User Reviews (868)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Hello, dear reader - if by some miraculous coincidence you stumbled upon this review, hidden among others.

    This will actually be more of an analysis. Two friends had me explain WHAT THIS FILM WAS EVEN ABOUT when they saw I liked it on Facebook. I've also noticed that - as with many art-house movies -- reviews vary from "A masterpiece!" to "This is about NOTHING". I understand - a lot of films I myself don't get at all or I don't think they deserve the hype. "Nocturnal Animals" I get pretty well though, and I can tell you for sure it's not about nothing. So I'll share my thoughts.

    Spoilers ahead, read after you've watched the film.

    1. Who is Susan?

    This movie is best to watch putting yourself in Susan's shoes. You don't have to like her, but you have to understand her. That's especially important when it comes to analyzing Edward's book, since it's obvious that the events from the book that we see on-screen are filtered through her mind. We get drawn into the fictional world when she starts reading and come back whenever she stops.

    So, who is she? For me Susan is, first and foremost, a person who doesn't fit anywhere.

    She's pragmatic and cynical, and she knows it. She doesn't like it about herself though; rather she's resigned to accept it. So when as a grad student she bumps into Edward - her brother's childhood friend and her teenage crush -- who infectiously believes she can be more than that, she falls into his arms.

    One manifestation of what she escapes is the story of her brother. He's gay; their parents have practically disowned him; Susan hates them for it. She tells Edward that her brother once had a crush on him - his reaction: "I should call him more often". His different, soft, human approach is what draws her to him.

    On the other side stands Susan's mother. She's stern and dogmatic but she loves her child. She immediately knows that Susan and Edward aren't right for each other. She warns her daughter that "We all eventually turn into our mothers", and that when Susan's organized nature starts showing, she'll hurt Edward.

    Later it turns out she was right. Edward insists writing is his calling, but he isn't any good. Susan eventually stops believing in him. She needs stabilization. She leaves him for another man, Edward's complete opposite. She aborts Edward's child.

    But then it turns out she suffocates in her new neat life, too. Her only constant: she doesn't fit. Whomever she's with, she suffers from insomnia (the "nocturnal animal", Edward once called her).

    These are the opposites Susan fluctuates between: chaos and order; Edward's softness and pragmatism that runs in her blood.

    2. The book. What does Edward say to Susan? However Susan understands the book is indicative of what she thinks Edward wants to communicate with it. So it hints at what happened between them in the past, a lot earlier than the film actually spells it out. Prepare to watch Susan's reactions and then put the puzzles together through her flashbacks.

    Only after seeing the end do you realize what game Edward was playing all along.

    He gave the book a title that was their private joke, then dedicated it to Susan. She knew the book was about him -- he'd never stopped "writing about himself" when they were together. (That's why she saw Tony as Edward and why Gyllenhaal played both roles).

    Edward knew Susan felt guilty for what she's done. For a long time after she must have identified Tony's family harassers as the eponymous animals - her counterparts in the book - he kept her uncertain of their intentions. Will they hurt the family? Will they leave them alone? Finally, they killed them, as Susan destroyed her and Edward's relationship and aborted their child. Edward portrayed Tony's grief, letting Susan know: "Here's what you did to me". Then he expanded on Ray Marcus -- a mindless psychopath -- sending the message: "Here's what you are to me now". Finally, Tony kills Ray and dies himself, which means: "Writing this killed me, but at least now you're dead too".

    Edward's revenge might seem childish. But it shows what power those once-close hold over each other. Edward doesn't have to spell it all out to Susan. She knows she hurt him once and he knows that she knows. He knows that what gives her some peace is the thought that perhaps, with time, he forgave her, or at least understood. He takes that comfort from her.

    What did Susan do? She left a man she wasn't compatible with. She aborted a baby she didn't want. Whatever your personal opinion of it is doesn't matter; that's not the point. The point is that such things people live with. But Susan now has to live with more than that: the knowledge that she made a person she once loved suffer for the next 20 years. Suffer enough to regret his own softness and humanity (Tony's qualities that made the murder possible). Enough to turn into a man she didn't recognize anymore and to write a book just to make her suffer in turn.

    3. The ending.

    I've seen people write THERE IS NO ENDING AT ALL.

