michael Shannon and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (as the leader of the thugs in Edward's book) providing very strong supporting performances. There's also a wonderful cameo featuring Laura Linney as Susan's mother which makes an incredible impact, especially considering its very short duration.

international367 The opening credits feature some morbidly obese women dancing naked and it's enough to make you vomit. And I see not point why this is in the picture. The rest of movie is a study in strong violence and language, so if you like lots of "f" words and brutal violence, then this is the movie for you. And then they throw in some Evangelical Christian bashing directed it at Laura Linney's character and once again there is no point for this being in the movie at all. I think they tried to make a shocker like Silence Lambs or Blue Velvet, but it just didn't work for me.

brianr-14799 The good first. The movie did a very good job in slowly ramping up the tension and unease in the scene where some crazy men accost a family attempting a late night voyage on a mostly deserted road. Yet, you could see that in so many other movies.So its originality you're looking for? Nocturnal Animals strives in earnest to find originality. Therefore, for the first five minutes or so of the film during the opening credits, we are treated to two morbidly obese women shaking around butt naked in slow motion. Sorry to comment on their figure, but they were obviously chosen for that exact purpose, to be sensational. And then that scene really carried no meaning further into the film, other than to establish that our heroine and her husband worked with an art gallery.The slomo cellulite dance is never revisited, thank goodness, but the film ended leaving me with the same sense of "um, why?" that it began with. Although not hopelessly vague, I suspect less people would understand what point the movie is trying to make if there wasnt a sentence or two describing the plot of the film that people can read before choosing to watch it. And then even knowing what is supposed to be happening here - women regrets past mistakes and begins to wonder if the scary book her ex husband wrote is a veiled threat - is not rewarded with much of a conclusion.Jake Gyllenhaal's character(s) in the film also came across as... somehow not right for Jake Gyllenhaal. Dialogue marks him as a peceivably "weak" man yet the camera titillates over his muscular body; just a small example of the casting paradox that is also felt in other ways I can't describe. It feels like he is forcing himself into a role not written for him. Amy was alright playing the rich mopey girl, but not enough to call the performance exceptional. I give this a 4 because it didn't suck so much as to make me hate the film - I did sit through the entire thing after all. I just feel it deserves considerably less than the average rating. Tom Ford can make a good film, no doubt - so watch A Single Man instead. This one's more of a hollow art piece, for people who think wine tastes better when its in a fancier bottle.

Neil Welch Susan, despite her art gallery business, is an unhappy woman in an unhappy second marriage. Then Edward, her first husband, sends her the manuscript of his forthcoming novel - a tale of a family who fall foul of three intimidating young men on a remote Texas highway - and she is soon tied up in the narrative and its parallels with her life.I don't normally have much time for art-house films, and this is clearly an art-house film. But it tells two stories, and tells both of them brilliantly. The events of the novel are delivered as a suspense thriller, and are cross-edited with Susan's story and experience of reading the manuscript. The editing is superb: it is as artistic, in its own way, as the film itself, where sound and image are carefully considered and crafted throughout.The crime thriller aspect is a story we have probably seen before, but we care - as does Susan - about its resolution. I found myself caring less about Susan's own story, the "real" story, if you will, although this gradually changed as the parallels between Edward's novel and his marriage to Susan became clearer. And this was not least due to the brilliant stroke of having Jake Gyllenhaal play both Edward and the protagonist of his novel.The performances are first class. Gyllenhaal, in particular, impresses enormously in both roles, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as chief tough is unrecognisable.It is rare to see a film which is so obviously an art-house film but which also entertains and impresses as a mainstream piece of cinema, but Nocturnal Animals manages it, and I recommend it accordingly.