Gone Girl (2014)

[Brianne Chantal]

The trailer sounds really interesting... Can't wait to see this movie!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gone-girl-trailer-ben-affleck-691722

[Cranberry]

I read the book, and I really enjoyed it. It keeps you guessing, and it's a great character study. I hope the film sticks very close to the book's plot.

I imagined Ryan Gosling and Amy Adams in the roles when I read it, but I think that Affleck and Pike are a good fit.

[halgia]

I also enjoyed the book a lot, and sure, Affleck and Pike seem like reasonable choices. I wonder, though, how they're going to do

Amy's fake-journal scenes...that was pretty key to the book. Flashbacks that turn out to be fake, maybe with voiceover, could work, but it feels like it might end up unsatisfying

.

[Iseut]

Ooh, Cranberry, I like your casting much better! I don't really have a problem with Pike as Amy, but I still just cannot with Ben Affleck as Nick. Ryan Gosling has a little more of that slouchy but sexy bad boy thing that I think that character needs.

[gwlisa]

I saw Patrick Wilson as Nick. Handsome and able to be smarmy and have people mistrust his arrogant smirk.

[Rinaldo]

I can see a lot of actors (Affleck included) as Nick -- we almost seem to breed Nicks as a national type: pleasant and initially plausible and likable, but in fact not quite grown up or disciplined about his life. Amy seems much the trickier acting challenge to me.

[LittleVoice]

I saw Patrick Wilson as Nick. Handsome and able to be smarmy and have people mistrust his arrogant smirk.

I thought of Bradley Cooper for this very reason.

I can see a lot of actors (Affleck included) as Nick -- we almost seem to breed Nicks as a national type: pleasant and initially plausible and likable, but in fact not quite grown up or disciplined about his life. Amy seems much the trickier acting challenge to me.

Agreed. I had a hard time imagining who could pull it off, but think Rosamunde Pike will be great. Amy Adams would have been good too.

[Inquisitionist]

In the book, the fact that Amy was about 5 years older than Nick seemed pretty important to their dynamic, so it disappoints me that Hollywood reverts to the usual older male/younger female pairing. The Amy Adams/Ryan Gosling pairing would actually be age-appropriate.

At any rate, it's not a movie I'll rush to see in a theater.  I enjoyed the first third of the book quite a lot, the middle section a bit less so, and the ending not. at. all.

[Rinaldo]

I enjoyed the book start to finish (the end was not what I expected, but grew on me). But I am dubious about it as a movie for a different reason: it's so based on the written word (like The Moonstone, The Young Visiters, Daddy-Long-Legs, Pale Fire) that in my opinion it resists translation to stage or screen. Obviously it can be done, but the process removes what made the book special.

[Lisin]

Here's the first trailer! I am super excited for this movie.

[Cranberry]

That's a great trailer! I love trailers that don't give away the entire movie, but still manage to tell you a lot about it. I saw many important plot points from the book in there. I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much because I think this would be a very difficult book to adapt and I've been fooled by great trailers before, but... yes. Looks good.

[CleoCaesar]

I'm curious how they're going to deal with the Cool Girl passage. To me it was the most memorable part of the book and I think about it often.

It was so bitter but scathingly accurate, and such a great look into Amy's twisted mind.

I really hope they do it justice, but short of a voiceover I can't see how they'll bring it to life.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Lisin
Lets tag book stuff as spoilers please

[Rinaldo]

I'm prepared to be surprised/contradicted by the actual film in this respect, but I have assumed from the start that the movie will need to use a lot of voiceovers. (Which is fine by me.)

[ribboninthesky1]

I just finished the book, and though I guessed the twist just based on the table of contents, I still wanted to see how it would be executed.  And...not very well, IMO.  There were several issues for me, but the two primary ones were 1) I don't think the author truly knew what kind of story she wanted to tell, and 2) it really started to drag and unravel about halfway through for me.  I almost gave up a few times, but figured I may as well finish it.  Ultimately, it reminded me of Tampa, where the hook is the controversy, especially around a central character, but it's not a particularly good book. Of course, I doubt Tampa would ever be made into film, heh.

