Gone Girl (2014)

[jellysalmon]

Two somewhat shameful thoughts that I had during this movie

 

• Man, Lizzy Caplan is killing it in this movie!

 

(Right after Amy's plan is revealed)

•  *starting to stretch to leave theater* Man! I what a fun movie! Kinda short though. Weird how NPH was barely in it. I guess he was just a red herring. Oh...wait....it's still going!?!

[Shannon L.]

I had this interesting discussion with one of the employees at the movie theater.  The last thing he said before I had to go was "I don't think she was a psychopath--just really mean".  I was speechless.  When I told my husband, his face registered surprise, then said "My God--what kind of women is he dating?"  lol!  I'm still surprised this morning.

 

I've been enjoying chatting with people who saw the movie--it's fascinating how many different views there are about the characters. 

[JBC344]

I had this interesting discussion with one of the employees at the movie theater.  The last thing he said before I had to go was "I don't think she was a psychopath--just really mean".  I was speechless.  When I told my husband, his face registered surprise, then said "My God--what kind of women is he dating?"  lol!  I'm still surprised this morning.

 

I've been enjoying chatting with people who saw the movie--it's fascinating how many different views there are about the characters. 

That is actually really disturbing.  Guess you met a real life "Nick".

[jcin617]

Did he come across as intelligent and conniving to you, like Amy did? Did you feel bad for him? Did you think he'd killed Amy?

I never thought he killed Amy; I wouldn't say I found him intelligent at first, because he did quite a few boneheaded things.   I felt bad for him once Amy's duplicity was revealed.

 

that they were two peas in a pod

Personally, I never felt that from the movie.

 

Most of my questions all came around her "captivity" by NPH.   Wouldn't there be footage of them arriving that showed she wasn't kidnapped?  Or did she erase it to make it look like he did? And if that's true, what about the footage of her crying at the glass window, why wouldn't he erase that (if he "erased" other stuff)? And she clearly wasn't restrained in that footage, so why wouldn't she have run for it?  (And it conflicts with her "he always had be tied up" story, as Nick pointed out about the box cutter.)

Edited October 13, 2014 by jcin617

[NoWillToResist]

 

I think it really worked that Rosamund Pike has been steadily working, but there's nothing you can really point to as her "signature" role.

 

I read an interview with Fincher and he said that one of the reasons he wanted her was because he couldn't 'pin her down' (or words to that effect). He felt that she would be able to play the many facets of Amy very convincingly. She's not been pigeonholed by Hollywood yet.

 

I remember her in Pride and Prejudice and thought she was excellent for that role. Simple, sweet and utterly stunning. I could believe that she was viewed as the beauty of the family (unlike the BBC version where I thought Jane was far less attractive than Lizzy).

 

I think that beauty worked perfectly for this role because I could easily see why so many men would fall for her and become ensnared. Her superficial mask is so lovely and strong that by the time you realize the sickness beneath it, it's too late.

Edited October 15, 2014 by NoWillToResist

[Lady Calypso]

I have just seen the movie. I went in, not knowing anything about the book or the film because for once, I wanted to be surprised. I heard this was an excellent movie from many of my friends, some who are film studies majors like me, so I went in with a clear mind, wondering if it was as good as they said it was. And I'll have to say, I agree with them. I like films that make me think and most Hollywood films don't do that nowadays, nor do they surprise me like this film has. I think that Affleck and Pike did an amazing job making their characters complex yet interesting. 

 

I was actually impressed at how well written the women were. I think all of them were very intelligent, independent women, something that's not entirely common in films in recent years, or ever. My sister and I were comparing thoughts after the movie and she thinks that the Caucasian males in the film were dumb, or at least not as smart as the women and Perry's characters were. I actually have to agree to an extent. When comparing Nick to Amy, I don't think Nick's dumb, but I do think Amy is smarter than him, and that's something that was very interesting to watch unfold. Amy performed an almost perfect crime, one that almost had Nick put in jail, until she decided to save him. Even when Nick tried to outsmart Amy, like when the interview happened, something unfortunate would happen by luck and he would get screwed. 

