Really good. Whats with the kind of mixed reviews?

Really good. Whats with the kind of mixed reviews?

Other urls found in this thread:

birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/10/03/film-crit-hulk-smash-alcohol-withnail-and-gary-king.
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Uh, it's not very good? Also it is hugely insubstantial and mostly mindless. It only worsens in retrospect.

It's okay but that's about it.

Was very good. Idk why it triggers some people so badly

Amy adams sucked, jake was good

It's literally one of Jake's worst performances.

Adams was much better than him.

how so?

Because perfume man made it. People always flick their snotty art metric switch on when judging the work of a crossover talent.

I would also like to hear your reasoning.

I thought they were both fine.

Amy Adams had a blank stare half the damn time. Her only good performance was during the road scene. I don't get it? she was an utter bore

Jake was fantastic, as always.

I have absolutely no idea how anyone could conceive of that Gyllenhaal performance as being anything less than completely overwrought to the point of disbelief. I mean it's easy to explain away by arguing "well the point is that his novel is pulpy and thus his acting is suitably comically overblown" but his acting in the other half of the movie is equally misplaced. He's always been an actor that has struggled with scenes of major emotional releases of anger. He doesn't seem to be able to fully commit to it at all. His best performances are those making use of the naivety of his boyish good looks or the quiet, simmering hostility of a movie like Enemy. In Nocturnal Animals the strain of the material is clear in most of his major scenes. One of the worst performances I've seen from him.

I can see your point. Although, Amy had a lot less to work with. Jake got the juicy side of the story.

It's a difficult one in which to directly compare their performances. The question should be whether they fulfilled their respective roles sufficiently.

I'd like to hear what the guy that loved Amy's performance thinks.

Because the execution of it was not so good.

Too much basic technical and general filmmaking flaws throughout the movie.

LOL chill out bro

Fag

>I can see your point. Although, Amy had a lot less to work with. Jake got the juicy side of the story.

tru

>Too much basic technical and general filmmaking flaws throughout the movie.

Ok like what, scorsese?

No wonder this movie appeals so much to you guys. You're retards.

Do we all at least agree these two were great?

Ah I see. I'll have to watch again to make a call on what you're saying here.

Commitment for emotionally intense scenes is a funny one for me. I'm not always sure how to judge. I've seen so many real life situations in which people seemed to be expressing real emotions in ways that seemed overwrought or undercooked. That 'perfect' measure of commitment to the performance of emotionally intense moments seems ambiguous to begin with.

Ford said he shot the movie and then realized he had to edit it differently so critics use this as proof for saying the movie was a hatchet job. Looks great to me though

An orderly list of said flaws please. Genuinely interested.

I'm not the retard who gets triggered when others enjoy shit I don't like. It's fine to say the movie wasn't for you but like anyone really gives a shit about your take on Jakes acting? Jesús man did he cuck you or something

I'm :You shouldn't out yourself as a retard before the person you're insulting gets the chance to respond to your initial comment.

Agreed. Shannon is solid as usual, and Kick-Ass finally found the perfect role for himself.

>Amy and Jake are underutilised, Shannon and Johnson outshine them all (and it's certainly not because of Ford)
>Jake has an accent which he loses depending on the take (not the narrative)
>out of place bad editing between wide shots and close up's
>jarring color pallete difference between the two narratives that doesn't blend at all
>a lot of "I'm acting!" scenes and cheesy oneliners
>framing and composition of the landscapes felt like a film student trying to copy NCFOM landscapes
>all the night scenes have too bright obvious lighting like it's brightest moon in existence
>laughable phoneclip jump scare scene
>too on the nose symbolism with clues being literally spelled out in text form behind the characters

All these are meant between takes, not the two narratives. Except my color grading point, but I still stand by it.
While the narrative was passable, it's still apparent that Ford is first and foremost a fashion designer, not a film director.

The performance that kept coming to mind for me was Tobey Maguire in Brothers. Both performances reduce anger down to facial contortions, bulging eyes, and loud yelling. Everything about those outburst scenes is on the face, there's little going on that is offering us anything about the internal, it lacks nuance.

Anyway, I normally really like Jake G so I was a bit surprised that he seemed to be straining so hard in some of those scenes. Especially when Johnson and Shannon were both doing so well.

I was responding to the two jerkoffs before you who think that any discussion of film is tantamount to being a "cuck."

The retards on this board like this 17 year old are so embarrassing. Brings me deep shame to think about the manchild behind that.