 

The movie would be good as a black comedy (there were a few times I heartily laughed at what I read), but with Fincher helming the film, I doubt that's what the studio is going for.    

 

I'm curious how they're going to deal with the Cool Girl passage.

 

For me, the Cool Girl treatise was negated because the author had

Amy be a delusional sociopath and psychopath, who ultimately committed murder

.  It was too much of an extreme to the other side of the pendulum, and discredited what might have been an insightful perspective if

Amy didn't create all other kinds of personas to manipulate others.  Cool Girl was just the one she used with men, and thus it was less about women and relationships in general.

I like Rosamund Pike, and she has that cold persona down pat.  The problem is

that Amy was able to get away with so much because that's not what she projected to the outside world.  You had to spend time with her to really see her.  Rosamund is beautiful, but she also looks inaccessible.

  I can see why someone like Amy Adams, with her big blue eyes and ability to portray a more open, almost naive persona, would have been a better fit.  I actually don't mind Ben Affleck as Nick, despite the physical mismatch, because Ben is good at the self-contained, stoic, awkward, asshole projection that is supposed to be Nick.  It's hard for me see Ryan Gosling in the role because he's too soulful.

Edited April 23, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[Cranberry]

The last Ryan Gosling movie I saw was Drive, so it was a little easier to see him in this role after that!

[Carrie Ann]

I like Rosamund Pike, and she has that cold persona down pat.  The problem is

that Amy was able to get away with so much because that's not what she projected to the outside world.  You had to spend time with her to really see her.  Rosamund is beautiful, but she also looks inaccessible.

I just read the book over the past few days, and I had a different interpretation of Amy.

For one, her looks are always described as striking, beautiful, but inaccessible, intimidating, closed off. Also, Amy believes herself capable of projecting any type of personality she wants to, but she's not as good at it as she thinks she is. Nick's family and friends seem to find her off-putting, and that seems to be a pretty common theme in her life. I think a lot of people just instinctively don't buy her act. Part of that is due to her sociopathy--she can imitate the way humans act, but her limited understanding of them means that she makes mistakes. And then her narcissism and pride are the other problem--she just can't be bothered to keep up the act with people she doesn't think are important, and it would never occur to her that she doesn't know everything and might do something wrong. She gets angry when people don't react to her the way she thinks they should. When it comes to the people she targets and actively cons, she figures out the angle to take with them, but even there she sometimes makes mistakes, and most of the people she conned saw through it in time (other than her parents who are willfully blind). Anyway, all that to say I like the casting of Rosamund Pike, and I think she can pull off the sweet, down-to-earth stuff too (I think of her as Jane from P&P, for example). I don't think Amy Adams has the right look, and while she could pull off the Diary-Amy stuff, I'm not actually sure I would buy her as Real Amy, or any of the other fake Amy personas.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Carrie Ann

[ribboninthesky1]

Carrie Ann, I was thinking about your post, and I forgot that

she was described like that by the former friend who was falsely accused of stalking, especially when she was talking about how some guy liked her rather than Amy, and a schoolmate invited her home instead of Amy. The whole family and friends disliking Amy is hard for me to decipher because of the he-said/she-said nature of the story, especially since so much of the first half describing Amy are diary entries, and I think the author got sloppy in the second half with clarifying truth from fiction. I remember some of Nick's friends speaking positively of Amy, and Nick being resentful that Amy was being lionized, so not sure about that. Nick and his family are almost as fucked up as Amy is (not committing murder is a plus for them), so I'm not sure I trust their perspectives completely, either.

 

In any case, thinking on it further, I've changed my mind about Rosamund Pike, heh.  

[Carrie Ann]

I remember some of Nick's friends speaking positively of Amy, and Nick being resentful that Amy was being lionized, so not sure about that.

Many of the people who came out of the woodwork to praise Amy seemingly did so in a disingenuous manner--people who had never actually known her or who had openly disliked her--and that's what Nick was reacting to. And yeah, it's really hard to separate the Diary Amy and her impressions from Nick's impressions and then come up with the truth. I love that! Can't wait to see how that will work on-screen.