 

Amy certainly is a sociopath, with her willingness to kill Desi and how she carefully has manipulated situations to get what she wants. I wasn't entirely shocked by many of the events in the film. I was thinking there would be more ambiguity with Nick and it would be open ended to whether he kidnapped/killed his wife or not but when the reveal came, I wasn't entirely surprised but it definitely changed my views quickly on the film. Amy killing Desi was the most shocking thing, actually. I thought she would for sure frame Desi and he would go to jail instead of Nick, but it does make sense, seeing as Nick and Desi could compare notes at that point and possibly work together to get Amy thrown in jail, something that she clearly would not stand for. 

 

Honestly, it's a very thought provoking film, one that really made me think and change my mind throughout the course of it. 

 

I have a question for anyone who didn't read the book -- what did you think of Nick? Did he come across as intelligent and conniving to you, like Amy did? Did you feel bad for him? Did you think he'd killed Amy? The book included a lot of unreliable narrator stuff from him, and several instances of "I did [x thing] because that's what an innocent man would do" -- he was constantly reminding himself to act a certain way so that he wouldn't look suspicious. He also worked very hard to deliver the exact public apology that he knew Amy would want; he played her in a similar way to how she played him. Did that come across on screen?

 

 

I knew coming into a Fincher film that it wouldn't be an easy, paint by the lines film, so I knew that it wouldn't be as simple as Nick killing his wife, or a third party actually doing it. I did think for a while that Nick could have done it, probably did break and went through a psychotic episode and couldn't remember, although that was me going through possibilities. When he was acting odd at the beginning of the film, I didn't think it was because he did anything, but I knew it was a way to throw the audience off, and because people deal with these situations in different ways. I didn't feel entirely bad for him. I was taken aback by the fake diary entries, though. I did think the diary entries telling a different story than what Nick was telling us was odd and I couldn't figure out why. I actually went through the first half unsure whether he did it or not, so I didn't feel bad, but I also didn't hate him.

 

I don't think he came off as entirely intelligent and coniving. Besides the scene of the interview, I think he came off as unaware and kind of naive. Amy came off as more of the coniving one, not just because of the diary entries but the way we saw her manipulate so many people over the course of the film. Meanwhile Nick tried, but I think the random chances of bad luck (like Andie coming forward before the interview, and the police discovering the shed) happened to lessen the impact he made with matching Amy's coniving ways. I think if he had his own diary entries or voiceovers, even just one speech he could have made, it might have made a difference in how I see Nick. Although I do give him credit for doing the interview and getting Amy to change her mind and come home. That was impressive, but even then, Amy came off as the smarter because of her ability to quickly change tracks and frame and kill Desi. 

 

The film did make me feel bad and then feel hatred toward Amy during several points. Before the reveal, and then when she met up with creepy Desi were two moments where I could feel bad for her, but maybe that was more Pike than the writing.

[Irlandesa]

I finally saw the film today and I had two older women sitting near me, who hadn't read the book, just flabbergasted.  They wanted to know if it was like the book (I told them it was just like it--even though there were differences, it was pretty faithful.)    And then they followed me to the bathroom wanting to know why he stayed with Amy.  It was amusing but I had a really tough time explaining why.  I told him it was because they were both a bit screwed up but that didn't feel like enough to convince them.  Reading this thread helped me understand why my explanation felt inadequate.  Props to the paragraphs of analysis here. 

 

Overall, I really enjoyed it.  Part of me wished I hadn't read the book because it took me a little while to just let myself experience the movie without a feeling of deja vu.  I also think knowing about the twist took a little out of the suspense of the pre-reveal part of the movie.  I could absolutely appreciate how Fincher built menace, especially with the close-ups of Amy and Nick passing by in the shadowy background.  He wasn't doing anything menacing but the voiceover and staging was just so good at creating that atmosphere.  For that reason, the movie picked up a lot once we got to Amy's story. I guessed the twist in the book but it's harder for a book to put me in suspense the way a movie can do it with visual and musical cues so knowing was less disappointing. 

