One of my favorite movies of the year, went in knowing nothing about it and what a brilliant, disturbing piece of film making this is..Amy Adams is superlative.
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
And a memorable cameo by Laura Linney in a pivotal role.
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
She looked exactly like how I imagine an upper class New York socialite would be like ( I've never meet one )
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
I just saw this today and thought it was fantastic. Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal continue to surprise me, and the cinematography and art direction were stunning. What was the general consensus on this film?
"I saw Pavarotti play Rodolfo on stage and with his girth I thought he was about to eat the whole table at the Cafe Momus." - Dollypop
I'm amazed this hasn't gotten more love on this board
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
I didn't love it. While I appreciated the two stories happening simultaneously, I think I could have used more separation of the two - and possibly less of the book plot. The performances were excellent, with Michael Shannon being the standout for me.
I loved every minute of this movie while I was watching it, but kind of hate it in retrospect. It's very well made, but the whole movie is just one big guilt trip, which makes it seem inconsequential. But Michael Shannon is Oscar-worthy, and I also thought Aaron Taylor-Johnson was pretty great.
Wow, was that a mess of a movie-- sorry to be so disappointed in a film that folks on here I respect liked so much.
SPOILERS AFOOT: Why on earth would any sheriff force the victim in a crime to accompany him to any room in which the victim had to share space with his victimizers? Total garbage. How on earth would the sheriff ever have the victim hold a gun on the perps while the sheriff leaves the room? Stupidity like this in scene after scene convinces me that A.) Jake Gyllenhall's character Edward is a terrible writer, or B.) Tom Ford is a terrible writer, or C.) Both are true.
Why in a film so obsessed with strict color stories, does the color red show up over and over with absolutely no rule at work? The drapes in the art show, the couch on which the female victims are displayed post murder, the couch in Susan's flashback to Edward's marriage, the drapes in the murderer's shack. Oy-- I found myself spending more time trying to crack Tom Ford's code than watching the damn movie.
Why were those obese elderly ladies at the art exhibit also seen in the background of the Texas bar where Lou is rounded up? Why should we care about the REVENGE canvas that they spend a full minute of screen time staring at, when that was never Tony's motive as far as we are shown? Why does the movie end abruptly where it does? To all of these, I decided it's just Tom Ford's way of f*cking with us.
SPOILERS OVER.
To the rest of you, spare yourselves the 2 hours. For a great Amy Adams flick see ARRIVAL instead.
Nothing the sheriff did bothered me, because A. he's obviously not a typical sheriff, and B. he's not real anyway. I feel like the "Nocturnal Animals" scenes had free reign to be unrealistic because it's all just Edward's imagination. And nobody said he's a great writer.
Wait, Hork-- you just gave me an idea-- does the plot work better if Michael Shannon's character is not a real sheriff but just the pure id of Jake's Tony, the one who will act where Tony is too scared to. I like it! It's like the Brad Pitt character in FIGHT CLUB! Neat!
I took the sheriff to be the person that Edward was never going to be, the one he wished he was
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
Okay, I just finished the novel, which I wanted to read before I saw the film. I have some thoughts. Nearly all of which are negative. The novel is INSUFFERABLE. GAWD. I didn't mind that the author shifted the narrative style from prosaic to poetic to nearly stream-of-consciousness, but it was so wildly inconsistent, it hindered the narrative rather than enhanced it. There would be natural style for a while, then suddenly long stretches of heavy-handed painstaking poetic descriptions of memories or moments or settings, jam-packed with metaphors for virtually every sentence. All momentum would be lost as you slog through pages and pages of this American Fiction college course writing assignment crap that would seem plausible if it was limited to just Edward's writing andeven then, still to be used in some sort of consistent manner. But we get smacked with it at times in Susan's passages as well, while at other times, she just has a couple of informal sentences for each section. By the time we reach the climax of Edward's story, it is stretched out to such a mind-numbing degree, I was ready to throw in the towel, but then we get Susan's self-reflection and critique ramblings that seem to go on endlessly and ultimately results in nothing enlightening or substantial or even interesting. I almost want to see the film simply because I already know it will be a highly condensed version of events that couldn't possibly be more incoherent or unfocused. I might actually enjoy the story told by someone else entirely and may benefit from the extraction of the author's direct participation. UGH.
SPOILERS AFOOT: Why on earth would any sheriff force the victim in a crime to accompany him to any room in which the victim had to share space with his victimizers? Total garbage. How on earth would the sheriff ever have the victim hold a gun on the perps while the sheriff leaves the room? Stupidity like this in scene after scene convinces me that A.) Jake Gyllenhall's character Edward is a terrible writer, or B.) Tom Ford is a terrible writer, or C.) Both are true.
A.) Jake Gyllenhall's character Edward is a terrible writer B.) Tom Ford is a terrible writer C.) Austin Wright is a terrible writer D.) All of the above
The bottom line is that most of the events in Edward's book are ridiculously unbelievable and are acknowledged as such by the characters themselves (in both worlds). As a result, it appears that this is sufficient excuse for Austin Wright to expect us to be on board with it. If the internal AND external characters of Tony & Susan question the ridiculousness of some of the circumstances, then clearly we should not need to question it ourselves, right? He's done the work for us!
FYI - In the novel, Susan is an English professor and lecturer. And completely unlikable.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian