Review: Arrival (2016)

Review: Black Panther (2018)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

At first, I wasn't that impressed with Black Panther. Now, I am happy to tell you that I was wrong.

I think the reason I was initially underwhelmed by Black Panther is because I struggled to grasp both the big picture and all the nuances that Black Panther has to offer. I thought it was a mere origin story*, but in truth it is deeper than that.

While the production is excellent through-and-through, I thought the movie was a bit aimless at the start and only begin to find its direction after Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is revealed. But in retrospect, it actually all work with the theme. At first, T'Challa (the titular Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman) really is aimless. He just lost his father in a violent and traumatic event, and he struggled to find out the kind of King he wants to be.

One undisputable good thing about this movie is the characters and the actors who play them. Chadwick Boseman is as captivating as T'Challa/Black Panther when he was first introduced to us in Captain America: Civil War. Letitia Wright is the clear breakout star of this movie, as she displays equal level of intelligence and playfulness as T'Challa's little sister, Shuri. Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, and Angela Bassett all excellently play strong, confident women. And don't forget Michael B. Jordan, Winston Duke, Forest Whitaker, Martin Freeman, and Daniel Kaluuya who each believably play characters of their own convictions and believes.

It all get very interesting once we realize how the characters mirror or parallel each other. Most obviously, Killmonger is the opposite of T'Challa, but perhaps purely by circumstances. T'Challa grows up in the safe haven of Wakanda, while Erik Killmonger grows up in Oakland (one of the most dangerous US cities) knowing that his father's home country abandoned them. T'Challa has supportive family and community that includes strong, intelligent women, while Erik grows up without any role model to speak of. As good as Nakia's (Lupita Nyong'o) character is, she still disagrees with T'Challa and Okoye (Danai Gurira) on some level, and also has similarities with Killmonger's worldview. Shuri's youth scares M'Baku (Winston Duke) whose tribe fear that their technology could destroy them some day. I would not discuss the intricacies of the characters and their relationships at length (because there are already a lot of articles written about them by people more informed on the matter than me), but there are a lot of nuances and subtleties that speak not only of the fictional universe but also of our world, now. Story-wise--like I said before--Black Panther is not that impressive if we break it down beat-by-beat, but becomes infinitely more interesting once we consider the interactions between all of the characters.

The other best thing about Black Panther is its worldbuilding. Ryan Coogler (director) and his team had to create a new culture from the ground up--free of our inherent perception of what an African culture and nation should look like. In Marvel universe, Wakanda is the most technologically advanced nation in the world, hidden and untouched by the outside world including by collonialism. Visibly supported by a lot of research and care, Black Panther movie succeeded in showing us how that world would look like in the visuals that are fresh, believable and empowering.

TL;DR Worth to see Wakanda realized on-screen alone, Black Panther is a movie proud of its black heritage and filled with interesting, well-rounded characters.

-

*Yes, the character Black Panther first appeared in Captain America: Civil War, but for all intents and purposes the Black Panther movie is his origin story. In Black Panther, his entire worldview changes and his experiences in it shape who he is as a superhero and as a person for the rest of his life.

Review: Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

First and foremost, I might be the only person in the world who were torn between Pitch Perfect 2 and Mad Max: Fury Road. You see, I loved Pitch Perfect. I had been waiting for the sequel for a while and Anna Kendrick is kind of my spirit animal. I have never even seen any of the Mad Max movies and know practically nothing about it except the broadest overview (I know, I'm a bad geek) and the trailers for Mad Max: Fury Road didn't quite move me. BUT then everyone and their grandfather started raving about Fury Road up to the point where I can't ignore it. As you might have guessed, after a brief moment of soul searching, I decided on Fury Road.

And really, I basically dropped my jaw to floor for the whole 2 hours, it was insane. In a world where action movies (or even non action movies) are frequently big and loud, Fury Road was BIG and LOUD. Fury Road was non-stop—it was basically 2 hours of Max's (Tom Hardy) life, and that life ain't quiet. But most importantly, it was also beautiful. A lot of movies are beautifully shot (heck, if nothing else, even the Transformers movies are beautifully shot) but Fury Road brought everything to the next level. Every scene is like a painting. The movie didn't even have proper script for its shooting, it had a mountain of storyboards instead, and it shows. Basically, Fury Road was an artwork. It wasn't just pretty, it was poetry—if poetry can be made of gasoline, greased wheels, and dirt, that can only brought upon by George Miller, the original creator of Mad Max.

