Brilliant Movie, but lacks subtlety. Nocturnal Animals is one of those movies that divides opinions. Very few people will be neutral about it, most will either love it or hate it.
Lets start the review by commenting on the direction: It was brilliant. I didn't know about this director but i think it is safe to say that this script could have been a disaster in the wrong hands. The art direction is very slick and haunting. At first, i thought i was watching a horror/thriller.
The soundtrack is also great and it fits in like a glove.
Technically speaking, we have a solid picture, i think even the critics would agree with that.
The Plot: An art gallery owner receives a copy of a book written by her ex-husband. The book is dedicated to her. At the point when she receives the book, Susan seems to be having a mild existential crisis. As the movie progresses we see a parallel between the book and Susan's and Edward's past.
In the book, a man named Tony is attacked on the road by a group of local criminals who end up killing his wife and child and leaving him in the desert. In real Life, Susan had broken up their marriage after feeling that their relationship lacked things she seemed to need. The movie emphasizes that Edward felt like Susan perceived their relationship as unsatisfactory, even though she loved him.
Having never been able to get over their separation, and perceiving the end as a brutal experience, the book reflects Edward's perspective on the end of their marriage.
The criminals in the book, The Nocturnal Animals, are a grotesque caricature of Susan, whom Edward used to call a Nocturnal Animal as well. Their reckless, ruthless and sadistic actions seemed to represent how Edward felt about the way how Susan dealt with the end of their relationship. His wife and daughter in the book seemed to represent their marriage, their love and their unborn child, whom Susan aborted shortly after meeting her current husband. In the novel, we also have two characters trying to enact justice; Tony and Detective Bobby. Both of these characters Seemed to represent Edward. While Tony seems emotional and passive, Bobby is brutal, cold and effective, almost like an alter-ego, someone Tony needs in order to achieve his revenge. At every step of the way Bobby seems to encourage and drive Tony towards his goal of having justice for his family. By doing this, Bobby prevents Tony from moving on with his life and letting go of the anger and sadness that plagues him. A Dying man, Bobby says many times that he has nothing to lose and that he doesn't care about the repercussion of his actions.
At the end of the novel, Tony achieves his revenge but is hurt during a struggle and ends up accidentally shooting himself in the stomach, this causes him to die in the desert alone. In real life, Susan, who has had her love for Edward slightly re-kindled with constant memories of their past together, is invited by him for an amicable meeting in the form of a dinner on a tuesday night.
In the final scene of the movie, real life seems to imitate fiction as Edward has his revenge on Susan by not showing up to their dinner reunion. Much like the character in his novel, real life Edward achieves his goals by not letting go of his hurt and possibly at the cost of true happiness.
It is a movie about heart break and its themes are universal.
Having praised the good parts, lets mention the biggest movie flaw: The character of Susan.
Even with a masterful and subtle portrayal by actress Amy Adams, this is the only aspect in which the movie falls short. While you can clearly see the screenwriter or the author of the novel in Edward and all of his alter egos, there is also too much of him on Susan as well. The Character seems submissive, tame, and overly repentful for no reason at all.
Even though she emphasizes how long she hasn't spoken to Edward for, Susan seems way more remorseful than she should be if we were talking about a real person. Many times she says she has done brutal, unexcusable things to her poor ex-husband and that he should never forgive her.
Being a highly successful gallery owner she seems to question her life choices and everything she has done since breaking up with poor Edward, to the point where she seems almost guilty about her success because of her betrayal.
The symbolism in this movie is very explicit, that is OK for the most part. The overly repentant approach to the character of Susan, however, gives light to the redemption fantasies of the author/screenwriter in a way that should have been invisible. This causes the character to behave in a very unrealistic/submissive way.
This a big flaw for which im taking two points from my review.
I have seen at least one review on this site in which the author called the movie mysoginistic and i have to say i understand where the author in question is coming from.
For a movie that was executed in such a masterful way, with good acting and direction, this lack of subtlety is unexcusable.
Overall i think Nocturnal Animals is definitely one of the best movies of 2016 and i highly recommend it.