David Fincher's "Gone Girl"

e_e

http://filmspotting.net/reviews/1225-gone-girl-spoiled.html

Fantastic discussion on the film here. Pointed out so many little details and thematic stuff that I hadn't even noticed.

SVG

Just saw it and have to say I'm on the other side of The Guest/Gone Girl fence having enjoyed the former much more than the latter... but I think this is largely due to the fact that I went into The Guest blind whereas I had already read Gone Girl.

I mean, there were things I loved in Gone Girl. The opening sequence! And the music. If they gave Oscars for casting this would surely be a winner- top to bottom so well done. I mean Pike and Affleck were perfect but the smaller roles too- Tyler Perry, Sela Ward, that actress who played Rosamund Pike's mother who looked so like her and on and on.

I do feel it lost steam a bit at the end after

Amy's bloodsoaked return. I felt like they spent the last 20 minutes underlining the fact she was a sociopath- I know that! I saw her with the boxcutter!

I was hoping for something a bit snappier. As I was watching, I was thinking of The Ghost Writer and the energy of that finale and I wish Gone Girl could have finished with some of that verve. But that was obviously not what they were going for and I think my view is definitely coloured by having been spoiled going in.

All in all I enjoyed it. I didn't love it. I appreciated how well made it was. I'll probably watch it again whenever it comes on tv. It might grow on me then. It's no Zodiac, it's no Fight Club, it's no Social Network, I think I even prefer Dragon Tattoo but it's David Fincher so it's worth seeing.

e_e

First pic is from the 1992 Emmies, must have expertly photoshopped Pike into it. Either that or it's a seamless recreation which for Fincher wouldn't surprise me. :pac:

Fysh

Warper wrote: »

Ah come on, the story is ridiculous. I dont have a problem with ridiculous stories once they are know they are ridiculous but this film thinks its serious which is where the problem lies. The whole ex storyline, the why the hell does he take her back storyline. This isn't a bad film, but its far from being a classic. All of which is just my opinion.

We each have our own reaction to films, but tome this was a film that knew it was kind of ridiculous - between Amy's inner monologue (

"Befriend a local idiot", "Befriend a pregnant idiot and harvest their urine", etc

) and some of Tanner Bolt's lines (

"I'll give you a special 'My wife is a crazy bitch' rate", "I know it's f*cked up but you've got to admire her"

) I thought it was very clear that at least a few of the protagonists are aware that they're in a ludicrous situation where their antagonist is expertly manipulating the world around them.

Yes, Amy's

sociopathic ability to manipulate people

is OTT. But if you can accept that as a starting point (it's presumably meant to be a result of her parents publishing books featuring an idealised version of her life, so I can see how that would push someone to learn how to present themselves as what others want and manipulate them accordingly) then the rest of the narrative does hang together. It doesn't have to make objective sense, it just needs to be plausible enough for the characters who are being manipulated to buy into it/feel they have no other choice (as with

the federal investigator who interviews Amy at the end and repeatedly ignores the detective's attempts to poke holes in Amy's story

, or

putting Affleck's character in a position where he wants children and Amy is now pregnant with his child, who would grow up hating him if he left Amy

).

CSF

I think my main problem with the film was Rosamund Pike.

The book depicts a woman with a variety of different aspects to her character, and that works in terms of making an obviously unbelievable script seem that bit more real.

Rosamund Pike (or the director) seems to have stripped all subtlety from the character and turned her into a character that fits Hollywood movie stereotypes.

Tarzana

6/10

Choppy, uneven, annoying pacing and couldn't seem to decide whether it was a black comedy or not. I enjoyed the black comic moments when they happened but it didn't fully commit to it or to it being a straight thriller. That didn't work for me. The film was kinda forgettable too. Many parts were difficult to take seriously, I found myself smirking a lot. I love David Fincher generally, so I'm a tad disappointed.

GBXI wrote: »

I know it's all very subjective but it would seem clear to me that the film is very much above average. Acting is excellent, plot/story-line while a bit OTT is novel and very cleverly told. The humour in the film is also excellent. It seems to be both popular at the box office and well received critically.

