MovieChat Forums > The Nightingale (2019) Discussion > Kind of a review, mostly a rant, I guess...

Kind of a review, mostly a rant, I guess. (spoilers)

posted 4 years ago by Jehosaphet (1055)
9 replies | jump to latest

You know how movies will have that "kick the dog" scene in order to establish just how "bad" the bad guy is?
This movie is that ramped up to ten, on steroids...multiple times over. And personally, it took me out of the movie. Our protagonist wasn't getting revenge on some guys who had a hand in her baby's death and murdered her husband, she was getting revenge on a couple of rampaging psychopaths murdering their way through the countryside of Australia after already having raped, beaten, murdered, infanticide, I'm sorry but this was f***ing ridiculous.

There was plenty of bad blood established in the first half hour of this movie (I think they actually even killed a dog, right?), but they just kept going with it, and kept going until this protagonist became something you could only see in this particular movie...he bore no resemblance to any real-life person your imagination could summon. Outside of maybe Ted Bundy and his ilk, but shoot, even those guys had more motivation behind their psychopathy than just a will to be the meanest, most loathsome sonsabitches you ever did meet.

The film opens the door for you and leads you in, further and further...until you find that, despite your repeated attempts to shake off the disbelief, you're inexplicably popping right back out of it again. "Inexplicably" because its difficult to fathom how there wasn't a single person in this production who was able to successfully convey to those in charge that, "Hey...maybe this is a little much? We laying it on a little thick here? Going a little too far, maybe?"

It was a good movie...and maybe that was part of the problem...it was so far above the "I spit on your grave" revenge-porn that to have seemingly plucked their bad guys FROM that B-movie genre...those scenes stood out like black on white. Because it was much classier than that. An otherwise well shot film, great acting, scenery, costume design etc.

But after the first half hour or so, every scene with the protagonist yanked me right out of the movie, like it or not. So far over the top that, despite my best efforts, I couldn't delude myself into believing the portrayal and wish they'd pumped the brakes a little.

This movie isn't subtle. The bad guys weren't as much "bad" as they were roving bands of hell-on-earth doling out misery, torture and death. I'd call it "bleak", except "bleak" implies that there's time to ruminate on how awful everything is. No can do, its gotta get worse, we only got 150 minutes to cram in evil soooo....YOU get a knife to the throat and YOU get a knife to the throat! Who's got the gun, oops, not anymore cause I killed ya, gonna shoot this sweet-faced little boy with it now, hey blacky your village is razed, everyone you've ever known is dead, means I gotta rape you now, my greasy buddy will need a turn afterward, oops someone coming out of the woods here, never mind I shot em in the face for some reason, lets go kill an elderly couple in their sleep, desecrate their corpses, call 'em names while we cut up their dog for stewing etc etc

Its a whole streak of crazy in an otherwise solid film.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Interesting point. I admit I have not seen this film, but caught a little bit of it for a while and didnt know anything about it.

Sounds like a period movie maker was trying to keep pace with "modern audiences" expectations based on how absolutely everything is so far over the top now days... I even wish super hero movies would dial it back to reality a bit: punching someone in the chest hard enough to knock them through 4 room's walls and down the street, is not interesting or amazing, just stupid. We KNOW they are super heros, but give them SOME human vulnerability we can connect with, or it's all just computer games. Boring to watch.

Maybe this film tried to go the SUPER approach because anything less these days seems dull and not "as good"?

It's a shame and very sad but I don't believe they will ever back it down and keep pushing things further since everyone's addiction is in play now.

[–] JohnMcCock (136) 4 years ago

JohnMcCock wants an answer..

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It is nothing more than a feminist revenge fantasy where the evil white men are portrayed as the worse thing in the history of mankind with no redeeming qualities whatsoever and the leading female with her token minority partner are all pure and save the day.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

ha! that's probably so true. Glad I didn't watch much of it :D

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 4 years ago

Agree 100%. The antagonist was cartoonish.

[–] mobocracy (845) 3 years ago

I’ve read the history of Australia and I think the problem is how historically realistic this all is. Transported criminals, especially the Irish, were sub human to the English.

A posting to Tasmania was at the cellar of the Empire for an infantry officer. This means the soldiers are the bottom of the barrel. They’re also fighting basically a genocidal war against the indigenous. What kind of person do you think it takes to keep a bunch of drunk soldiers remotely disciplined at a wilderness outpost at the ass end of the world in 1830? A nice guy or someone who is probably willing and able to indulge in all manner of brutality?

Basically all of this kind of thing happened. The British were fucking savages, maybe a half notch above the ancient Romans. They treated fellow British citizens like chattel slaves. They treated the aboriginal people like they weren’t even humans.

[–] prayformojo (101) 3 years ago

Well put. I don't think the film was trying to say that all British solidiers were like the main villain. It was trying to say these circumstances were ripe for creating or enabling pure sociopaths such as the main villain. I guess some people have trouble believing that such sociopaths existed in the past, which is odd because there is ample evidence in front of our eyes that such sociopaths are still with us today, in modern times.

[–] mobocracy (845) 3 years ago

I think this film probably was a kind of commentary on British empire and I'd wager if you asked an Australian about their opinion of the film they would be less critical of its depiction of poor behavior.

Obviously the specific officer and his specific experience are unique to this film, but how many transported female prisoners were raped by soldiers? I'm guessing this was not uncommon in remote settings and only really restrained to some degree in more built-up area where there was a larger army presence, more senior officers and some kind of civil administrative authority.

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 2 years ago

I agree--I have to admit, this film showed too much brutality to its main characters. The director could have made her point without putting Claire ( I think that was her name) through pure sheer hell during the first half of the film. That's why it's too hard to watch at times, and obviously why the film didn't get much of a U.S. release. I'd read that it was brutal, but it's one thing to read about it, and another thing to actually see it depicted. I like how the aboriginal man, Billy, was portrayed, and he came off as more than a very effective character himself. Things did get more interesting when he and Claire teamed up, but they're put through hell and back---literally----on the way there. And while I have no problem believing that the soldiers acted the way they did because their was no one around to check them on their effed-up behavior, plus the fact that they obviously saw both women and the aboriginal people as completely beneath them, I just felt like it was overdone, with too much overkill. It's one truly brutal and disturbing historical film, that's for damn sure.