mattorama12 wrote:Stewball wrote:Why did you like Nocturnal Animals so much. . . . while [it] was very well done, ultimately, it was dark and pointless.
Lots of reasons. I know that you and I share a love for good narration in films, even though narration is often seen as a crutch. When used properly, it can really enhance everything. I feel the same way about framing devices. 90% of the time they are at best useless (Titanic, The Princess Bride) or actively make the movie worse (The Lone Ranger). But the other 10% of the time, when they're done right, they are just amazing. I guess it may be a bit of a stretch to really call it a framing device in Nocturnal Animals since the "framing" narrative is close to half the screen time, but hot damn if it isn't executed well. Every scene from the dueling narratives informs the characters, motivations, and story of the other narrative in a way that is both complex and easily digestible. The two narratives also allow the movie to get in lots of different ideas/concepts/genres organically. You get domestic drama, action, violence, etc. Usually when you have a film with action and violence, any domestic drama seems dull in comparison. Because there are two narratives each with their own stakes, neither overpowers the other.
Thematically, it has tons of depth. The framing story explores notions of love and marriage (breathing some life into a tired contrast between the partner who may not be a provider but is otherwise great and a partner who is a provider but otherwise lacking), nostalgia, manipulation, loneliness. The novel story explores sexual violence, physical power, and drive. Together, the stories create interesting looks into creative impulses, power, and vengeance, among others.
I agree. Like I said, it was well done, and you're right, narration is almost never bad IMHO. We can't always be expected to know what's going through a character's mind, or share some humorous/meaningful aside. There's also on camera asides that can be off-putting, but they can we well done as too like with Kevin Spacey and House of Cards, revealing his hidden, uber-cynicism. Both enable direct connections between a character and the audience without shattering our immersion in the story-usually.
What more could you really ask for?
A point, or at least one that wasn't buried in a tar pit somewhere.
I'm a big fan of Amy Adams but her last two movies weren't that great, which isn't a reflection on her performances. Arrival turned into a simple monster movie with a terrible ending.
I wonder what part of the ending you didn't like? I had my qualms with the movie, but mostly liked it overall. Weird that you call it a "simple monster movie" when I think it was anything but. If anything, it flipped the monster movie script on its head because the "monsters" were complex creatures with no desire or attempt to harm the humans (despite what some characters thought).
Yeah, they turned out to be basically good guys, but the producers just couldn't resist pushing the Adrenalin button for the typical monster lovers in the audience before their benign character was revealed. And the consistent overreactions of the one-dimensional military was a downer as well. As for the ending, there was an incredibly stupid line that Jeremy Renner had to deliver that so traumatized me with embarrassment for him that it must have caused me to block exactly what it was he said from my mind. And besides that, the ending felt unfulfilling or unfinished, sort of like a plea for viewers to clamor for a sequel.