I think the movie was supposed to be a bit schlocky, it felt to me like a modern version of a 50s or 60s thriller. Everything was exaggerated a bit but still grounded

see:Maybe a lot of these could be true, but more than half of them can only be true within the confines of your taste. What's jarring to you, is pleasantto others, etc. Not to rely on a cheap accusation of relativism, but, c'mon man. For example:

>jarring color pallete difference between the two narratives that doesn't blend at all

Anyone could argue the opposite and get away with it with as much justification. You have to see that right? There's a difference between "How I would have done it" and "This is bad".

As for Jake's accent, I think I noticed that myself.

That certainly is an easy way of excusing obvious flaws.

I'm not even that user but I would agree with nearly everything he said. Especially the scene where she remarks upon the REVENGE painting that is on the wall behind her. I mean how on-the-nose can you get? Oh I know how, you can insert an incredibly cheap, embarrassingly juvenile, jab at millennials in the art world with the completely idiotic moment in which Adams drops Malone's phone and she laughably says she'll just get another one. Ford has absolutely no sense of subtlety, he just wants to shove his ideas in your face and feel as though he's achieving some form of hard won cynicism. It's just cheap, tawdry emptiness.

Ignore them. If they're retards, don't be so easily swayed by what they say.

Do you have a response to my last comment?

Cheap tawdry emptiness that I'm happy to look at.

I mean, christ, I don't eat caviar every day. Sometimes I crave a McDonalds apple pie. They're both good, although certainly different.

The point being, the on the nose shit made me roll my eyes, but I didn't hate the film for it.

But this movie was meant to take bold strokes and be a little melodramatic. Watch any movie from the 40s or 50s and you'll see the same thing. It's riding that line between overdramatic and realism, its a genre movie

Which was your last comment?

If it was then I responded here: .

I would agree that sometimes it can be difficult to evaluate major scenes of emotion. I would recommend checking out the movie Margaret if you want to see what I would consider some of the most masterful depictions of overflowing emotion around. Anna Paquin plays a teenager caught in major emotional turbulence but even when the rage overflows she manages to convey the deeper insecurity and sense of loss within that she's really feeling. It's something I don't feel Jake is all that able to do usually.

I liked it a lot, I quite liked the juxtaposition between the sterile, almost soulless, perfect atmosphere of Adams' story with the dusty, violent, almost delirious atmosphere of Gyllenhaal's story. I really loved that they cast Isla Fisher as Amy Adams' stand-in too since that has essentially been her entire career in many ways

That's why I specifically excluded my color grading point as anything but completely subjective.

But I still stand by it.
Other movies with two different narratives also have different color grading between the narratives, but they still blend together as a whole (some recent examples like Inception, Arrival) while the grading difference in Nocturnal Animals felt like Ford just replaced a lens, threw on a preset filter and called it a day.

The lighting and set design was already quite different between the narratives, no need for added harsh tonal changes with the grading to make it look "more different".

I agree with you. It's meant to evoke a Cormac McCarthy-esque sense in the novel section of the movie, and the Adams segments would absolutely best be compared to melodramas of the 50s. I just think that saying things like "it's supposed to be a bit schlocky" can make it very difficult to argue against. I don't hate the movie by any stretch, I just think the whole thing is pretty insubstantial. I don't think it had all that much to communicate and I have already forgotten most of the movie a week after seeing it. It left little impact because I think that even though its an interesting idea structurally, it just feels a little thematically light.

Shitposting on Sup Forums? My god!

We are just discussing why did the movie get mixed reviews and the movie in general, no one here is telling you not to enjoy the movie user.

You are certainly making the best out of this Saturday night my man. Your girlfriend's just sick or something right? Couldn't make it out tonight?

You gotta understand though that when you're being critical of a movie you're not really judging it based tiny technical decisions you may disagree with. It's an overall entertainment level you received from it, and whether it accomplished what its goal was. Thats why I always say, calling a movie boring is a totally acceptable movie criticism, because no movie is trying to be boring. But if you didn't like it I understand I had a couple minor problems with it too, but overall I enjoyed my time watching it

Ah right. Sorry, missed your response.

So a measure of good acting would be whether or not some sense of the internal dimensions of anger/sadness/etc. are offered in the performance. I can agree with that. Although, I would say, and I think this is merely an extension of the point I already tried to make, that even in real life all the subtle nuances of the internal side of emotion aren't always there. Some people are actually 'hammy'. You know? This is actually something that has been bugging me lately. I'm becoming less and less equipped to make calls on 'good' acting. I still like certain performances, and dislike others, but arriving at a judgement is becoming tougher.

Anyway, I like your take. And will rewatch nocturnal animals with that in mind.

The other film you mentioned sounds interesting too. I've made a note.