    What happens in the end is this: Edward and Susan arrange for a dinner to discuss the book; she comes and waits; he never appears.

    It might seem anti-climatic; but if you were in Susan's place, I guarantee you wouldn't say so. She realizes she'll never be absolved; that the worst possible interpretation of Edward's book was the intended one; that this story will soon be published. Maybe become a bestseller. Her past has caught up with her.

    Thank you for reading and have a great day :)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In Nocturnal Animals, writer and director Tom Ford uses analogy to devastating effect in order to explore the psychological devastation wrought upon a man who has lost the love of the woman he loves. Not only is the pain of the man - whom we only meet in flashback and through his ex-wife's visual interpretation of his latest novel - laid bare in a way that transcends the conventional use of flashback, but Ford also manages to expose the woman's callow thoughtlessness without turning her into the irredeemable villain of the piece. The movie possesses a gorgeous elegance of style and a visceral power throughout - and the payoff is sublime.
  • jack-blair18 October 2018
    You have to watch this movie without thinking it's going to follow a stereo typical Hollywood pattern. It that really has a darkened effect on the audience and Ford has done an excellent job at attacking the mind
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I think IMDb doesn't give a good synopsis for Nocturnal Animals. So I'm going to give it a shot. A lot of people were disappointed with the ending, but you have to think about it for awhile to realize it's a sort of poetic/philosophical movie. The whole time everyone's telling Edward he's weak and sensitive. So he writes a book for his ex wife. In the book his wife and daughter are murdered by these terrible hooligans and the whole time he's trying to get revenge. He does and then immediately dies. Because of how well the book is written, his ex wife starts getting feelings for him again and reaches out to meet him. He stands her up and it ends. That's the movie. Sounds average. But break it down. The book is him getting stronger; it's not his wife and daughter getting murdered, it's Edward's weakness dying and his ex wife would be the murderers giving him reasons to get stronger. In the book, he spends time mourning and fantasizing about revenge. He finally gets his revenge and accidentally kills himself. How perfect is that? A part of Edward had to die to get over his ex and he wanted her to know. Now she finally wants him again and he's orchestrated this entire book/plan to just stand her up and prove that she's the weak one. Kind of a lot to process and maybe sounds cheesy, but I thought it was a good time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • Nocturnal Animals (2016)

    *** 1/2 (out of 4)

    Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is a famous artist who suffers from insomnia but soon her past is about to haunt her. One day she receives a novel from her ex-husband and as she begins to read it she sees it at his attempt at revenge for what she did to him.

    NOCTURNAL ANIMALS comes from writer-director Tom Ford and it's certainly going to be a film that people are going to love or hate. There's quite a bit going on in this thriller as there are several story lines going on at the same time and it's never quite clear what exactly is going on. Throughout the movie we see Adams' character reading this novel and as she reads it we see a second story dealing with a man (Jake Gyllenhaal), his wife and their young daughter who are driven off the road by three men. Soon the man is separated and must try to find out what happened to them with the help of a detective (Michael Shannon).

    Is this backstory telling what happened between the artist and her ex-husband? Or is there more to it? As all of this is going on we also catch the story of how the two met and what caused them to be married. All of this stuff is held together so perfectly that you almost feel that if one single item was out of place or didn't fit in the end then the entire story would fall apart. The screenplay is an extremely smart one that perfectly goes back and forth between the stories and thankfully the viewer never gets lost. Even better is the fact that the story dealing with the husband and his family is extremely intense and really packs a punch.

    The film also has a terrific cast and this certainly helps everything. Adams has several different emotions to play and she once again delivers a very good performance. Gyllenhaal turns in one of the best performances of his career as the rather weak husband who never seems to do the right thing. I really enjoyed the weakness that the actor played as well as the rage as the film went along. Then there's Michael Shannon who once again delivers a masterful performance as the detective with nothing to lose. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Laura Linney and Michael Sheen are also good in their bit parts.

    As I said, I'm sure many people are going to watch this and hate everything that happens and especially the ending. I really think this is a wonderful intelligent little gem that certainly makes you think and leaves you wondering long after it is over.
  • Susan Morrow is a successful gallery owner. She is married to businessman Hutton Morrow, who is constantly travelling. She receives a manuscript of a novel, Nocturnal Animals, written by her first husband, Edward Sheffield. The gritty content of the novel strikes a chord with Susan and she starts to remember the times she and Edward had together. While this draws her closer to him, there are unresolved issues between the two.