 

I do think the ending for the book worked better for me than the movie and I'm not sure why that is.  Maybe it's because I think they managed to convey the addictive connection these two had better than the movie did.  Or maybe it's because the reason I liked the ending for the book was because I could not predict it** but the movie didn't give me that option since I already knew the ending. 

 

**One thing I hate with books with a twist is that its "goodness" is so often based on the reveal of the twist.  The best thing Gone Girl did was get that out of the way midway through the book.  Once that happened, I legitimately couldn't predict how it'd wrap up and I didn't predict the ending. 

I think my biggest problem with the movie was that the reveal of Amy's psychopathy felt unearned, or something. I don't know much about psychopathy, but would a psychopath really care that her husband was cheating on her? Or that her husband pulled the same move on his mistress that he had pulled on her? Those are the reactions of someone who loved her husband and was hurt, not a psychopath. So, if anyone could fill me in on Amy's motivations, I would appreciate it.

Yes, she'd care.  It's about ego (she's the smartest girl in the room--in control of everything) and possession and wanting to direct the course of her life which she felt she kind of lost with her parents' fictionalized version of her.  We got the backstory with the guy she accused of rape because he dared pull away from their relationship.  (How dare he end it.)  The book had another example too. 

 

I didn't like the detective characters. They seemed to be playing detective stereotypes. Boney always had a dunkin donuts coffee cup in her hand. The male seemed like a bumbling inept detective. I cannot remember if they were written like this in the book.

I don't remember the male detective much from the book but I think the female detective was pretty much written as she was portrayed in the movie except the actress was way more attractive than the book description.  Dunkin Donuts cup aside, I liked Boney's depiction.  She was no-nonsense.  She was thorough.  Despite all the evidence, there was something that was telling her that she didn't have all the pieces, yet at the same time she knew she had enough to make an arrest.  She wasn't fooled by Amy when she came back.  I don't remember but I think book Boney wasn't planning on giving up until Nick told her to let it go.  I wish I had it now because I think that was a difference.

 

That was impressive, but even then, Amy came off as the smarter because of her ability to quickly change tracks and frame and kill Desi.

To be fair, the thing that made Amy come off as more "intelligent" is the fact that she was more conniving and willing to go to psychopathic lengths to make things happen.  She took months to set up her "perfect" murder. She didn't have a job so thinking of ways to frame her husband was what she did all day.  And weeks went by where she was trapped in a lakehouse, alone, and gave her time to think of how to get rid of Desi. 

 

I also couldn't tell whether the authorities' meagre investigation and easy acceptance of her story - which stunk to high hell - was meant as a searing indictment of how media taints impartiality. Amy had been cast as the victim, so whatever she says is the truth, no matter how many holes and inconsistencies are in her story.

Yeah.  It's times like this where I wish I had the book.  There so many holes in her story.  For instance, how did the diary get singed in the father-in-law's house? 

[Schweedie]

I didn't even know there was hype about the Affleck dong and I still caught it, heh!

 

I really enjoyed it, not having read the book, although I gotta admit I thought it felt longer than it needed to be. Great acting all around, and they really nailed all the supporting actors, too - Neil Patrick Harris was wonderfully and pathetically creepy, and I loved Tyler Perry and Missy Pyle. I knew going in that it wasn't going to be as simple as him having killed her and for a while I figured Amy might've pulled a 'Sleeping With the Enemy' escape because Nick really had been abusive (I thought the diary entries contrasting with what Nick said was neat), but I didn't see it coming that she was a vindictive psychopath.

 

He also worked very hard to deliver the exact public apology that he knew Amy would want; he played her in a similar way to how she played him. Did that come across on screen?

 

I thought that came across, yeah. Pointing out before the interview that he was wearing the tie and watch Amy bought for him, making a point of how much he loved them, I definitely thought it was clear that he was trying to play her.