Yes, it is subjective. I wouldn't elevate it above average really. It was acclaimed by all critics but certainly not all. And critical acclaim is something that has raised my eyebrows enough time in my life to make me disregard it and formulate my own opinion.

I know that plots don't need to be believable, but this film couldn't strike a tone that made the unbelievable plot that interesting to me. I just found it kinda... irritating.

Alfred Borden

Absolutely loved this. My perfect time of film.

Tarzana

e_e wrote: »

I'd more understand people who loathe it (like the user 2 posts above) than call it average tbh. The film's technical craft in the way it tells the story alone puts it far above mediocrity.

Not really, if the person watching it finds it... mediocre. You're not going to say "Well that film was average to me, but apparently it's technically crafted well so gee, I don't find it average anymore! Even though I just did."

Tarzana

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Honestly, I felt the film didn't take itself seriously at all and had a hugely playful streak that had me laughing out loud on quite a few occasions.

It both did and didn't take itself seriously. Sometimes it did, sometimes not.

Tarzana

FlashR2D2 wrote: »

Haven't seen 'Gone Girl' yet...but I don't like when Fincher tries to do playful or keep it lighthearted. It comes across as insincere.

Seven, Zodiac and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are his best films which keep it real and serious. Introducing all the playful stuff in other films.... is like as if he feels guilty sometimes and needs to cover whatever up with a bit of humour.

Not always, 'The Social Network' does playful very well. But then, that had Aaron Sorkin writing the script. What a duo!

nc19

Id hate to be like some on here the way they watch a movie.

I genuinely have never come out of a film talking about the score. Or the way some people over analyse the lighting/writing/casting etc.

just watch the movie.


fwiw - I thought it was very good. I like Affleck in almost everything hes been in. Totally under rated imo.
Pike played the character very well and is nice to look at.
Couldn't figure where it was going like I do with other films so thats a plus for me.

CSF

nc19 wrote: »

Id hate to be like some on here the way they watch a movie.

I genuinely have never come out of a film talking about the score. Or the way some people over analyse the lighting/writing/casting etc.

just watch the movie.


fwiw - I thought it was very good. I like Affleck in almost everything hes been in. Totally under rated imo.
Pike played the character very well and is nice to look at.
Couldn't figure where it was going like I do with other films so thats a plus for me.

I can't understand for a minute why someone would post about films on the internet if they weren't interested in those things. The score I can understand, the lighting, yup, but when you added in writing and casting I'd say you had lost pretty much everybody on here.

Irish Aris

nc19 wrote: »

Id hate to be like some on here the way they watch a movie.

I genuinely have never come out of a film talking about the score. Or the way some people over analyse the lighting/writing/casting etc.

just watch the movie.


fwiw - I thought it was very good. I like Affleck in almost everything hes been in. Totally under rated imo.
Pike played the character very well and is nice to look at.
Couldn't figure where it was going like I do with other films so thats a plus for me.

Not sure what that supposed to mean.
I watch the movie and the score/writing/casting/lighting are part of it.

I am a big fan of David Fincher, never disappointed by a film of his. I'd consider this a return to top form. He is handling his material (which, as previously mentioned, flirts at times with the hyperbole) very well.
He managed the perfect casting - both Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck are very good and some fine performances from the rest of the cast (not that it matters, but I could see them nominated for ensemble cast in the SAG awards).
The music seems to be an important part of the film. I think it is already mentioned that the music was quite loud in the "flashback" scenes to a point where the dialogue wasn't clearly audible. I took it as an indication that it doesn't really matter, as they might not be true/relevant to the plot?

An excellent film for me.

Fysh

Tarzana wrote: »

Not really, if the person watching it finds it... mediocre. You're not going to say "Well that film was average to me, but apparently it's technically crafted well so gee, I don't find it average anymore! Even though I just did."

nc19 wrote: »

Id hate to be like some on here the way they watch a movie.

I genuinely have never come out of a film talking about the score. Or the way some people over analyse the lighting/writing/casting etc.

just watch the movie.