Fincher is basically the perfect director for this material, I think, and Affleck seems to be a great fit for Nick.

[Lisin]

Carrie Ann that's exactly what I'm thinking. I think Fincher is beyond perfect and Affleck is so great at being the sclub who is clearly attractive but has been downtrodden and ugh! I just cannot wait. I love Fincher almost all the time so I'm just really hopeful that this movie will elivate the book because

I wasn't in love with the ending, not that I needed it to be happy but I agree with what someone said upthread about how the book basically just kind of falls apart at a point, I'm hoping Fincher can fix that. He's so great!

[Rinaldo]

I wouldn't say the book falls apart but it does start 

depending on everything just coincidentally going Amy's way. She has to get awfully lucky for things to work out the way they did. She tracks down her admirer Desi (he never saw through her) and he provides just what she needs, when she needs it. And when she needs artificial insemination to work -- bang, so it does, first try. I'll allow a writer a fortunate happenstance or two (especially if they disguise well), but they do pile up here.

[Tableau]

There is something that bothers me about the book that I'm not sure if it was done on purpose or not. It is the fact that Nick calls Amy a genius and the book does try to sell that too with the whole Amazing Amy thing and her obsessiveness over her revenges. They also go as far to say that Nick is more brilliant when he is with her because she brings that out in him. But looking at the objective evidence aka their lives and legecy, these two don't seem to add up to much IMO.

They both start from the beginning as writers of no substance. Nick writes about Backstreet Boys and Superhero Sequels (not that I don't enjoy that stuff myself but it is hardly earth shattering or important) and Amy writes meaningless little personality quizzes. And they just go downhill from there.

These people are so in consequential and don't contribute anything to the world or a larger picture yet we're suppose to buy them as extraordinary people. I don't get it. Is this just the author commenting on the shallowness of our society today because these two people are considered brilliant because of their glamor? Or does the author truly believe they are brilliant even though neither of them really amount to anything?

[ribboninthesky1]

ETA: Never mind, the spoiler tag feature isn't working for me, for some reason.

Edited April 30, 2014 by ribboninthesky1

[BizBuzz]

ETA: Never mind, the spoiler tag feature isn't working for me, for some reason.

 

If you think this is a bug, please report it here.

[Frisson]

There is something that bothers me about the book that I'm not sure if it was done on purpose or not. It is the fact that Nick calls Amy a genius and the book does try to sell that too with the whole Amazing Amy thing and her obsessiveness over her revenges. They also go as far to say that Nick is more brilliant when he is with her because she brings that out in him. But looking at the objective evidence aka their lives and legecy, these two don't seem to add up to much IMO.

They both start from the beginning as writers of no substance. Nick writes about Backstreet Boys and Superhero Sequels (not that I don't enjoy that stuff myself but it is hardly earth shattering or important) and Amy writes meaningless little personality quizzes. And they just go downhill from there.

These people are so in consequential and don't contribute anything to the world or a larger picture yet we're suppose to buy them as extraordinary people. I don't get it. Is this just the author commenting on the shallowness of our society today because these two people are considered brilliant because of their glamor? Or does the author truly believe they are brilliant even though neither of them really amount to anything?

I think the book is a commentary on how people are attracted to good-looking people, to an extent, and how people can deceive themselves into thinking that the adulation of others actually amounts to worthiness. We never see either person be particularly successful without their safety net of money and attractiveness, so when they lose either (Nick) or both (in Amy's case), they have to depend on people's idea of them rather than their actual selves and accomplishments. That's why they are so perfect for each other-each is only a legend in each other's mind.

I imagined Rachel McAdams as Amy because she is intimidatingly beautiful, accessible when needed, with a major bitch streak ready underneath.

I agree that Patrick Wilson could be stoic and have the face you want to punch.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Frisson

[Spartan Girl]

I would have loved for Rachel McAdams to play Amy because it would have finally gotten her out of her romantic drama typecasting she seems to fall in these days.