 

A nitpick, but I was bothered by Amy's dried blood under the hospital gown. She would be cleaned up before Nick saw her, but i guess it seemed more dramatic.

 

I pointed that out to the friend I saw it with afterwards - it bugged me, too. Like, you take off her bloody dress, but you don't clean her up before putting the hospital gown on her instead? 

 

Am I the only one that thinks she bears a resemblance to Emily Van Camp?

 

I thought the same thing, actually, especially in her 'Nancy' scenes.

[Luckylyn]

Nick came off like an abused spouse whose resigned to never being able to leave.   He felt like a hostage because he wasn't going to abandon a child to Amy.   I didn't get the impression he was addicted to her but that he was scared of what she'd do.   I was thinking Stockholm syndrome when I left the theater.

[turbogirlnyc]

I enjoyed the movie. Saw it twice, actually. What bugged me most about the audience and the whole story is that if a married man cheats, it's no big deal. No, I don't believe unfaithfulness = killing a person. But all the audience rage over Amy (understandable) and no detesting the man for f*cking a 19 year old girl behind his wife's back? And most of the audience reactions/comments were from men. Old men.

 

Also, this movie feeds into the thought that any woman (ok Amy was not any woman but hear me out), that wants her relationship to work is psycho. In this case, that is true. But I still hated the stereotype. And this movie was written by a woman. Perhaps I'm turning 30 and know what it's like to compete with young 20 somethings for a 36-49 year old male's attention. I've given up competing and dump the guy when this happens. I'm better than I used to be about that.  I hope I'm not bitter yet but the whole "women are useless after the age of 30" is starting to grate.

 

I'm personally a type B like Nick and not a sociopath but men do tend to want younger, prettier, sexier "cool girls". I've had many friends that are on their 2nd divorce because of husband's unfaithfulness. Rant over.

Edited October 19, 2014 by turbogirlnyc

[Wiendish Fitch]

Also, this movie feeds into the thought that any woman (ok Amy was not any woman but hear me out), that wants her relationship to work is psycho. In this case, that is true. But I still hated the stereotype. And this movie was written by a woman. Perhaps I'm turning 30 and know what it's like to compete with young 20 somethings for a 36-49 year old male's attention. I've given up competing and dump the guy when this happens. I'm better than I used to be about that.  I hope I'm not bitter yet but the whole "women are useless after the age of 30" is starting to grate.

 

 

Spot on, turbogirlnyc. Even though the diary entry was fake, I thought the most poignant passage was when Amy said that her "value has decreased", because she was now "closer to 40 than 30… not just pretty anymore, but pretty for [her] age". Yes, Amy was a sociopath, but I can't help but feel she was telling the truth when she wrote that particular part, and it wasn't just because of Nick. Society is absolutely horrid to women when they turn 30: we're told we're too old to do this and that, to hurry up and get pregnant because our eggs are withering and dying, that we can't wear this or that anymore, that it's time to stock up on wrinkle cream and moisturizer (how come men aren't told to use wrinkle cream?), that, sorry, but 20-year-olds are more appealing, so get your faded ass out of the way so we can ogle the ingenues!

 

I still grind my teeth remembering how, in the book, Nick compared Andie's skin to Amy's. Ass.

 

I enjoyed the movie. Saw it twice, actually. What bugged me most about the audience and the whole story is that if a married man cheats, it's no big deal. No, I don't believe unfaithfulness = killing a person. But all the audience rage over Amy (understandable) and no detesting the man for f*cking a 19 year old girl behind his wife's back? And most of the audience reactions/comments were from men. Old men.