For some people the act of watching a film is intrinsically linked to noticing and giving consideration to how the story is told - how the scenes are framed, how the dialogue flows, whether characters are made distinct in how they speak, how music and sound are used to emphasise mood and atmosphere, set and costume design, the pacing of events and so on.

If that's how you watch film, then it's easy to find things to like in films that are just average narratively speaking, or conversely to find things which drag down a film that's enjoyable in character or plot terms.

If it's not how you watch film, chances are someone pointing out that sort of detail wouldn't change your mind about the film and that's fair enough, because watching a film is a subjective experience. There's not really a right or wrong way to do it.

I do find it a bit odd that you'd come to a forum intended for people to discuss films and express derision for how other people enjoy films. It's not as though people analysing films more deeply is stopping you from watching films for your own enjoyment, is it?

Tipsy McSwagger

Seen it yesterday and don't really know what to think of it. I did have an issue with

Amy getting away with murder, but this was America's sweetheart we are talking about, and the look the senior police officer gave to the female cop when she questioned Amy's story made it clear they had no interest in investigating her story.

pixelburp

Well whatever about the film's respective merits, it's a first for me in one sense: it's the first film I've (knowingly) watched with Tyler Perry starring; though given his post-filming apprehensions about the material he worked with, I suspect it'll be his last foray into a legitimate production.

As to the film itself, while the widespread praise can understandably cause a letdown in the eyes of some when they get around to see this, I thought it was a perverted, demented thriller and acid-tongued attack on the romantic ideals of marriage. So yeah, I loved every minute of it; a dark-humoured deconstruction of marital bliss, middle-class suburbia and media witchhunts that was unafraid to embrace its own ludicrous premise and run with it. Much of the humour was razor sharp if also pitch-black, with the two investigating police officers making for a humourous, witty pair: more of them would have been nice.

The shift in perspective and slow reveal of 'the truth' - on both sides - was a fantastic use of the Unreliable Narrator and while it created a saggy middle, it all culminated in an insane finale act. If I had one criticism was that the characters outside of the primary trio initially felt a little caricature, but when Amy's side of the story came into focus, the larger-than-life portrayals suddenly made a little more sense.

The casting of Ben Affleck as the douche-bag who gets picked on by just about everyone with an axe to grind was also pretty inspired, showing the man isn't unaware of his celebrity status. Trent Reznor continued his previous good work, lending his dark, brooding notes to the mood.

Hard to say I 'enjoyed' the film, it was quite a grimy, ugly tale, but it gripped me from the get-go.

Fysh

pixelburp wrote: »

Well whatever about the film's respective merits, it's a first for me in one sense: it's the first film I've (knowingly) watched with Tyler Perry starring; though given his post-filming apprehensions about the material he worked with, I suspect it'll be his last foray into a legitimate production.

That's disappointing, I thought he was very good in that role and was wondering if we might see him in more substantial roles rather than what wikipedia tells me he's taken on in the past.

Oh well. We'll always have Tanner Bolt

Arkaron

Outstanding film in my opinion as well. Although I don't like all of Fincher's work, I must say his last couple of features were really, really impressive.

In Gone Girl, I especially liked the whole use of someone's image in the media to turn the tides against someone else or in their own favor. A few of the scenes actually felt like mise en abime to me, as if the characters were more aware of the thriller genre's codes than usual, and used them to try and steer the story in the direction they wanted. What's interesting is that such 'meta' devices were solely used by the characters here, and never as a way to break the fourth wall or wink at the audience. A very serious meta exploration of the genre, in a way, never played for laughs. That was a refreshing and griping take on the crime mystery film.

Like Tipsy McSwagger, I thought there were a couple of plot holes maybe, towards the end. I guess

Neil Patrick Harris' character could have been easily proven innocent of kidnapping by checking where he was on the day Amy disappeared

. But after 2 hours of expertly crafted filmmaking, I'm easily willing to let such things go.

I was wondering: when I saw it at Cineworld, the piano soundtrack was particularly loud and almost covered up the characters' voices in the flashback scenes. Was this due to human error, or did Fincher intend it this way? I'm curious to know if others noticed and wondered the same, as I asked the question to a friend of mine who saw it abroad, and told me he didn't notice that.