In Mad Max's world, the world had ended and the ones left were living under tyrant named Immortan Joe. I honestly don't know if he were supposed to have backstory in the previous movies or not, but I know jackshit about him and the War Boys, and I loved it. Fury Road has this enormous, enormously rich world where everything is crazy and nothing is explained, and actually I love that about the movie. It made me feel like we literally have only seen one second worth of glimpse at its madness—and looking at the amount of creativity in it, we definitely only have seen so little of its world. Every inch of its character designs told a story, and there were plenty of story to tell: Citadel, War Boys and War Pups, Breeders, Gas Town, Bullet Farm, Many Mothers, we really are just scratching the surface.

But the main spectacle were definitely the fights and chases, and boy, what a spectacle it was. Almost everything were done with practical effects instead of CGI and you just can see the effort and detail that went into it. The cars were rigged with spikes, poles, and grenades, and you have never seen anything more beautiful than them. The chases were batshit crazy and complicated, that it made Fast & Furious 7's scenes looked like they were made with your niece's toy LEGO cars. But honestly, as R-rated and artful as it is, we can't really deny that Fury Road is basically a 13 year old's wet dream in which cars explode randomly on contact, and rock music during battle is the pinnacle of coolness. In short, it was nothing but full-on gloriousness.

One thing, though: Charlize Theron was a capital-B, bold letter Badass. With a buzzcut and a warpaint, Charlizes Theron's Imperator Furiosa was a heroine worthy of Sigourney Weavers's Ripley status. Tom Hardy, who played the titular character, has always had enormous presence and he was perfect as the wild-but-strangely-rarely-speaking Max. But it was Imperator Furiosa who moved the story forward. Trapped within action sequence after sequences, Theron was able to bring depth to her character, just enough to make we love her and want her to succeed. I also need to have a little shoutout for Nicholas Hoult who played Nux. Being a fan from his Skins days, I was always delighted to see him taking on a new, interesting character and he did a marvellous job. We witness you, Nicholas Hoult, and we welcome you.

It was really hard for me to remind myself that the original Mad Max, a cult favorite, is a 36-year-old property. TL;DR Somehow, Mad Max: Fury Road felt so fresh, so breathtaking, and had eased itself to the cracks of today's filmmaking so completely that you know it wasn't a miracle, it wasn't luck; it was the work of a seasoned filmmaker who knew exactly what he's doing, doing what he does best.

Review: The Martian (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Space is dangerous, but it's also endearing.

Never the fact has ever been more apparent in the movies, than in The Martian. Set in the near future, The Martian is about a group of astronauts in the early days of human exploration on the Red Planet who were forced to leave because of a heavy storm--leaving one of its members, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), on the surface. For months, intelligence and ingenuity were the only things keeping him alive until he could be rescued.

The Martian, for me, was an important movie because it showed what being an astronaut really is about. Space is a dangerous thing, and the movie never downplay on that, but The Martian also puts space in an endearing light that makes us never wonder why did we ever go to space in the first place. Because the answer will always be: why not? Why not be the first? Why not find out, for the greater human race? For anyone intimate with space travel, when Watney gave lecture about being an astronaut and basically says, "When you're up there, at some point you're gonna think you're gonna die and maybe you will," you know that it's 100% true but you also know that doesn't mean you don't wanna go up there in a heartbeat. It's hard to depict a balanced portrayal about the dangers of space, but The Martian nailed it.

Science is also definitely the hero in this film, which is a surprisingly rare occurrence in popular fiction. Not only did Watney repeatedly was shown applying basic science concept to solve his problem, the film also pretty accurately depicted the workings of NASA; how astronauts, ground control, and teams of scientists work hard and thoroughly to reach a common goal. Aside from being very capable, scientists and astronauts in this film were also pretty humorous--and it's important because real scientists love their jokes too, but are almost never depicted as such. It's a very science-positive movie and I appreciated it.

At one point in the movie, Matt Damon's character, who was a botanist exclaimed, "Mars will come to fear my botany powers!" asserting his conviction to grow food on the surface of Mars--something that hadn't been done by any humans before, ever. That, among many other scenes in the movie, was a clear example of the giddiness, humor, and determination of scientists existed in the film.

