Talk:Animal Instincts (film)

Confusing

I've been asked on my talk page why I tagged this article with {{Confusing}}:

Joanna Cole (Whirry) talks of meeting a man named David (Caulfield), the latter may be a police officer.

The relevance of his occupation?

Their marriage

Leap from meeting to being married.

is in strong precarious positions

How can a position be "strong " and "precarious"? How many positions, and what are they?

so they resort to involvements in voyeurism and blackmail.

They blackmail people? They blackmail each other? They choose to get blackmailed? How is "resort to involvements in voyeurism and blackmail" different to "resort to voyeurism and blackmail"

The wife begins becoming involved

"begins becoming"?

in multiple extramarital affairs to several other men

As opposed to "multiple extramarital affairs to one other man"? How do you have an affair "to" someone?

For which reason Joanna's husband watches her doing that.

The reason he watches her having affairs is that she is having affairs?

But then, mobsters learn about their sexual activities and start getting involved.

They have a gang bang with mobsters?

I defy anyone with no prior knowledge to claim honestly that after reading this they understand the plot of the film. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Had to respond to this because frankly I found it just as confusing. Fortunately, I watched the film (don't judge), so I believe myself capable of correcting this:

Joanna Cole (Whirry) talks of meeting a man named David (Caulfield), the latter may be a police officer.

The relevance of his occupation?

The guy is a cop. Not "if", "may" or "but", I don't know why whoever wrote the summary put "may". It's from his job that he knows mobsters, which later become involved in the plot. And they're married from the start, I don't know why they put that they met only to jump from there. (The film has a framing device of the woman telling this to an interviewer, so maybe the summary takes account of this, but good grief, the execution is terrible.

is in strong precarious positions

My guess is they meant to say something along the lines of "is in a strongly precarious position", but that just sounds like a textbook example of cruft words. Say it's "precarious" and get done with it. (And given the film's genre; yes, there are a lot of positions.)

so they resort to involvements in voyeurism and blackmail. / The wife begins becoming involved / in multiple extramarital affairs to several other men / For which reason Joanna's husband watches her doing that.

*Sign* Same problem as before. The husband discovers that he's a voyeurist, so the wife becomes involved (Goodbye "begins"!) in extramarital affairs with other men (Sayonara "multiple"! Hasta la vista "several"!), and the husband watches it. ("Which reason", you're out! To the bleachers!")

But then, mobsters learn about their sexual activities and start getting involved.

They have a gang bang with mobsters?

Alright, that made me laugh out loud. But yeah, the local mob learns about their activities, and their leader (David Carradine) blackmails them to videotape an encounter with a crooked politician (Jan Michael-Vincent). (Man, what a landfield of dead careers.) It is then when they have "involvements" with blackmail, not at the same time as implied above.

Anyway, I'll rewrite the plot summary section to make it at least decently readable. (And thanks for the laughs.) EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)