[Cranberry]

Trailer 2 is out, and it's more of a traditional trailer than the first. It doesn't give anything major away. It looks like they will indeed be using voiceover for Amy's diary, which I'm fine with.

 

[Ohwell]

I see he's still got that mole.

[againstthewind]

I read the book after the casting was announced but I think Affleck is perfect. I did picture the character as a Scott Petersen type so maybe that's what I'm going after.

 

I don't know enough about Rosamund Pike to have an opinion about it, but could see where Amy Adams would be a good fit.

 

So, the ending has changed a bit apparently. What do we think Fincher does?

[ribboninthesky1]

When I really thought about it after reading it, the entire premise and set up was based on luck.  Lucky for Amy that:

 

•     Nick did the treasure hunt to completion AND that the police found the first clue before he did
•     she managed to get ONLY Nick's prints all over the merchandise she bought with those fraudulent credit cards
•     the creditors never contacted Nick at the bar about falling behind on payments
•     she was never spotted following Nick and his mistress around
•     Nick didn't bother to get anything for their anniversary so it would conveniently implicate him further
•     she bled just enough on the kitchen floor and nowhere else, and that police didn't find that strange
•     Nick was so afraid of "being the bad guy" that he knowingly and intentionally made himself look worse by not providing his alibi for the day she went missing
•     no one came to the house while she was bleeding out or otherwise setting the crime scene, or that the alcoholic neighbor didn't physically come over to the house when he saw the front door open
•     Desi didn't mention to Nick that Amy lied about his suicide attempt, or the fact that they kept in touch and it wasn't one-sided on his part
•     that the police were apparently so inept that, among other things, they forgot they questioned Desi and presumably he had an alibi on the day she went missing, which Amy couldn't have known about and should have contradicted her story
•     Amy that her high school "friend" or former boyfriend were discredited because...of their personal problems
•     Desi never mentioned the father's alleged "abuse" of Amy to the police (because you can't tell me that revelation wouldn't have cast suspicion on the father),
•     despite leaving in the middle of the day, NO ONE at all ever saw her at any point (despite the fact that Amy was this beautiful being of a woman).
•     And so on.

It was a whole lot of luck, which I could have accepted if the author executed the second half properly.  Instead, the lucky breaks got more absurd.  I didn't need a happy ending, which seems to be the primary complaint from the reviews I've read.  But there was no logical explanation for Amy, at minimum, not being questioned further about her abduction and Desi's role in it.

Which brings me to Tableau's question -

I think the author perceived Amy as a genius (at least, until she conveniently wasn't - like her stay in the Ozarks and her dealing with Desi).  I don't recall thinking that Nick was particularly brilliant - his inner life was presented to the reader in real time, and it's clear that he's an indulgent man-child who is ultimately as misogynistic as his father.  There were at least two instances I recall that Nick is blaming every woman in his life for his problems, including the detective that he barely knows. He just hides his contempt a lot better. I think Amy was more or less feeding his ego with the whole "brilliant and witty" stuff.

Regarding Desi - he was an interesting character because I perceived him as the mirror image of Amy in many ways, which was why they never worked out.  But I'm not sure if that was the author's intention. He seemed to be a plot device to get Amy back home and ultimately, the scapegoat.

In any case, this may be one of those instances where the movie is likely better than the book. 

[Rinaldo]

I mentioned earlier in this topic that Amy has to be extraordinarily lucky for everything to work out as it does. I'm trying to remain uninformed as to what has been changed, but I can imagine a smart screenwriter making some improvements in the final stretch, given taste and care.

[Cranberry]

Gillian Flynn wrote both book and screenplay, so I have high hopes. Even if she drastically changed it, I trust that she'd make it work. I'm not sure how much is changing, though -- Fincher says "everything and nothing." (There are no spoilers in that article, btw, but the comments do contain spoilers.)