But in the very core of the movie, The Martian is about human’s determination to live, that everyone can relate to.

The Martian also nailed it with the casting. Matt Damon has the perfect charisma and cockiness about him, but I mostly want to commend the casting choices for the other characters. The most prominent members of the space crew were women (Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara), and at least half of other supporting characters were of minorities (of African, Chinese, Mexican, and Indian descent). Hollywood movies about space can too frequently feel a bit jingoistic (with NASA obviously being an American organization), but The Martian never felt like that the slightest. From the start, The Martian is a humanistic effort.

Directed by veteran director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Prometheus, Black Hawk Down), The Martian looked beautiful, and the movie flowed beautifully as well. The threats were terrifying as hell, and there were no fake or newfangled technologies so everything stayed grounded. But despite all the hardship Watney was against, it’s a strangely hopeful film.

TL;DR The movie is an obvious bait for people like me--who loves movies, space, and science in the equal amount--but it's also a damn good thriller about survival that everyone could enjoy.

So. Excited.

Teaser for new season of Orphan Black, BBC America.

4.18.15

Save the date, #CloneClub.

Review: Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

Before I say anything, let me just remind you that Birdman was hyped to extraordinary degree. Seemingly every movie site and every single movie critic loved it. Academy Award fell all over for it, and if you don't pay attention you might think they're talking about The Second Coming or something. It was crazy, and I purposefully waited to watch and and review it (just because that's how I am). Spoiler alert: Birdman went on to win Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Directing, and Best Cinematography in Academy Award. All of which are pretty well deserved, actually, so here it goes (non-spoiler review):

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a washed-up actor, primarily known only as the guy who played "Birdman" in the movies three times over. He desperately tries to—risking everything he's got—to reach industrial relevance again by curiously adapting a play based on Raymond Carver's "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love". In an unexpected turn of events, big-time Broadway performer-slash-a**hole Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) agrees to join the play at last minute.

In short, Birdman is a brilliant satire. It expertly examines the absurd dichotomy between entertainment and art, relevance and irrelevance, ego and confidence, fantasy and reality, man and icon, in the way that's almost impossible to not see the parallels to the real world (whatever that is). That, of course, is intentional. The movie blurs the line between fiction and reality: it name drops several things from The Hunger Games to Robert Downey Jr. (whom Riggan might or might not hate). Heck, even the play itself is based from a real writer and a real short story. And guess what? In a further satirical twist, Michael Keaton actually played Batman back in 1989 if anyone remembers, and one would have to be literally blind to not see the parallel between the two superheroic icons. 

This super-realist theme really is a part of something genius once you consider its unique faux-one shot approach. The whole movie—almost 119 minutes of it—was shot and edited to make it look like it’s all done in one continuous shot. Birdman is reverse-escapism, in a way. It traps you in the same way Riggan is trapped with his poor pathetic life, and you can’t escape from the scene no more than Riggan was able to escape his own body.

While I’m not sure if Birdman is as revolutionary as I’ve been led to believe, I can definitely see how it appeals most deeply to the cinephile and theater crowd. Snobbery, fickleness of fame, and fight for relevance are themes that they know all too well, and it must be fun to see a movie that pokes fun at it so gleefully, sternly, stylishly, and artistically fresh.

Birdman is unique artistically not only because of the editing, but also because of the soundtrack. The soundtrack is of drums, all the time, throughout the movie—drums that are out of tune and kind of broken to reflect the state of mind that Riggan is in. (Bonus: How they made the soundtrack. It’s impressive.) Director Alejandro González Iñárritu clearly had a unique vision and he made it all happen with ease and brilliance. That said, I must say the only actor that really jumped at me in Birdman is Edward Norton (despite Keaton is a front runner for Best Actor for his role). The others are good too, but for me Norton clearly outshines them as the rude Broadway prodigy.

TL;DR While originally I wasn’t that impressed with Birdman, it really is one of those movies that gets better the more I think about it. Is it revolutionary? I don't really think so, but is it brilliant? Definitely.

Review: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (or “Dawn” for simplicity) is that rare smart summer blockbuster, but I won’t talk much about the the actual movie other than it is a great and satisfying experience and you should go see it. What I’m gonna talk about is what I think “Dawn” is to Hollywood. It’s an interesting movie, but it also brings out A LOT of interesting points about modern blockbuster landscape in general. Which is, I might say, a sign of an even better–and possibly transformative–movie. 