    Intriguing movie that operates on two levels. There's the relationship drama involving Susan and Edward and the crime drama in the novel. The novel becomes the story-within-a-story, with, cleverly, Jake Gyllenhaal as the link between the two. Having Amy Adams play Susan and Isla Fisher the lead female character in the dramatisation of the novel is also a masterstroke, due to them looking so alike. (I only realised that it was Isla Fisher once I saw the credits. I had to go back to her scenes to confirm it was her, I was so convinced the character was played by Amy Adams).

    Unfortunately, the two levels are not created equal. I found myself far more interested in the novel's story than the main story. The novel was unflinchingly gritty and included a good revenge plot and theme. The main story was interesting only for the Susan-Edward backstory, and didn't really progress much, feeling more like wrapping around the novel story, without contributing much itself.

    There was still heaps of potential for both stories and the movie as a whole though, but the conclusion is a bit of a let-down. The novel ends in strange, contrived-feeling, fashion. The main story and movie ends quite flat. I'm a veteran of many anticlimactic endings, so very little tends to surprise me, but I was genuinely surprised when the closing credits started to roll. I thought "That can't possibly be it". But it was.

    A more profound tying together of the two stories and a punchy ending (to both) and Nocturnal Animals would have been superb.

    This said, there is still a lot to be admired about the movie. The novel story was done well and was helped by great performances from Michael Shannon and Jake Gyllenhaal. Shannon received a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his effort. In addition, the Susan-Edward backstory was interesting.
  • Listen, I'm not a movie guru, I don't study arts, I'm just your average Joe that loves movies. I've seen lots of movies, I don't discriminate, terror, drama, action, animated you name it, I can perfectly differentiate between a bad from a good movie, I don't need the biased comments of the so called movie critics on IMDb. Thanks God I didn't pay attention to all the misguided comments about this movie, Nocturnal Animals is a beautiful & stylish movie, great photography, solid acting and a solid plot that will stay with you long after you finish it. I don't understand why there's so much envy and hate in the film industry, the wannabe movie critics can't take that a guy who came from the fashion world actually can created a pretty good movie. My fellow reader, please don't miss the chance to see this movie.
  • At the outset, i should make it clear that i don't think this is a bad film, but i felt the need to add a dissenting voice to the collection of positive reviews that i've read so far.

    The film is an amalgamation of elements that should work beautifully, but ultimately resembles one of the sterile offerings to be found in Susan's gallery. The acting is superb throughout, and the nuanced performances of Amy Adams & Jake Gyllenhaal are worthy of their reputations. The subtle transitions from dead and lifeless to young and vibrant, exhibited by the former at various stages of the film, is one of the most striking features of the piece. The film is beautifully shot and well directed, and there are some truly moving scenes in parts. However, as one reviewer has already alluded to, the film feels like it is desperate to say something, but ultimately says very little. Perhaps i just didn't get it at all.

    The problem i had was with a lack of emotional connection to either of the main protagonists. It's interesting to find out what happens to both as the film builds, but ultimately i didn't care either way.

    My partner and i spent some time examining the film on the way home, discussing the parallels between the story at the heart of the film, and the realities that continue around it, but despite our rudimentary analysis of what each one meant for the other, and an understanding that there are some clever parallels, what remained was the underlying sense of "so what?".
  • Easily the best film I have seen this year. Great performance by all the actors, fantastic plot with a lot of deep meaning and a very atmospheric soundtrack. It's a very unique film. It reminds me of Basic Instinct but without the sex and drugs. It looks like a 90s masterpiece brought from back in time, a solid prove that Tom Ford is a great director.

    True love comes once in a lifetime, and we rarely get a second chance. This film is about revenge and personal progress in life, Its about how the decisions of the past can haunt our lives in the future and how the pain we cause to others always comes back to us. This movie sends a strong message to the people who easily give up on other people and never give them a fair chance to shine.

    I can't understand why some people rated this movie 1/10, just the performance of the actors and the soundtrack of the film should be enough to give it a solid 5.
  • saeedchoganbaz6 February 2019
    Tom Ford's first film since 'A Single Man' is another winner, an ambitious high-wire noir thriller with Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal in an explosive tale of love, violence, and revenge.
  • neil-47616 May 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • movieed118 January 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    I don't understand all the negative reviews. I think the movie had an interesting concept, I enjoyed the acting and the set design, lighting, etc. I enjoyed the suspense of the novel as we went along with Amy Adam's character, but somehow the movie left me cold and hanging in the end. I guess I would have liked closure, but life is not like that. The novel within the movie kept me on the edge of my seat, great sound and music. Amy's character seemed so lost and desperately reaching out paralleling the Main character in the Novel, but like him, she ended alone cold and 'dead' in her own way. I enjoyed the ride, however but I felt empty in the end. Perhaps that was the goal of the director. Well told, well acted and held one's attention to the end...or at least mine!
  • vinylvanilla22 December 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    What can I say about this movie? I think it's overrated, over-hyped, and overpraised. I believe media loves this movie because they're actually praising Tom Ford the stylist, not Tom Ford the filmmaker.

    The movie undeniably has good qualities - beautiful cinematography, lavish costume design, amazing cast (Michael Shannon's performance is flawless and deserves an Academy Award).

    However, the screen script is weak, pretentious and childish. The book written by Tony Hastin looks more interesting than the movie itself. I don't understand the need to tell a story inside a story when the main story line is weak, full of clichés and unconvincing.

    The love story between Susan and Edward didn't convince me at all. It all seemed very poorly developed, the flashback moments were cold, they always seemed like two teenagers speaking - no substance, no deepness, nothing that Tom Ford's target audience would expect, I believe.

    Edward's little plot of revenge is absurdly childish, also laughable. That's why the character is not convincing to me. It's all absurdly immature.

    Honestly, I believe Tom Ford was more worried about making a visually impacting movie than actually a good one. He has yet a lot to learn about what is necessary to be a good filmmaker.
  • This movie is a vast improvement on the book it was based on, it is much more piercing, intelligent and distilled with some brilliant additions. Cinematography is outstanding, movie is atmospheric and highly stylized, reminiscent of the best works of Hitchcock and Kubrick, with great attention to minute details - deliberate style that comes across as natural, but only on second examination is revealed as extremely deep and thoughtful.

    The movie is concerned with Susan, an upper class woman married into wealth, that has since begun to crumble, who leads an empty life, that is falling apart, as she is unloved and deeply unhappy. She receives a novel, written by her ex-husband, who she cruelly abandoned as he was not able to provide the luxury she now lives in, being a "weakling" as a young aspiring writer, in estimation of her overbearing mother. The novel is about some scary rednecks destroying a man's family, after pushing their car off road. It turns out there are clear parallels between the redneck monsters in the story within a story and her actions, driven by her inner selfish monstrosity and cynical and rich mother but with the exact sophistication of an average redneck psychopath. Shattered to the core, after reading the book, she invites her ex to a dinner but is left waiting, and realizes sadly that she is never going to be forgiven, that hell is eternal and that her empty existence now is a karmic payback that she very well deserved for her past shallow choices and selfish crimes.