 

 

Amy was deranged and certainly not the good guy, but Nick is the furthest thing from Prince Charming. Both Amy and Go had Nick pegged: he does want a woman to be the Cool Girl 24/7, and he gets ugly when women dare to challenge him. He was the lesser of two evils, and he sure didn't deserve what happened to him, but he's not completely innocent. He even admitted he nearly forgot all about Andie when he decided he wanted Amy back after all… and this is the girl he'd been carrying on an affair with for more than a year! He not only cheats on his wife, but he's able shrug off his feelings for his mistress with no effort? Yeah, it's safe to say Nick is kind of a douchebag.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Wiendish Fitch

[Luckylyn]

I don't think Nick deserves a pass for the affair.  If you aren't happy, get a divorce; don't cheat and make it worse.  The same goes for Amy too. You're husband's a cheater than dump him.  it's just that Amy went to a place where simply ending the marriage wasn't enough but trying to get her husband killed through legal system seemed reasonable to her.  Neither Nick or Amy are prizes, but Nick wasn't the danger to Amy like she is to him.  She's a killer while he's a cheating jerk.  He has reasons to be terrified of her while she knows he isn't going to go as far as she is. 

 

Nick earned Amy's contempt but didn't deserve the death she planned for him or to be forced to stay in a marriage with a person he has good reason to fear.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Luckylyn

[turbogirlnyc]

Luckylyn,

 

Please reread my OP again and note that it clearly states the following:

 

"No, I don't believe unfaithfulness = killing a person."

 

I don't mean to be rude but I feel you may have overlooked that particular sentence along with a few others. In fact, I think you missed the entire point of my post.

 

Anyway, how did Nick know in advance (like, while he was cheating on Amy) that he was dealing with a killer?  Maybe I missed that or maybe it was mentioned in the book but not the movie?

Edited October 19, 2014 by turbogirlnyc

[Luckylyn]

I did not and was simply stating my opinion.

 

I appreciate that Nick wasn't a saint and the reasons for Amy to resent him were just.  It made for a  more complex story because Nick was her unwitting accomplice with his own crap choices.  She was a monster though.   Sometimes a woman can be the abuser in a relationship but that isn't something that get portrayed that often. I feel the the woman in peril movie happens so often that it is its own genre.  In this case, Amy is the dangerous one.  I think it's kinda of an interesting play on gender stereotypes.

 

I have mixed feelings on the whole Desi/Amy stuff. On the one hand, he was holding her hostage in his creepy passive aggressive way.  Yet she does the same thing to Nick at the end.  I guess one could argue that her murdering Desi was a type of self defense because he clearly wasn't going to let her go easily. and had the upper hand since he knew she didn't want her being alive to come out.   Still she could have just made a run for it stealing Desi's car while he slept, but she needed him to be the scape goat so she wouldn't face the consequences of her actions.  Desi/Amy were so much the same.  Amy was just more aggressive and dangerous.  I feel like Desi fits that "Nice Guy" stereotype.  That guy who thinks he's entitled to a woman regardless of how she feels cause he sees himself as such a good guy. But than I think about how, Amy was encouraging him so she could use him whenever she needed it which makes the situation more murky for me.   I guess Amy's a "Nice Girl" where Nick was concerned.  So it's hard to see which one was a victim when Desi and Amy were both controlling of the people they regarded as theirs.   Desi didn't have Amy's capacity for violence, but he was dangerous in his own passive way.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Luckylyn

[Scarlett45]

I agree with you Luckylyn I haven't read the book yet (plan to), but the impression I got from Desi was that he was certainly mentally unhinged and controlling, but I didn't get the impression that he was capable of violence. He wanted the "fairy tale" with Amy, and she was never afraid he would hurt her. She called him to give him a chance to be her "knight in shinning armor" to further manipulate him.

I though it was interesting how the show played with gender roles, i.e. Amy was a well of, white, blond, attractive WIFE who was believed to be pregnant- she could do no wrong in the eyes of the media no matter what her actual character as a human being. In the movie I was in, no one was giving Nick a pass for the affair, especially being pathetic enough to sleep with a student. (We all did giggle when his mistress got cleaned up for the media) I think that Nick felt he brought a lot of what happened on himself, NOT bring framed for murder of course, but Amy's resentment etc because he knew he had been a bad husband to her and that's not the marriage he wanted to have in the beginning. Yes if Amy wanted to leave him for being a cheating asshole no one would blame her- hell if she slapped him across the face for it she would get a pass. But to frame him for murder and plan to take her OWN LIFE to get back at him for being a bad husband says she's nutty as a fucking fruitcake and MEAN & hateful as a snake.

Again I think the movie is an interesting examination of social expectations, entitlement, mental manipulation etc in addition to the lies we tell ourselves to be sucessful in our interpersonal relationships.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scarlett45

[Lady Calypso]

Also, this movie feeds into the thought that any woman (ok Amy was not any woman but hear me out), that wants her relationship to work is psycho. In this case, that is true. But I still hated the stereotype. And this movie was written by a woman. Perhaps I'm turning 30 and know what it's like to compete with young 20 somethings for a 36-49 year old male's attention. I've given up competing and dump the guy when this happens. I'm better than I used to be about that.  I hope I'm not bitter yet but the whole "women are useless after the age of 30" is starting to grate.

 

 

I actually had similar thoughts while watching the movie. I did think that femininity was being portrayed in a negative light and that the audience could be made to think that women who are strong willed and feminists are bad, and the males are the victims. However, my opinion of that did change by the end. I think that the women are actually all portrayed as strong, independent characters who voice their own thoughts without being punished for it, or being degraded by men. If we look at Amy solely, her actions are complex because we are made to believe that she is a sociopath by the willingness to manipulate people around her, kill people, try to get people thrown in jail and even emotionally abuse her husband at the end to get what she wants, but we're also made to believe that she might not be solely in the wrong for this. Her actions, like it has been said, are described to be due to her husband taking control of both of their lives. Margo and Amy both say that Nick is all about the Cool Girl factor and how he goes for the newest and youngest 'thing'. The movie doesn't condone his actions. Andie even first shows up at Margo's house and is throwing herself on him, but Nick isn't really trying to push her away much. He isn't shown to be ending the relationship, just distancing it until Amy is found. Nick tells the world that he's a jerk and isn't a good guy. Yes it is to appease his wife, but the other characters even tell him that he isn't the good guy. We're made to see that Nick is a victim, yes, but he is also an enabler. He has had some factors in his wife leaving him. The way she does it is all on her, but the reasons for leaving is on him. 

 

That is what is utterly fantastic about this movie. Amy and Nick are both shown to be victims and then enablers at different times throughout the film. Nick's 'abuse' may have been fabricated by Amy through the diary entries, but he did cheat, he did take her to his hometown and had everything under her name instead of his, he wasn't the best husband to her and he did lie to a lot of people. We're not being made to think that one is worse than the other. Actually, correction: we're not made to think that one is a good guy and the other is a bad guy. They're both pretty rotten people. We're shown both sides, we're shown that both can be unreliable narrators, but it just so happens that Amy comes out as worse because her actions are more condemning that Nick's. It just happens that she is the one who will go to the extreme for herself. Nick's mentally weaker than Amy is so he succumbs to the situations around him, like cheating with a younger woman and staying with Amy because of a baby. 

[Irlandesa]

I don't think either the book or the movie sought to indict women who want their relationships to work as psycho.  This was a very specific, intelligent, off-kilter and committed character.  I wonder how the movie would have felt with the roles being reversed.  I suspect I would have felt more depressed at the end that the woman felt forced to stay. 

 

I also don't think the movie gives Nick a free pass for the affair.  The reveal of the affair moved him to prime suspect.  The movie also focused on how devastated and broken hearted his sister was with every ugly reveal.  She didn't think he was guilty but the movie did a great job of making you feel her pain of disappointment. 

[Cranberry]

“Good God, we’re in a lot of trouble if people think that Amy represents every woman. Feminism is not that fragile, I hope. What Amy does is to weaponize female stereotypes. She embodies them to get what she wants and then she detonates them. Men do bad things in films all the time and they’re called anti-heroes. Amy may not be admirable, but neither are the men on ‘The Sopranos.’”

 

Gillian Flynn, here.

[kissedbyarose]

Finally saw it!

First thought: damn this movie for making me kinda-sorta-like Tyler Perry.

I personally still hated the ending and everything Desi related. Mostly for the reasons stated already ie Amy was very lucky and the plot holes. The ending I think played better in the movie than the book though. However, the first part of the movie (and the book) was great.

So basically, I feel the same way about the movie like I did about the book.

Edited October 30, 2014 by kissedbyarose

[Bruinsfan]

Nick came off like an abused spouse whose resigned to never being able to leave.   He felt like a hostage because he wasn't going to abandon a child to Amy.   I didn't get the impression he was addicted to her but that he was scared of what she'd do.   I was thinking Stockholm syndrome when I left the theater.

That was my impression too, Nick acted like he was trapped and saw no way out rather than being thrilled to continue the challenging gameplay with Amy. 

 

I enjoyed the movie. Saw it twice, actually. What bugged me most about the audience and the whole story is that if a married man cheats, it's no big deal. No, I don't believe unfaithfulness = killing a person. But all the audience rage over Amy (understandable) and no detesting the man for f*cking a 19 year old girl behind his wife's back? And most of the audience reactions/comments were from men. Old men.

I think the mitigating factor that works in Nick's favor for audience sympathy over the affair is how self-serving and awful a person Amy is revealed to be. If the injured party were someone decent, or even just someone with objectionable but relatable flaws rather than a murderous sociopath willing to put people besides Nick through hell with her revenge scheme, I think he'd have caught a lot more grief over his infidelity.

[methodwriter85]

I got around to reading the book- I thought the movie was a pretty faithful adaptation for the most part, despite some things they took out or changed around.

 

I really liked learning that Amy's parents had gone through  5 miscarriages and 2 stillbirths before having Amy, during a pre-IVF time period. That explains so much about why Amy's parents were so invested in her, even moreso than the usual only child.

 

The bit about how Nick is supposed to look like a grown-up version of an 80's teen villain who everyone cheers when he finally gets his comeuppance was pretty funny, and it made me immediately think of Ben Affleck's early roles where he usually played the asshole jock. He was pretty well-cast despite not being blond and being about 5 to 7 years too old for the part. I kept thinking though how much I would've liked Bradley Cooper in this part, though. He more than Ben Affleck really does have a face you want to punch.

[Schweedie]

 The bit about how Nick is supposed to look like a grown-up version of an 80's teen villain who everyone cheers when he finally gets his comeuppance was pretty funny, and it made me immediately think of Ben Affleck's early roles where he usually played the asshole jock. He was pretty well-cast despite not being blond and being about 5 to 7 years too old for the part. I kept thinking though how much I would've liked Bradley Cooper in this part, though. He more than Ben Affleck really does have a face you want to punch.

Ha! I mean, I like Bradley Cooper (as an actor, at least; no opinion either way outside of that), but you're totally right - he does look like that grown-up 80s teen villain, with a face you want to punch.

[absnow54]

I still get irrationally angry at Bradley Cooper for no reason because of his role in He's Just Not that Into You, so I'm on board with your assessment. I think Ben Affleck was pretty great casting, though, because of the love/hate relationship the public seems to have with him. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a website "should I hate Ben Affleck today?" the public opinion of him seems to turn on a dime just like with Nick.

[methodwriter85]

    Yeah, like I said, if they couldn't get Bradley Cooper, Ben Affleck is a great personification of Nick as well- the guy who's looks just scream former frat boy golden boy gone slightly to seed.

[Wiendish Fitch]

The line in the movie about his chin being "villainous" made me smile.

[andre25]

With his wife's disappearance having become the focus of an intense media circus, a man sees the spotlight turned on him when it's suspected that he may not be innocent.

Director: David Fincher
Writers: Gillian Flynn (screenplay), Gillian Flynn (novel)

Edited November 17, 2014 by andre25

[Rick Kitchen]

The line in the movie about his chin being "villainous" made me smile.

 

I read that Gillian Flynn added that to the script after seeing Ben Affleck's chin.

[methodwriter85]

It actually worked out there, because BookNick was described as having a prominent cleft chin, which made him look all the more like a grown-up 80's movie teen villain.