Being both a sequel (to “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) and a prequel (to the general franchise), “Dawn” lands itself in a very weird and difficult spot. Sequels too frequently feel like a “been there done that” exercise, especially if the sequel refuses to stray away from whatever formula that succeeded in the first installment. And prequels, by definition, are predestined journeys and generally don’t leave enough room for surprises. Matt Reeves (director) smartly chose to set “Dawn” 10 years after the events of “Rise”, which means: skipping the viral outbreak entirely, making the apes the main characters instead of the humans, and shying as far away from previous movie’s James Franco’s character as possible. In other words, a completely different movie than “Rise”. 

He, however, could not set “Dawn” completely free from the trappings of a prequel. We know that apes would eventually rule the world. Intelligently, we (and Reeves) knew. In fact, plotwise, “Dawn” is not much of a surprise. Some humans want peace, some want war. Some apes want peace, some want war. Several confusions, betrayals, and bad timings later, war ensues. But “Dawn” made itself not necessarily about what happens, but how it happens. It is a journey of emotions, and boy, did “Dawn” pack up some real emotions. The moment we see Caesar’s son’s (Nick Thurston) eyes stared blankly at the person who killed his friend is the exact moment we weep. We’ve long reconciled with the fact that humans are hateful and unsalvageable, but now we see a brand new species pick up on that hatred and ran with it with apparent ease. It is shocking, it is jarring, and it is exactly how it should make us feel. 

All of that emotion is conveyed largely by CGI and motion capture, which is an incredible feat in itself. All praises should go to Weta that worked on the effect, and also Andy Serkis and all the motion capture actors. Yep, I mentioned them as actors, which is what they should be recognized as. It only takes a quick minute to peek into the behind-the-scenes and see the kind of emotionality and physicality that they bring into the characters. 

(BONUS: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes motion capture clip)

Tangentially, internet listed “Dawn”’s budget as $120 mill which is not at all surprising or that big (or even downright cheap) for a summer blockbuster with heavy effects. Hmm, I’ll just let that sink in for future reference. The very good news is, “Dawn” is a success critics-wise and box-office-wise. It gained an impressive $70 mill in the first weekend (overperforming previous predictions and knocking out Transformers 4 from first place), which means that audience are ready for and apparently like a nontraditional, smart movie. 

Why, nontraditional, you might ask? The general preconception of Hollywood blockbuster (especially for the more fantastical stories) is that general audience need a surrogate. Like Alice in Wonderland, we just need Alice as that normal character that acts as a filtering window to the strange world. That’s why we have Jake Sully of Avatar, Neo of The Matrix, Bella of Twilight, heck, even Frodo of The Lord of The Rings (who is considerably more normal than wizards and elves). That’s why, in almost every fantastical or alienesque world, there’s always a human (or at least human-like) character. There’s a human character in “Dawn”, alright, but if there’s any surrogate it’s not Malcolm the human (Jason Clarke). It’s Caesar the leader of the apes (Andy Serkis). He is the first character we saw, and it is through him we view and feel the ape community. Granted, he is the most human-like of them all (being the one ape who lived so long with a human. But one could argue that Koba (Toby Kebbel) is also human-like in a different fashion), but the preconception that audience couldn’t relate with what isn’t human? Gone with this movie.

Also, maybe half of the movie is practically mute. Granted, there are sign languages and subtitles but Hollywood execs thought that audience hate subtitles too. Who would’ve thought that wild moves like these ones would pay off and audience would relate to the characters no problem? Filmmakers who don’t underestimate the audience and refuse to bow down to the lowest common denominator, that’s who. Hopefully future filmmakers will learn from this movie and succeed even more. 

TL;DR To sum up, “Dawn” is not only a good movie but also a breath of fresh air, because it is what happens if filmmakers respect their audience and try to tell an interesting story instead of hitting bulletpoints.

TV Shoutout: Black Mirror

Honestly, I originally intended to write this TV Shoutout in time for the Christmas Special, but I foolishly thought that it airs on the 25th instead of the 16th. But that's okay, because now I can tell you that the special was full of usual Black Mirror greatness. And here it is about the show:

What it is about: Black Mirror is a British dystopian anthology miniseries. The stories for each episode varies but the running theme is humanity and technology, usually set in an imagined 5-or-10-minutes-into-the-future. And for lack of better word, Black Mirror is exactly what the title suggests: our dark reflection of who we are as human being.