    The movie portrays some of the issues that are in fact pretty common, and the movie is partly underappreciated due to not fitting in the woke-hysteria that was just starting to boil at the time of movie release. But objectively, it is one hell of a masterpiece of sophisticated storytelling, that also carries a message about consequences of the wrong choices people make in life.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As the story within a story concept plays out, we learn that Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) relives a former relationship which in her own mind, she ended miserably and with little compassion for her ex-husband. Jake Gyllenhaal portrays the ex, Edward Sheffield, along with a character in the book written by him. The fictional story, titled "Nocturnal Animals", progresses along the lines of a Stephen King novel or screenplay, and contains levels of violence that often brings Susan out of her reverie long enough to have her reflect mournfully on her past and the guilt that goes along with it. You come to realize that his novel was Sheffield's form of revenge after his emotions festered over the course of two decades for not only the sudden breakup, but for the callous abortion Susan had that ended her association with him. In a way, the fictional story almost overwhelms the here and now of Susan's recollections because of it's graphic violence and the perversity of the characters that drive the fictional Hastings family off the road and initiate a night filled with terror. The novel's introduction of a dying police detective (Michael Shannon) raises the revenge stakes up a notch for Hastings, in turn symbolizing Edward Sheffield's determination to make Susan Morrow suffer for an unrequited past. The entire picture is very well done, with the transitions between the present, the past and the situations in the book's narrative occurring seamlessly enough that one doesn't get confused if you're paying attention. The only downside if there has to be one, was that gruesome opening with the naked fat ladies, but now that I mention it, you'll probably want to see it for yourself.
  • While lamenting on her life, well-to-do art gallery owner Susan Morrow is startled to receive the manuscript of a novel written by her ex-husband Edward Sheffield, an aspiring writer with whom she's been estranged for several years. Upon reading his story she's quickly captivated by the intensity and raw emotion of the writing, and soon begins to ponder over her past actions. Gripping, murky, and suspenseful psychological thriller pulls you in and never lets go, with many haunting scenes that explore various underlying themes like revenge, regret, and betrayal, made all the more believable by the searing performances of a perfectly chosen cast--Shannon and Taylor-Johnson standing out in particular. Lots of startling moments, along with skillful direction and editing make this a potent piece of work. ***
  • On a bit of a Jake binge, that led me here. You also cant go wrong with Amy Adams. Plus Jenna Malone if you are a fan of the amazing Neon Demon.

    The story revolves around a novel containing a fairly OTT crime, but one that leaves room for visually compelling scene-setups. I like how the novel unfolds over several years, and ties in with the regrets over the decisions that the Amy Adams character made over her life. The analogies between her loveless, vacuous and empty life and the novel are pretty apparent.

    This is a very compelling film with a very haunting ending. Well worth a watch. Its pretty tough viewing at times though
  • That's some terrifying stuff right there! Fashion designer Tom Ford has written and directed his second movie, a multifaceted revenge thriller which is even better than his first, 2009's "A Single Man".

    Both are visually stylish, of course, which is expected from fashion guru, both have interesting premise and good actors, and both have this cold, unsettling atmosphere which tries to keep the viewer at some distance.

    In short, Ford has managed to take everything good from his solid debut project and bring it to the next level with "Nocturnal Animals". It's more lively, gripping, effortlessly cool and deeper.

    There are two stories, interwined in a way which may make viewers wonder whether it's real or imagined by the character. But it is ambiguous in a best possible way, not trying to f--k with our minds and then leave us hanging.

    An unhappily married woman (Amy Adams) thinks she wants his first husband (Jake Gyllenhaal) back. And she reads his novel, a violent thriller, which seems like a revenge tale. And then things get more, er, complex.

    On-screen events are exciting already but Ford the writer turns out surprisingly skillful at making it even varied, without getting stuck or losing steam, or letting us think that we know where all this ends up. He even playfully takes jabs at his main fashion job and the lifestyle and personal sacrifices that come with it.

    And the whole result really makes you feel something for the characters, unlike many of the thrillers that only manage to arouse the viewer during their best bits.

    It's not mostly about Adams and Gyllenhaal. There is a number of smaller but important characters and cool performances. We have Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher, Armie Hammer, Michael Sheen, Laura Linney.

    The cast is good enough reason to watch it. Everybody adds something worthwhile to the experience, even Sheen and Fisher and especially Linney who all have rather small roles used to move the story along.

    Shannon brings his usual magnetic mix of cool and creepy. Gyllenhaal manages to move between having balls and ball-less state without turning unbelievable or too heroic. Taylor-Johnson as the bad guy even got a Golden Globe for his work (the only one for the movie although Tom Ford got nominated for both best movie / drama and adapted screenplay). He really deserves it, he is evil at its most subtle and delicious. Delicious to watch, I mean.

    But I am especially happy about Amy Adams who is often used in the movies as just a pretty face or supporting woman. In 2016, she has had two strong roles, in a thinking man's sci-fi "Arrival", and now this.

    Her screen time may be limited but she surely makes the most of it, captivatingly playing out both worlds that the character has hiding inside her. I believed her both as a lively young woman and the jaded older one that's missing all the ideals that she had decided to throw away long time ago.

    Based on a novel by Austin Wright which Ford wanted to adapt into two movies initially, one true to original, the other not so much. I am not sure which way he chose ultimately but what a ride, eh?

