Nocturnal Animals Review

R: violence, menace, graphic nudity, and language

Focus Features, Fade to Black Films

1 Hr and 57 Minutes

Cast: Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher, Armie Hammer, Laura Linney, Andrea Riseborough, Michael Sheen, Jena Malone

REVIEW: In all honesty, I am very unfamiliar with the works of Tom Ford. I know there is a popular fashion designer of the same name. Prior to seeing this, I did my research and realized that not only he has made one film but he is also and that popular fashion designer of the same name. Imagine being an actor at a premiere of a Tom Ford film wearing Tom Ford designed clothing. Even with my research, I barely had any mindset of what to expect with this film, Nocturnal Animals. Nothing prepared me for what I was to see and what I saw was one of the most disturbingly gripping cinematic masterpieces I’ve ever seen in my entire life. 

An art gallery owner is haunted by her ex-husband's novel, a violent thriller she interprets as a veiled threat and a symbolic revenge tale.

THE GOOD: Where a lot of films are made to make money from a story that was taken from a source, Ford’s Nocturnal Animals is a film that is adapted in the way of thinking of the audience first before its story itself. From the very beginning, you would think its opening credit sequence would be there as a shocker. But as the film progresses, you realize that it was a disclaimer of the violent and disturbing content the film would feature. It tries to break down your discomfort so when the film really begins you won’t feel as uncomfortable as the opening sequence made you. 

Narratively speaking, Nocturnal Animals is a film that blows all adapted films of 2016 out of the water. In the year where every film adapted from a popular novel that’s hyped up to only be disappointments, it's nice to have a film adapted from a book that wasn’t even truly popular even when it needed publication (novel entitled Tony & Susan which was originally written in 1993 but never published until 2010). This is what The Girl on the Train film should've been. It should’ve been a film that keeps you guessing with its mystery and not spoon-feeding its audience. With this, the film doesn’t spoon feed it’s audience as it figuratively tells you to keep track with the elements of the story. 

From the very beginning, you’re engaged into the world of Amy Adam’s character Susan. She is never seemed to be deemed as likable for unknown reasons and it isn’t explained but is up for you to interpret. There is no voiceover narration of the book Susan is reading as the film takes you into her mind watching this story she’s envisioning with her imagination as if we’re watching another movie within this movie you’re already watching.  As more symbolic her ex-husband’s story is, not only she becomes paranoid but you start to experience the paranoia with her as the film digs into her past trying to go through the reason why the book feels like a personal threat towards her. As confusing as it sounds, it's relatively easy to follow. It is a psychological thriller that gets in your head as you go on this rollercoaster ride of three different narratives that’s centered in the mind of Susan. Even when she gives vague information why she may feel the book is targeted towards her, you’re desperate to learn more. 

Though the film is broken down into 3 separate narratives, they all perfectly balance each other out. The film within the book is intensely emotional and violently disturbing and the film outside of it psychologically thrilling and dramatic. It plays like a combination of Gone Girl and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Besides its narrative, the film is visually mesmerizing that signals the audience the twists and turns that are to be expected with great transitions. One example is a scene where Gyllenhaal’s Edward is arguing with Susan in a flashback as they walk towards a red light that emits on the side of the screen and as he turns towards the light’s direction we’re back into Susan’s book with the red light this time emitting from a bar. It’s a style influenced by Gondry but perfected by Ford for the sake of story over style. Especially if you have the dark and gritty cinematography of Seamus McGarvey (who I was just praising his camera style with The Accountant) the film has a cinematically intense look the narrative imposes on you.

The film features a phenomenal cast of characters you would expect them to be but with Gyllenhaal and Adams leading the torch. Their characters are detailed with a lot of depth with them that has much more flaws than their appearance on the cover. Some actors are there for a quick second but it's not really focused on them because you’re more enticed with the relationship between Susan, Edward, and Edward’s book. The film honestly made me hate Aaron-Taylor Johnson for a while. For an entire year of mourning over the death of his Quicksilver in Age of Ultron, this film had me rewatch his death scene so I can get personal pleasure. 

What really got to me was the film’s ending. All the build up the film does end with a satisfyingly perfect ending. You know when a film ends with an “open-ended” ending that is left for you to figure out? This film does the same but in the most subtly brilliant way. It is not one of those artsy endings like Birdman but one that is extremely effective. For the revenge story outside of the book we’re presented, has a much more effect than the one in the book we’re presented It never once fumbles the ball with its story at all. Well maybe just for a quick second.

THE BAD: Don’t put Amy Adams and Isla Fisher in the same film. From the opening credits reading the cast members, I saw Isla Fisher credited. I never saw her in the film, until as I was doing typing the review I see that she was the book wife of Gyllenhaal when I assumed it was Adams the entire time. They look so alike it’s hard to differentiate between the two. On a side note, I did get confusion from after the film’s conclusion involving the daughter of Susan in the film and the daughter of Tony in the book and their connection. It is a film that does require a second viewing to get a clear sense of the symbolism. But as far as I’m concerned I’m just so eager to see it again.

LAST STATEMENT: Amazingly crafted with a perfect adapted screenplay of narrative structure and mesmerizing visuals that tell a grippingly haunting tale, Tom Ford’s Nocturnal Animals is a cinematic masterpiece that balances more than one narrative while still managing to tell a concise story with twists and turns and mesmerizing visuals to go with it.

I apologize for the number of films I’ve claimed to be the best of the year. As we’re approaching awards season and I’m viewing new movies of 2016 day by day, only so many I come out praising a film by being the best of the year. I’m still yet to see La La Land and a bunch of other films. I recently told director Jeff Nichols in person that Loving was my favorite film of this year. But I didn’t say so far. But I am sticking by my words by saying (hopefully for the last time) this is my favorite movies of not only this year but of all time.

Rating: 6/5 (Oh yeah. I went there. I found that 6/5 movie of 2016)  | 100%

Super Scene: Susan and her mother