Or in shorter words, it's The Twilight Zone for today.

Why you should watch it: Because it is a brilliant satire. It is scifi-esque, but definitely everyone can enjoy it because most times the technologies are incorporated seamlessly into its world, just like ours. In it's heart, Black Mirror is less about flashy gadgets and more about social commentary. What it's not though, is safe or comforting, in the way that some art should not be. It is intended to be shocking and eye-opening. I doubtlessly would not recommend a few episodes (like The National Anthem) for the faint of heart, but it is absolutely worth it. Black Mirror is lovely and funny at times (Charlie Brooker the creator actually did award-winning comedy work), but equally terrifying and heartbreaking, in the best way. Most people who've watched it agree that Black Mirror is one of the best TV series they've encountered, and for good reason. If that does not convince you yet there are more trivial reasons, like the fact that it is beautiful to look at and beautifully directed, and it features familiar brilliant actors from Mad Men, Captain America, Game Of Thrones, etc.

Who should watch it: Those who like great storytelling, sci-fi or not. Those who thought that there's something missing in today's television and demand "more" from their entertainment. Those who think that underneath the flashy and happy exterior, the world is dark and full of terrors. And whether it sounds like Black Mirror is your thing or not, I wholeheartedly encourage you to at least try to watch one of the episodes, because otherwise you might miss one of the masterpieces of modern TV.

Where you should start: It is an anthology (a collection of short stories), so basically you can start at any episode because each episode is self-standing. But if you're squeamish or less tolerable for more "racy" stuff, I do advice you against The National Anthem (season 1 episode 1) at least until you get the hang of the show.

Status: Black Mirror had 2 full seasons (each had 3 episodes) and one Christmas Special (listed as season 3). A full season might be coming in 2015.

Lastly, if I had not succeeded in explaining what Black Mirror is all about, Charlie Brooker the creator/writer might. Here he is talking about the concept and the meaning of Black Mirror:

Review: Ant-Man (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), a man with a shrinking technology long hidden from government and SHIELD, recruits newly discharged Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) to obtain his technology from an evil competitor, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll).

A few years ago, the idea of Ant-Man movie--a third tier comic-book superhero with silly powers (he's small and he talks to ants????)--might be novel. Today, superhero movies are a dime in a dozen and Marvel had practically made careers out of lesser superheroes. We know Ant-Man is gonna be, at least, good (yes, I'm a Marvel believer). The question is: How good, and how unique?

Uniqueness is definitely not Ant-Man's problem. Ant-Man's format is decidedly new in the superhero realm--it's a heist movie. In it, Scott Lang had just got out of prison and decided to take on One Last Job (Which is like, every heist movie ever, but that's actually not a bad thing. It's a cliche because it works). It also takes on a wholly different dimension than what we usually see and experience, and there's the fact that Ant-Man literally talks to ants. A lot of the unexpected, subversive, and hilarious moments simply come from the fact that there's this little guy with tremendous power, and there's absolutely no shame to revel in that (while it's still new). Ant-Man definitely do not have a problem setting itself apart from other movies.

But how good was it? Good enough, but not amazing.

Ant-Man had its share of humor, but it actually had less wisecracking than your average Avengers or Iron Man movie. Either that, or half of them didn't stick the landing. Not that being funny is a requirement for a good movie, but I can't help but feel that in an attempt to "toughen up" Paul Rudd's character, practically half of his life got sucked out of him. He's a damn good "subdued" comic actor, but most of the humor was delegated to his friend, Luis (Michael Pena) instead (he was hilarious, actually). I like Paul Rudd enough in this movie and I think he's a great actor and did good job in Ant-Man, but I am tempted to say that he might be miscast. What I'm saying is, while he was good in his role, Paul Rudd did not occupy his superheroic persona as well as Chris Pratt or Chris Evans did theirs.