Absolutely fair enough

>Amy and Jake are underutilised, Shannon and Johnson outshine them all (and it's certainly not because of Ford)
Agreed. But I don't think that's a major bad thing

>Jake has an accent which he loses depending on the take (not the narrative)
>out of place bad editing between wide shots and close up's
Didn't notice either of these and I pay very close attention the editing since I edit myself

>jarring color pallete difference between the two narratives that doesn't blend at all
Literally the entire point. Would you rather there was no visual difference?

>a lot of "I'm acting!" scenes and cheesy oneliners
There were some, not a lot. You're exaggerating this

>framing and composition of the landscapes felt like a film student trying to copy NCFOM landscapes
"cause only NCFOM has ever had landscape shots"
you sound like an idiot now

>all the night scenes have too bright obvious lighting like it's brightest moon in existence
I will actually give you that one. Still not a major deal

>laughable phoneclip jump scare scene
I don't think that was supposed to be a jump scare...

>too on the nose symbolism with clues being literally spelled out in text form behind the characters
Genuinely don't even know what you're talking about here

Honestly, it sounds like you were looking for reasons to hate the film

I agree with your overall attitude, user.

Damn man relax with the zingers before I an hero

>really good
That's why it got mixed reviews.
The only movies that get universally praised are oscar-bait dramas and Marvel flicks. It blows my mind that people haven't picked up on this yet.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Though I have to say that I think one of the reasons films transcend real life and become great art is that they can give us human beings who are complex and revealing, who can touch certain things we might feel in ourselves. In order to do that I think, if the movie is strongly character-based, the performances and writing need to work in tandem to give us more than histrionics that feel empty or that feel as though we're simply watching a character get angry. It can seem like it's merely the easiest way to direct a scene. A guy is confronted with the murderer of his wife, he starts screaming at her. That is something that would be written by basically about any one of us. I think a stronger writer/actor could have done something with that scene that would have been more interesting for me to watch.

In general I agree though, acting can be one of the more difficult things to talk about. Casey Affleck's recent performance in Manchester-by-the-Sea is one of the best I can remember in the last couple of years but for some people it seems to be a completely flat, empty performance. Where I see someone very subtly communicating a great deal of powerful emotions, others seem to see a blank slate.

Anyway, I read this article recently that talks about acting in a pretty useful way: birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/10/03/film-crit-hulk-smash-alcohol-withnail-and-gary-king.

Only one section is about acting though so search down to the line "On the first level of acting." I thought it was a pretty useful discussion.

Ignore the ALL CAPS writing style, it's just the author's shtick. He's actually a really perceptive, insightful writer.

This is a very silly opinion to have.

Example, about 30 John Ford movies all have 100% on RT. Same with Hitchcock's movies. Does this mean they're all shit?

I mean I agree that mixed reviews are absolutely not a bad thing as most reviewers are hacks but to say that it's the only way to measure a good movie is just silly. Lots of mediocre, bad, and trash movies have mixed reviews.

Cheers for the detailed response. I'll read the article soon.

Not really a proper response to what you've just said, but, I enjoyed Isabelle Huppert in Things to Come. I can't put my finger on whether it was her or the writing that I responded to well. There's this strange (and very french) type of reactive performance that somehow downplays the emotional while retaining the sense that the character has reacted fully and sufficiently, or, if we're lucky, revealingly, and at best borderline poetically. Somehow none of this seems to be in the realm of the commitment necessary perform an emotional outburst of any kind without simply gurning, or blubbering, or popping a vein or whatever.

This interests me in terms of what you were saying about films and transcending of real life to become great art. I wonder if that isn't only one (if still wonderful and worthy) avenue to great art in filmmaking. Some of the most interesting performances I've seen have been in films that utilized mostly non-actors. Anyway, not sure if there's a point there, but, that's what I have to say.

Agreed completely on Huppert. Her performances in Things to Come and Elle are two of my favourites of last year, easily. She's great in Louder Than Bombs too which also came out last year.

In regards to what you said below, I would agree completely. I did try to say that my comments about acting aiding films become art was only really applicable to "strongly character-based" movies like Manchester-by-the-Sea, Citizen Kane, etc, but I can see I didn't introduce that as clearly as I should have.

Anyway, good talking to you.

Not him, but internet critics are scared to speak out against the "classics" if they even watch them
On top of that, hollywood hadn't started pandering to the lowest common denominator yet so good films actually stood out. Now good films force you to think while there's a sea of capeshit that doesn't

Ah yeah, you did mention character driven films. Sorry, honest laziness on my part.

I tend not to be too alert when I'm on Sup Forums, although in this case I should have been. You're obviously a smart person. Why the hell do you post here?

I work a job that allows me to generally watch movies or read books. On very rare occasions the environment is too noisy to do either so I post on here. Plus there is the occasional perk of running into someone like yourself and exchanging ideas in a respectful way that might lead both people to see things from a different perspective.