    PS No, I am not giving 9 out of 10 to every movie I watch from now on. The last three have been just some of 2016's best of the best.
  • It's all about vengence creativity and sorrow and the ending can be interpreted in so many ways , a good show
  • The second film from designer turned directory Tom Ford was not just a visual masterpiece but had great narrative. The plot of the movie which is three narratives combined into one and tells the story of Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) an art gallery owner who receives a manuscript of her ex-husband's (Jake Gyllenhaal) thriller novel dedicated to her. The way that the story was told was bold, strange and very unique to me. Even though a movie with three narratives might sound clumsy but it wasn't, the stories of different time lines did not overlap each other rather it made the story complete with showing different aspects of the characters.

    Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance as Ray Marcus was definitely my favorite, he was so creep and repulsive to watch. The brilliant Michael Shannon was also in this movie as Bobby Andes with great Oscar worthy performance. Overall, I loved this movie for it's visual look and appeal of it's leading characters. While I was watching the movie I liked Tom Ford's directing style, storytelling, cinematography and after watching it I started to think about it while connecting the dots between the different narratives and it easily became my favorite movie to think about. If you really like movies that makes you think and eventually re-watch them over again then this movie is for you.
  • What a marvellous film. Whilst the use of the flashbacks and the intertwining 'book within the movie' metaphor isn't that earth shattering, it's pulled off here immaculately and with fair precision.In a different film, it could have become easily muddled without the same handling. Ever regret messing up or squandering what could have been the love of your life at some point in your life? That's where this film smarts and hurts and reaches its true poignancy. I'd say it will touch a lot of nerves and whilst it can't be felt as a happy or uplifting film, it's skill and it's power to move is hard to deny. Is it a back roads revenge thriller, a morality tale, a sad torch song of unrequited and lost love...? Or maybe it just bears a single message: Love the one you're with.
  • Nocturnal Animals is a dark and devilishly stylish thriller from Tom Ford, who knows a thing or two about style having worked as creative director for both Gucci and Yves Saint Lauren in the past. It could have been in danger of being a case of style over substance however, Ford's perfectionism makes this one of the most powerful films I've seen all year.

    Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is an art gallery owner who spends most of her life at home alone, with her husband often out of town on business. When Susan receives a manuscript to a novel written by her ex-husband, Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), she finds herself immediately engrossed.

    As Susan continues to read the novel, she has flashbacks to how her relationship with Edward broke down as well as thoughts that the violent thriller is a veiled threat against her from Edward.

    I didn't know what to expect from Nocturnal Animals as I hadn't seen any trailers and Ford's film ended up blowing me away. The way Ford tells the story showcases how inventive and powerful he is as a filmmaker, the narratives of both Susan's life and Edward's novel combining brilliantly and leaving me in a trance like state.

    Edward's novel provides the film with its dark soul, the story of Tony Hastings (also played by Jake Gyllenhaal) and his family who run into trouble when travelling through the night on the road to their country home. It's pretty heavy stuff but it plays an essential part in making this such powerful viewing.

    This is a gorgeous film to look at as well, Seamus McGarvey's cinematography echoing the story's bleakness and the brutality of Edward's supposed veiled threat to Susan. The combination of the visuals with Abel Korzeniowski's dream-like score heightens the sense of escapism felt by Susan as she reads Edward's novel.

    Coming to the performances, Nocturnal Animals features a very impressive ensemble cast all at the top of their game. Amy Adams yet again proves why she's one of the most versatile actresses with a performance that combines the assurance of an art gallery owner with the vulnerability of someone who knows they've made mistakes in their past. With this and Arrival out in the coming months, expect to see Adams get some form of recognition come the awards season, maybe for both.

    Adams is joined by Jake Gyllenhaal, who takes on dual roles yet again for this film. Gyllenhaal has really grown as an actor, particularly in the last five years, and its great to see him continue that in Nocturnal Animals, more notably in the role of Tony Hastings, a creation of his other character Edward.

    The rest of the cast features a scene stealing Michael Shannon, who I've really grown to appreciate these last few years, a career best performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who is truly vile as the villainous Ray, and Laura Linney who, even in the short space of time we see her, makes one hell of an impact.