Another shortcoming might come from a lack of any real villain, and therefore, any real direction. Darren Cross was quite servicable as an evil capitalist/scientist/sheep-killer, but he was Hank Pym's nemesis and not Lang's, so Lang was left without any real direction aside from general heist movie plot. Yellowjacket was great and menacing, but at the end it was too little too late. Excacerbated by thin relationships of fathers and daughters (either Hank with Hope, or Scott with his daughter), TL;DR Ant-Man could not feel like a truly "full" movie. It always felt like half a movie because it failed to focus on either end of the equation (the character-side vs comic-booky villain-side). Basically, Ant-Man was half a movie away from being great and that's a shame, because the rest of the film was fun and competently made.

While Ant-Man--being a heist movie--did not have a lot of action, the ones that were there were truly great. The heists were great too and there were genuinely exciting moments in between. Also, the cameos, the mid and also end credits scenes were hella exciting! Cannot wait for Civil War!

Web Shoutout: Academy Originals

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here)

This episode, I’m going to talk about Academy Originals, a Youtube channel of video series produced by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, of the Academy Awards (or might be best known as The Oscars) fame. For all the problems existing inside The Academy Awards, almost surprisingly, Academy Originals consistently puts out extremely sincere and inspiring videos about people working in the industry. They usually feature dedicated, extremely talented people of professions closely linked to filmmaking--sometimes even professions you might have never heard about or thought about. They talk about why they do what they do, and how they do it, and they always leave me inspired (and makes me wish I can be that person). For anyone who loves to find love in filmmaking processes, this channel would certainly feed your soul every Monday.

Just check out these videos, hand-picked from the channel!

1. “Credited As: Creature Performer” -  Tom Woodruff (Aliens, Jumanji, Zookeeper)

2. “ Academy Close-Up: Conservators” - Conservation team of Academy's Margaret Herrick Library

3. “Creative Spark: Theodore Shapiro” -  Theodore Shapiro, Composer (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Tropic Thunder, The Devil Wears Prada)

4. Questions: What Was The First Movie That Scared You?

Subscribe to Academy Originals.

Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is a rich, successful gallery owner who is unhappy with her life and marriage, who suddenly receives an unpublished manuscript dedicated to her from her writer ex-husband, Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). Nocturnal Animals tells the paralelling naratives between Susan and the lead character Tony Hastings (also played by Jake Gyllenhaal) in the novel.

Visually, Nocturnal Animals is achingly beautiful. Everything is minimalist but decadent, and at times shot not unlike a perfume commercial. At least, the parts with Amy Adams, because she does live in “that” world. The parts with Jake Gyllenhaal, however, is more grounded and mostly set in the desert or in a police station, and is more traditionally shot but not without its visual moments.

But story-wise, things are less... good. What is the movie trying to say? Honestly, I don't know. What purpose does the book storyline hold for the main story? What is Edward trying to say by sending Susan the book? During the movie we're left grasping at straws to figure out what it all means, and then the answer never comes. Don't get me wrong, a good movie does not have to spell out everything for its viewer, but it has to give us something to hold on to, and Nocturnal Animals give us nothing.

Amy Adams' character is cold and the environment is sterile, making it hard for us to relate. Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance is absolutely magnetic and his storyline affecting, but his character is rendered moot because he is only a character in a book. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is chillingly scary and is also a standout in this film, but he is a bad guy and does not help us to relate to our protagonists.

But the main thing that makes it so hard for us to relate for the characters is that because there's also no arc to speak of of the characters. Amy Adams' character stays constant throughout the whole movie (seriously, if 80% her scenes consist of her laying in bed or taking a bath, how much character growth do you expect) with maaaaybe a hint of change at the last 5 minutes, but then-cut to black! Due to the nature of his story, a lot of things happen to Jake Gyllenhaal's character as Tony but he has absolutely no agency in the story. 

To sum it up simply, in Nocturnal Animals there's no overarching theme, no character arc, there's not even an ending. Honestly, why should we care?

Okay, I lied, I could think of a couple themes about the movie, but none of it is well developed. One possible running theme is about loss, regret, and revenge, but it's not framed cohesively enough. Another possible theme is about wealth and decadence versus suffering for integrity, but then again, is woefully lacking in execution.

One nice thing I could say is that Tom Fords direction is exquisite, and I don't mean that just visually. He is able to build emotional moments and suspense, and bring out everything from Jake Gyllenhaal and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance (and they give a lot in their performances).

TL;DR But like I said, everything else in Nocturnal Animals is just... there. Even with its emotional moments, somehow all of it doesn't mean anything.