Nightbitch

So we have talked about some pretty phenomenal movies this year, we’ve also talked about some pretty terrible ones. But we have yet to talk about one of the weirdest movies of the year. Starring Amy Adams, Nightbitch is a film that came out this year. The premise of this movie alone is actually insane and at the very least, it's interesting.

We literally open with Amy Adams basically trauma dumping but only in her head. She feels trapped as a stay at home mom, her days feel repetitive and monotonous.

Then we have some narration, and I think by now we know how I feel about narration. Sure, it can be used really well sometimes but that is just so rare. More often than not it is used as a way to exposition dump, or a way for writers to get away with not actually showing their character development. Now used as an internal dialogue it's not terrible, but I need the character development to happen just as much visually as it does over the voiceover.

I think the concept of a film that centers around a mother who is super burnt out and in desperate need of a support system and a break is a great idea, I am just sure this is the best way to execute it. I am desperately trying to see what the purpose of her turning into a dog is. I’m very confused as to why that is the avenue we decided to take.

I do love that we have scenes of her husband finally being home and then not contributing to the house or the childcare at all. I also love that we see her calling him out on it. This man is useless. Okay but why are we turning her into a dog? I am literally so confused. The frame of the film is good, it's necessary loving the things we are drawing attention to, but for the love of god why did it have to go so far off the rails?

And now we have flashbacks to go along with this narration…alright. Two of the most misused writing devices together, in one film. Could not get worse.

The only thing I can come up with is that this transformation that she is going through is somehow metaphorical but they are really making it seem like it is literal. The only thing I can come up with is that they are trying to show the ferocity one feels when breaking from the confines of their mundane lives. The ferality that it takes to be a woman, and a mother in the current state of society. I kind of get it, but it's still so weird. It was definitely a choice, I am still not sure if it was the right one.

The fact that she gets the other moms on board is great, the fact dad doesn’t understand the dame that they are playing is ridiculous. His two year old is pretending to be a dog. What exactly is wrong with that? He’s two. Not the husband trying to make all of her issues her fault. “What happened to the woman I married?” Sir she’s now a single mother because you are fucking useless.

Overall the film was un-fucking-hinged, literally so weird. Again the loosest of themes makes sense, I can only sort of get the connection to the dog thing but I swear there were about a billion other ways to hammer this point home. The ending actually wraps up the story really well. Momma finds her people, who end up being the support system that she has always needed, and she separates from her useless ass husband, which makes him realize how useless he is and she starts painting again. She starts becoming who she is again. Great concept, weird ass execution giving us a pretty solid 7.5/10.