Yön eläimet

"Enjoy the absurdity of our world. It's a lot less painful. Believe me, our world is a lot less painful than the real world." This is what Refn tried to do in The Neon Demon and failed. Nocturnal Animals is a powerful story of betrayal and revenge that avoids arousing straightforward emotions in the viewer, yet remains engaging and overwhelming. It is a contrast of the perfect contours of the safe but cool environment of Los Angeles high-society with the whimsicality of the dusty Texas desert full of helplessness. A collision of the emptiness of the consumer world with the most essential values in life. Regretting making the wrong decisions in the past. Will the movie ever show us the character that the story is actually about and we feel so sorry for? That’s the painful question that keeps haunting the viewer until the final scene. American academic art, made livelier by the most pleasurable acting performances. And a soundtrack in the style of Bernard Herrmann. (29.11.2016)

If the opening assault on the eyes (especially male eyes) was supposed to capture the female protagonist’s lack of taste and judgment (because we find ourselves in her gallery), it would be possible to understand her subsequent enthusiasm for Edward’s trashy novel built on the most moronic plot twists and populated with caricatures of Southern rednecks, hysterical husbands and indomitable sheriffs. If, however, the film really required us to keep a critical (and cynical) distance from a protagonist who is so unprepared for the real world that she can’t even unwrap a package that she receives (after cutting herself, she leaves the job to an assistant), the melodramatic conclusion, which instead relies on our identification with Susan, would not make any sense. I’m not sure how seriously Ford wants us to take Nocturnal Animals. In any case, it can’t be taken too seriously. The characters are one-dimensional. Instead of impactful statements, we have trite phrases, which the characters use to reveal their emotional state to us (instead of acting it out). In Susan’s world, everyone and everything primarily has to look good, which sometimes applies and sometimes doesn’t in the world of the book Susan is reading. It is thus probably not true (or at least not all the time) that she projects into the novel what she wants to have in it as its plot materialises before our eyes. Or perhaps the fetishes of women from better society include Aaron Taylor-Johnson ostentatiously wiping his ass? I suspect the director himself did not have a clear idea of how (self-)ironic and deliberately campy he wanted the film to be, nor how much he wanted the romantic and spiritual to take precedence over material values. The result is a trio of films – a Southern thriller, a melodrama about class differences and a satire of the world of snobs who judge others based on whether they own the latest iPhone – that are all quite entertaining in places, but most of the time come across as much more serious and self-important than would be fitting, considering their hollowness. 65% (23.11.2016)

There’s power in simplicity. I guess that’s how I would evaluate this film after watching it. At the beginning, it offers fairly strange opening credits, through which it tries to create an atmosphere of mysticism and I was a bit worried that what I might be getting was another successor to David Lynch. However, I was quite lucky that this didn’t happen and the slow-paced life of the protagonist, who is portrayed by Amy Adams, began to unravel. But then the story jumps forward and I was watching a whole different story penned by Jake Gyllenhaal. And even though the two stories didn’t actually intertwine, there was such an interesting ending that I actually had to admit that the point couldn’t have been any better. The film looks mysterious but in the end it is a very solid drama. And by the way, Michael Shannon is really good in this one! (07.02.2017)

Beautifully shot and stylized, outstanding music and magnificently performed, bombastic and snobbish nothing. The worst thing is that the final unraveling scene (and it doesn't matter which of the two or three possible interpretations you chose) does not justify the would-be ingenious formal construction as a mindfuck. It rather fully shows that instead of three different story line layers, one main story line would be more than enough to achieve the same effect and convey the same message (for all three possible messages). However, introductory hardcore subtitles should be kept as they are the best and most subversive part of it. (22.11.2016)

Tom Ford is once again dealing with loss. Visually and narratively, he goes one step further than when he introduced us to A Single Man, but this time it is much more unpleasant, although certainly not unfriendly to the viewer. It's just that the Texan noir that the main character reads is so dark, depressing, and hopeless that at times I didn't even want to look at the screen. But that would be a shame because the flood of metaphors, which can drill a decent hole in the viewer's head, is enormous, and the resulting impact is tremendous. The parallels between the book and Susan are incredibly clever, and although the ending itself ruins the enjoyment for some with its antikathartic boldness, it burrowed into me almost painfully. (29.10.2018)

Bulls-eye. I seemed like I was watching something that I had written. Ford does some fantastic work with narrative levels. The message (even that of the sub-story) isn’t revolutionary in any way, but the journey toward it is thought out down to the smallest detail. The same as the contrast between good and evil, between the decadent and the ordinary inside you conceals an unusual magic reality. Both Gyllenhaal and Adams are excellent. Fantastic music. Plus stylish opening credits with the current face of America. (25.11.2016)