All in all, it's probably my second favorite from Fincher, after The Social Network.

Tipsy McSwagger

I noticed the sound too in the flashback scenes and it was more than likely intentional from Fincher. It's something that happens a lot in video games, especially in Alan Wake.

ancapailldorcha

Fysh wrote: »

For some people the act of watching a film is intrinsically linked to noticing and giving consideration to how the story is told - how the scenes are framed, how the dialogue flows, whether characters are made distinct in how they speak, how music and sound are used to emphasise mood and atmosphere, set and costume design, the pacing of events and so on.

I wouldn't notice a lot of this at all, at least not consciously. I recently watched a YouTube video lamenting the laziness of some American directors. The author highlighted Edgar Wright as one of his favourite directors and used the way in which he conveys information to the viewer using means other than dialogue.

Here we go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOzD4Sfgag

Mal-Adjusted

Finally back from it now. I thought the first hour or so was great, even though i could find no sympathy for Ben Afflec's character. I think it kind of comes undone when we start seeing things from Amy's perspective and it swiftly descends into utter lunacy and was tonally all over the place. I didn't like the fact that there was no resolution, the film just peters out, though i'm sure some people must like that. It was a technically slick film and the acting was superb all round (though I felt the NPH scenes were a bit out of place and I'm not sure why). I think this could have been a disaster with a less talented director. Overall, I felt it was fairly mediocre.

Squeedily Spooch

I'd liken it to something like American Psycho, a blacker than black comedy with a different genre being presented. It's a thriller but not really, more a cynical as you like take on marriage and the American media with dollops of jet black humour. The "you ****ing bitch" line nearly brought the house down where I saw it.

JohnDaniels

I've seen lots mentioned about the swipes he takes at the media and marriage but the real hay-makers which the film lands are very much directed at personal persona, the lies we tell ourselves and the lies we tell others. The opening in which the voice over plays talking about cracking a head open to know what a person is thinking and feeling. Deeper again though is about do we really know who we are?

It plays with this to ridiculous levels within levels, like with the amazing Amy character, how this distorts her own view of herself, how it distorts others views of her with the added depth of the parents duplicitous treatment of their daughter and the character. The complexity contained within some of the questions it asks are really deep.

At its heart I think it's asking, who are we? Are we just the lies we tell ourselves and others? Shakespeare's '"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women are merely players. They have their exits and entrances, and one man in his time will play many parts...' comes to mind. Wonderfully subversive funny line which hits all this home when Affleck's character mentions he feels like he's in the middle of a Law and Order episode

Iranoutofideas

Well....that was pretty ****ed up

kryogen

Saw it last night, still not sure if I actually liked it or not......take a couple of days to digest maybe

Burky126

Saw this today and really liked it. Had everything I resonate with in terms of directing and tone. Strongest effort of Fincher's work I've seen in a while. So glad I managed to avoid the trailer and spoilers of this one.

branie2

I saw it two weeks ago and I thought it was very good

Cartman78

kryogen wrote: »

Saw it last night, still not sure if I actually liked it or not......take a couple of days to digest maybe

In the exact same boat at the minute....enjoyed it (I think) but wasn't what I was expecting.

Fago123

Saw it at the weekend and really enjoyed it. Probably Fincher's funniest film, but maybe less visual feasts than we're used to him from him bar

the sugar dust and boxcutter scenes

One thing that's bothering me though is

Amy's fake kidnapping story. She claimed the kidnapper hit her over the head with the judy hammer which would account for the massive amount of blood on the floor of their house but where was the wound? I can understand the feds not pushing her in that situation but surely the doctor would be saying something along the lines of "jesus let me take a look at that wound, it'll probably require dozens of stitches and lets arrange a brain scan etc etc" and her story would unravel?

Went to see it last night and loved it, it's the kind of film that only Fincher could make work. A dark, pitch black comedy that goes places few others would dare. It took a while for me to warn to it but after about 45 minutes I was in utter heaven and left the cinema with a huge smile. It's rare that I'd leave the cinema looking forward to rewatching a film but this is one I'll get on Blu-Ray the day it's released.