 

I just re-read the book (and got my younger brother to read it so that we could discuss it -- he enjoyed it), so now it's all fresh in my mind and I'm excited for the movie! Everything in the trailer (with the exception of Rhonda Boney not being ugly and Tanner Bolt being a black man instead of a white man) seems right on.

[ribboninthesky1]

I mentioned earlier in this topic that Amy has to be extraordinarily lucky for everything to work out as it does. I'm trying to remain uninformed as to what has been changed, but I can imagine a smart screenwriter making some improvements in the final stretch, given taste and care.

 

I think where our opinions diverge is that I think of all that luck inevitably makes the book fall apart.  For me, the second half pretty much undoes what the first half set up, as it seemed there was a need to get to a particular ending rather than a cohesive narrative.  A very significant plot hole was having the cops be supposedly thorough in the first half, only to be incompetently sloppy in the second.  That Flynn wrote the screenplay doesn't instill confidence in me, but perhaps she received some uncredited assistance with tightening the story up.  Either way, this will likely be a rental.       

[topanga]

 

I just finished the book, and though I guessed the twist just based on the table of contents, I still wanted to see how it would be executed.  And...not very well, IMO.

Oh, that's too bad, ribboninthesky1. Unless you're one of those readers who always looks for a twist. Or had you been told that there was a twist?

 

I like reading books and seeing movies before the massive hype begins because people inevitably 1) spoil it by saying "the ending is shocking" or "you'll never see the twist coming," which makes you look for a twist , or they 2) hype it up so much that when you see it or read it, you're usually disappointed.  

 

While reading the book, I loved being able to go  "What the...?" because I had no idea there was a twist. And even though I know that now, I'm still looking forward to the movie.

[ribboninthesky1]

Oh, that's too bad, ribboninthesky1. Unless you're one of those readers who always looks for a twist. Or had you been told that there was a twist?

 

By the time I read the book, there was already buzz surrounding it.  So I knew there was some kind of twist.  But I assumed I would just figure it out (or not) by reading.  Normally, I don't go looking for clues - I just dive right into the book.  I thought it was bizarre that the author showed her hand in the TOC, but I guess if you're not looking for it...

[Spartan Girl]

I know it was unrealistic but I think

Amy was able to get away with so much because she convinced everyone from her family and friends (i.e. the clueless patsies she used and manipulated) that she was the perfect girl.  Nobody was able to look past the Amazing Amy image, especially not the enabling parents who spoiled and ruined her.  It was luck and sheer ignorance.

 

[Cranberry]

Just for fun, I decided to call the tip lines on the posters in these photos to see if anything happens (I like Easter Eggs!). 1-888-FINDAMY is, sadly, one of those Caribbean cruise scams. I assume that they changed it to 1-855-4-AMY-TIPS for the final version of the film. If you call that one, it plays the first chapter of the audiobook for you. I wonder if they'll change it to something else once the movie comes out.

 

There's also this: http://www.findamazingamy.com/

[mjstrick]

After watching the two trailers above, I actually have changed my mind about Ben Affleck as Nick.  I think he's gonna be good.   Can't wait to see it!

[Cranberry]

Reviews are good so far!

 

Here's a semi-spoilery article about the press screening Q&A.

[Ohwell]

I saw Rosamund Pike on the Today show and realized I'd seen her before in a couple of movies.  I don't like her, I'm meh on Affleck, and I hated the last third of the book, so put those three things together and...I won't be watching this, not even on Netflix. 

[Skyline]

Already bought my tickets for tonight's showing. My theater added two more shows. The buzz is at an all-time high.

Fandango is reporting pre-sales are through the roof.

[NoWillToResist]

I thought this movie was excellent. Beyond the plot itself, I found the commentary on the media/news brilliantly scathing.

 

The time flew by for me.

[SallyAlbright]

I loved it too. The 2.5 hours absolutely flew by, there were no "filler" scenes. Affleck was perfect, I don't think he gets enough credit for his acting because he really is a decent leading man. Rosamund Pike was absolutely riveting though and I really hope she scores a Best Actress nomination. She was so amazing that I heard several people talking about her as they left and wondering why they've never seen her before. I think I actually preferred the film to the book, and I can almost never say that. 