Wat are you on about, it was lovely

She wasn't even in the road scene. Or do you mean the bit when she took off her glasses? Yeah that was GOAT

Taylor-Johnson scared the shit out of me in that first scene. Brilliant

That's about as reasonable an excuse as I can imagine.

Very occasional. If it were more certain I'd make threads myself.

>>laughable phoneclip jump scare scene
When was this?

>Especially the scene where she remarks upon the REVENGE painting that is on the wall behind her. I mean how on-the-nose can you get?
Lol I forgot about that

>Some of the most interesting performances I've seen have been in films that utilized mostly non-actors.
Have you seen American Honey, and if so what did you think? I thought it was extremely real, and a style of filmmaking you see much too little.

>f mixed reviews

Movie critics are so shamelessly jealous of Tom Ford.

In fact, everybody is.

OH SHIT! they have my wife and daughter! better hide in the bushes! [\spoiler]

>implying you know what you'd do in that situation
>implying it wasn't an in-universe fictional novel meant as an allegory and not literaly

The "real" parts were written with a lot more ground in reality. The book was much more cliched and dramatic
People tend to ignore this though and judge the book as if that's the story

I have seen it. Not totally sure how I felt about it. Good film, I guess. Probably an fairly apt illustration of the point I was making, on some level.

Tell me more about how you felt about it.

What the poster above sad, but if you want an in-universe explanation, he thought they'd kill him.

>implying you know what you'd do in that situation

his fault for being a naieve numale

That line up scene with Shannon was pure kino

I thought it was intensely melodramatic but took that for an aesthetic choice and can still see it was a very well made film. Great acting, great looking, has actual drama even if indulgent.

I thought it was great. Very good looking movie, too. Some have said it went on too long, but it wasn't really plot-driven, it was more character-driven (if you even make that distinction). So sure, it was a bit repetitive, but that's part of entering the world of the film.

I especially liked the cowboy interlude. I think it was something about the really naturalistic performances creating a movie that felt very real, and then throwing the characters into a very fucking weird situation. If that scene had occurred in most other films, it wouldn't have felt so special.

That scene really reminded me of one of the shorts in Wild Tales, if anyone's seen that. A city guy in the middle of nowhere gets accosted by a hick type, it's played more for black comedy though.

Nice review. Sorry I ain't got much for you. Bit tired.

Fair enough. Made me think about why I liked it though. Plus it has Shia, who I love unconditionally. Pretty good first movie of 2017.

>who?
>What're you, an owl?

Lost my shit.

Meant to quote you, user

>Numale

Again, you would have no idea what to do.

A macho guy would've been killed faster or made to watch his family get raped and killed. He tried to survive because he knew his limits. You sound like a faggot.

My critique of Nocturnal Animals is very simple: once Jake's wife and child are dead, every last drop of tension evaporates from the film. The first 15-20 minutes are guts wrenching, after that, it's just a very dull and shallow clichéd thriller

Should've said the only CONTEMPORARY movies that get universal praise are Oscar bait dramas and Marvel flicks

I really liked it. Of course the ADD retards and Twitter critics hated it.

Jake was kind of awful though.

Look I know I'm a dog with a bone with this film but fuck me I can't let it go.

I don't give out 10/10 film of the year lightly. It's going to be hard to try and put this succinctly but the whole premise of the film was amazing to me.

To break it down to a finer point the Susan was shown to have it all, albeit a distant husband. As the film progressed we saw that she had chosen an easier life with Chad Thundercock Moneybags than her first husband Edward, not only ending her marriage with him at a young age but aborting their child.

The novel presented to her was basically all his pain and suffering he felt from her betrayal, even 20 years on, don't forget that she had said that it was sad that he never remarried.

But here they are, 20 or so years on, Susan's life falling to pieces, her husband cheating on her and she can't sleep, yet Edward used those years, that pain, that suffering to create a literature work of genius.

In the end she's nothing, a cunt that caused pain on a young man, but without that pain he would have never written that book.

For Susan

agreed .
it tried to hide its revenge western genre as a art house symbolic piece of storytelling.
oh and talk about no character development at all.
saw this in cinemas, trying to support non blockbusters shit was i wrong. no wonder most people want to see super hero movies, when the big actors get behind this shit.

kick ass was the most stand out actor then zod. i feel sorry for adams and gyllenhall, poorly written characters over shadowed by minor ones.

i too hate the movie but this list is dumb.

Yyyyyup, this

No then it turns into a revenge story that parallels jake gyllenhalls real life story

Because Amy Adams is old as fuck and looks it.

It was a movie where all the performances are good but overall the movie is weak. Some probably would consider it a sophomore slump coming off A Single Man which was so much better,

This its shit so naturally you fags praise it

You're a bunch of faggots