    I cannot speak highly enough of Nocturnal Animals, a stylish thriller that has more than enough substance to it. I will definitely be checking out Tom Ford's A Single Man after this and I sure as hell hope we see more work from Ford in the future.
  • dougiesantarosa19 August 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    Amy Adams, art gallery owner, receives a proof of manuscript of her ex-husband Edward and an invitation for dinner during Edward's upcoming visit to Los Angeles. Amy is in a deteriorating second marriage to an unfaithful, so she becomes consumed by Edward's novel that is dedicated to her. The film switches to a teleplay of Edward's novel. Tony, a peaceful man, during a road trip through West Texas with his wife and daughter, accidentally rearends three rural redneck 20-somethings – and the self involved brat daughter stupidly flips the bird at them – the dirtbags force Tony, his wife and daughter in their late model Mercedes off the road, flattens their tire, beats Tony molests his wife and daughter. Then kidnaps his wife and daughter and leaves him with Lou, one of the young rednecks. He makes Lou drive the rednecks car to the end of a dirt road where he gets away. Tony manages to evade them goes to a dingy farmhouse and calls the police. With a detective, Tony, discovers the bodies of his mutilated, dead wife and daughter in the wilderness, raped and murdered. Tony is beyond pain feeling guilty for not protecting them. A year later he's asked to identify one of the rednecks, who is charged as an accomplice in the murders. The other one was fatally shot in a botched robbery, and the last one is brought to justice, but ultimately released due to circumstantial evidence. Faced with terminal lung cancer, the detective, with Tony's help, takes matters into his own hands and abducts the dirtbags and shoots one of them, but the other one gets away. Then Tony tracks him down on his own to the shack where his wife and daughter were killed and the dirtbag admits to raping and murdering Tony's wife and daughter, calling him weak. So he shoots and kills him, but is blinded when the dirtbag hits him on the head with an iron bar. Tony stumbles outside, succumbing to to a brain hemorrhage, and dies after falling on his gun, shooting himself in the stomach.

    Now back in the real world, Amy Adams is so shocked by the raw emotion of her ex husband's new novel, reminisces about meeting him in college and falling for him, but (done better by Ryan Godling and Rachel McAdams in 2004 The Notebook) Amy's domineering mother objects to him, claiming that he's unworthy of Amy's affections and that he's too romantic and worldly, lacking the drive to actually achieve his goals She ignores her mother and ultimately marries Edward.

    Of course, She has a troubled marriage with Edward, who cannot handle her frustration with his fledgling career and her dismissive attitude towards his literary aspirations, and so she cheats on him with another man ultimately divorcing Edward to marry the man. Edward attempts to repair their relationship, but ultimately cuts the cord with Amy when he learns she's pregnant with his child but secretly had an abortion to ensure the divorce would proceed. So, after reading Edward's new novel she arranges a meeting with Edward at a restaurant, but Edward doesn't show up, as he stand's her up for revenge. So she realizes he's a good writer after all and she's stuck in a sham and unhappy with her life. Michael Shannon (pre General Zod in Man of Steel) is incredible as a terminally ill Texas detective. And Prince of Persia Jake Gyllenhaal is way better than anything I've seen him in lately - thank Jesus he shaved off the gross facial hair for the flashbacks. And Amy Adams plays typical lovelorn damsel as always. But I realize Tom Ford lives in this luxurious world of Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, with beautiful faces and bodies. But its no excuse to occasionally throw in pointless gratuitous nudity - Jake in steamy shower scenes and Aaron Taylor Johnson outside on a toilet. I'll still be grateful for Tom Ford's A Single Man. Amazing how Nocturnal Animals is his next film 7 years later.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Unfortunately, Nocturnal Animals was completely unbelievable right from the beginning, with dialog that seemed written by a machine. Given the 'novel' idea, that might have been excused, but all the dialog in the supposed 'real world' was just as bad. The only actor able to shine through this pretentious crap was Michael Shannon, but after a time his character just disappeared from the story. And what was Michael Sheen doing in this movie? And the nude fat dancers? It really added up to nothing. And oh my goodness, what a payback for leaving a man and aborting his child: He got her to go to a dinner meeting AND DIDN'T SHOW UP! Wow! Now that's payback in a BIG WAY! Sorry, but this exercise in audience manipulation was a real disappointment after A Single Man.
An error has occured. Please try again.