[Tardassian]

All the hype about seeing AFFLECK DONG, I totally missed it.

 

Missi Pyle deserves a Best Supporting Actress whatever for her Nancy Grace swagger. She had that shit down cold.

[purplemouth]

Totally agree on all the acting praise and I'll add some more for Carrie Coon. She made an awesome Go.

 

You had to really look to see Affleck dong. Even knowing it was coming (ahem), you really couldn't see anything. NPH's was much more obvious.

 

Anyway....I loved it. I did feel like it dragged a bit, but I blame that on my decision to see it at 8 pm on the Thursday of an already long week. There was nothing I would have cut out and wouldn't have minded it being a little longer. Somehow, even though I read the book, I did not remember at all that she killed Desi. What a wacko.

Edited October 5, 2014 by purplemouth

[Rickster]

Saw this today. Have not read the book and stayed away from reviews to avoid being spoiled.

I liked it quite a bit, with good acting by all parties. I particularly liked the detective and Tyler Perry in supporting roles. Having read a bit about the book now, i can see where Pike's portrayal may not be nuanced enough.

My big issue with the movie is that I thought all plot credibility went out the window after Neil Patrick Harris showed up and all the events that followed.

[Rick Kitchen]

My favorites were definitely Carrie Coon, as Margo, and Kim Dickens, as Boney.  They were perfect in their performances,

 

I never read the book, though I've been spoiled on it, but I really enjoyed this.  A good, if not excellent, film.

[ruby24]

I liked it, but I thought Rosamund Pike was just good, not great. I feel like her Amy was just an ice queen all the way through, and in the book we got to know her sick personality and nuttiness so much better.

[methodwriter85]

I was totally blown away. It was fantastic! The acting, the atmosphere, and the unexpected levity they managed to inject in- it was such a great ride from start to finish!

 

My mom watches Nancy Grace religiously, so I have to hand it to Missi Pyle. That was great.

 

Reese Witherspoon has to be pretty damn happy right about now.

Edited October 5, 2014 by methodwriter85

[Shannon L.]

Saw this last night with my husband and we loved it.  I knew nothing about it going in except what I saw from commercials and trailers.  I thought it was exciting and intense with just the right amount of humor.  I never guessed the plot twist (which isn't a new thing for me, I tend to be clueless, but my husband is great at figuring out twists and he didn't see it coming), so I was surprised.  The performances were fantastic and I'd like to add that Neil Patrick Harris impressed us--he was the perfect type of creepy.

 

Now, we just have to decide if we'll let our 16 year old watch it.  He'd love the story line and we do allow him to watch certain types of R-rated movies (based both on the amount/type of violence and amount/type of sex scenes).    My husband thinks it's ok (he's a really good kid), but I'm not so sure--I think it's a bit much. 

 

 

All the hype about seeing AFFLECK DONG, I totally missed it.

All you had to do was blink and you'd miss it. 

 

Speaking of Ben's physical being--you could tell he was in Batman training mode--his chest was huge.  I don't think it was that big in Argo.

 

ETA:  Is it safe to assume that we can stop putting things in spoiler tags now that the movie is out?  A couple things bothered me, but I want to be sure that they can be out in the open now before I post them.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Shannon L.

[cpcathy]

I purposely didn't come to this thread because I didn't want to be spoiled, and I'm usually the type of person who will read the ending of a book I'm reading mid way through the book. I liked it, didn't love it (I had expected to). My theater was packed--time for grown up films, y'all! Some guy next to my husband even started chatting to us like we were waiting for a concert or something!

I am a Fincher fan, so I expected the cool and collected vibe, but I do wonder what it would have been like from a "messier" director? I thought Affleck was good, I alternately felt sorry him, then hated him, then started not trusting him again. Rosemund Pike bothered me. The Amy character was too perfect, too witty--sex in a library, really? Was that the point? I didn't finish the book, so I wasn't sure if I was missing the point.

And I also missed Affleck Dong, dammit.