A typical example of reckless form triumphing over content. Alas, Nocturnal Animals is truly a beautiful treat for the eyes, and I appreciate all the details of the novel's interweaving in the main story and the triple color scheme, but nothing more. It seems to me somewhat insufficient that such a work, which is spoken of in superlatives, should only deal with such an ordinary moment in life as coping with a breakup. Interpersonal relationships have beginnings and endings, it's as simple as that. But is life really so uninspiring that it offers not a drop more? I am at least thankful for the strong ensemble cast that makes the templates work at least a little bit. Amy is aesthetic and beautifully melancholic, Jake is earthy and Michael is a classic tough guy again. I'll skip the book "Tony and Susan" (1993). (04.11.2018)

A breathtakingly deceiving film, seemingly over-stylised and focused on form and material things, coldly pragmatic and ruthlessly violent. At the same time, it is a subliminally disarming probe into the reality of today's world with a bunch of fundamental life questions in the sense of rightness/wrongness of living contemporary life, dealing with important goals, directions and opinions that influence the future and define the present of man. A film as sophisticated, wise and extremely inaccessible to the audience as Ridley Scott's The Counselor. Script-wise, however, it is even more sophisticated, which is why it has that extra bit in the rating. Again, some users' allusions to snobbery, etc., stem from a misunderstanding of the film and thus a misunderstanding of the ideas and message it conveys. (11.12.2016)

Ford had me spellbound in a way, no doubt about it. In terms of direction, this is truly first-rate stuff with the highly addictive and suffocating atmosphere of the Texas backwoods, for which I have an indescribable fondness on the movie screen. The story has laudable intentions and really does a brilliant job of illustrating the contrast between the opulence and absurdity of the L.A. lifestyle with the uncompromising arid wasteland, but it still comes across as somewhat disjointed, failing to deliver anything very new in the individual details, some of the dialogues could have been better written by Dežo from Most, and the twist is weak, not so much in meaning as in the way it’s delivered, including the final passage that basically says nothing (the only direct criticism of Ford). But what elevates the whole spectacle is the delicious atmospheric soundtrack, and above all the actors; but while Adams and Gyllenhaal are good by default, Johnson surprises madly and gives his characterless boor a lot verve, as well as the amazing Michael Shannon as a detective, who once again shows that he is one of the most interesting dramatic actors of today... In their company, and under Ford's firm guidance, I'm looking forward to the next screening quite a bit. This film will mature a lot. (12.12.2016)

A lavishly filmed romp that justifies its own existence in one of its opening scenes, when a character (who otherwise has no role in the story and never appears again) explains to Susan that in absurd times there is nothing to do but enjoy the absurdity, because that's all life has to offer. And by that time, Ford had explained himself to me and could do whatever he wanted. And he did. The dark intrusion of lost, sincere love into the nihilistic burnt-out decadence of the upper class (however it may be parodied here) is a tricky subject that reeks of moralizing didacticism. And yet Ford manages to avoid it brilliantly and instead handles the whole subject intimately and personally, without compromising his visual magnificence. The whole composition then skillfully coalesces in a devastating finale. In short, a beautiful example of how the magic of the film medium can dust off even a somewhat threadbare script, relying on coincidences and trusting that someone would be willing to publish such an unremarkable book. Oh, and I was also moved by the opening credits, and that counts for something. (26.03.2017)

This film made me feel an interesting mix of emotions. During the opening credits, I was a bit disgusted, followed by a rather dull part, then an action thriller book and when the two storylines intertwined, lovers of psychological dramas could come into their own. What surprised me most was how well the whole mixture worked. The cast was more than decent. As much as I love Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal, I think that both of them were overshadowed by the excellent Michael Shannon. I enjoyed myself and it was certainly not a waste of time. (10.06.2017)

It's not a downright bad thriller, but it's not a downright good one either. If it weren't for the performances delivered here, the thriller contained within would essentially be dull. It doesn't offer anything particularly surprising, it's just quite gritty. But the finale was very disappointing. That's not an open ending, that's leaving things unsaid. (14.02.2017)

A beautifully hypnotic drama for which I have a fundamental problem with the ending. The premise is original, no question about it. It's actually a "movie within a movie" where Amy Adams essentially plays a dual role. All the performances are supremely focused, it's beautiful to watch, and as time goes on you start to grasp just about every possible point it’s making. And yet the problem is that the payoff in the finale is terribly weak (although you get the sense that it's about revenge) and sadly overshadows the impeccable acting of Michael Shannon, who really gives the performance of a lifetime here. Thus, Nocturnal Animals trips over its own feet in the end, which was probably my biggest regret given its massive potential and excellent atmosphere. (24.02.2017)

This psychological treat is graced by excellent performances from Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal, and Michael Shannon's fascinating portrayal of a cynical cancer-ridden detective is always hot on their heels. The atmosphere of the drama Nocturnal Animals is perfectly complemented by the disturbing music of Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski. The fascinating method of storytelling based on the interweaving of several time and plot levels kept me with bated breathe and forced me to engage my brain cells until the last second of the story, which definitely did not end with a close-up of the emotionally wounded face of the main character Susan. I'll certainly be wondering for a long time if I have understood correctly what Tom Ford was trying to tell me. (85%) (24.02.2022)