[methodwriter85]

 

   Starring Adnan Syed. Hah!

[ribboninthesky1]

"...comes the best-acted, coolest-looking, most well-written Lifetime movie ever..." I cannot stop laughing at this.

[Ohwell]

I'm one of those people who hated the book, so no way was I going to see the movie.  Thank you, Honest Movie Trailers, for showing just how fucked up the story was!  

[Spartan Girl]

"...comes the best-acted, coolest-looking, most well-written Lifetime movie ever..." I cannot stop laughing at this.

 

 So hilarious and so true.

[Shannon L.]

"...comes the best-acted, coolest-looking, most well-written Lifetime movie ever..." I cannot stop laughing at this.

That was a good one.

 

Love the list of David Fincher's typical directorial choices. 

[methodwriter85]

   Well, Gone Girl got fucking robbed. Seriously, 1 nomination? Geez.

[sally-can-wait]

   Well, Gone Girl got fucking robbed. Seriously, 1 nomination? Geez.

I'm the exact opposite and thought it actually got one nomination too many. I love Fincher but thought this was his weakest movie in years. The only acting nom I would have been okay with would have been a supporting nod for Kim Dickens who was excellent as Boney.

Edited January 16, 2015 by mables-child

[Rinaldo]

I'm with methodwriter. I spend all my time telling myself the Academy Awards matter, but I find that I secretly wanted a nomination for Carrie Coon. And maybe the screenplay, with solved some serious novel-adaptation challenges very well. Ah well.

[Spartan Girl]

I'm also pissed that Gone Girl only got 1 nomination -- and from the way things are going she's probably going to lose to Julianne Moore.  Which is ironic, when you remember that Julianne Moore almost always plays cheating wives.  Wonder what Amy would have done to her character in Crazy Stupid Love...

 

But anyway, they should have at least gotten a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay -- it won that for the Critics Choice Awards.  I swear, the Academy is getting more and more uppity.

[slowpoked]

but I find that I secretly wanted a nomination for Carrie Coon. 

I was championing for Carrie as well. She was awesome as Ben's twin - so disappointed in him with every disappointing discovery but never wavered in her belief in his innocence. I'm honestly surprised she didn't get any traction in the Supporting Actress category. I would have swapped her for Meryl, as I don't think ITW was one of Meryl's better works, not by a long shot.

[Rick Kitchen]

Not just Carrie Coon, but Kim Dickens.  Her Boney was kick-ass.

[Enero]

I'm the exact opposite and thought it actually got one nomination too many. I love Fincher but thought this was his weakest movie in years. The only acting nom I would have been okay with would have been a supporting nod for Kim Dickens who was excellent as Boney.

Yep! I recently saw this. It was ok. Definitely not the masterpiece some had deemed it to be. Amy's sudden return and story of captivity was complete BS. Would the FBI just buy that crap story she told? I'd certainly hope not.

The acting was just ok. Ben Affleck was pretty much playing himself and Rosamun Pike was dull as dishwater. None of the characters were likable but I guess that was kind of the point, the "realism" in it all. I honesly didn't find it worthy of any award nominations.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Enero

[CaughtOnTape]

I finally saw this last night On Demand.

 

I always walk away from movies like this wondering about the person who would think something like that up.  I mean damn, he cheated on her.  I get that it's unfair and some bullshit but her reaction made me feel more sorry for him.  I found myself thinking "No wonder he's fucking another woman".

 

Rosamund Pike is now in the same camp as Edward Norton for me.  Scary.as.hell

If I saw either one walking down a dark alley, I'd turn around and go the other way *shudders*.

[Bruinsfan]

If it reassures you any, I think Norton is only to be feared if you're working on a movie with him.

[SosaLola]

Just watched this movie last night. Wow! What a roller-coaster! When it was closer to end, I literally couldn't handle all the mixed emotions I was feeling, it was like torture but in a good way. I haven't read the novel and knew nothing about the plot, so that was a huge plus. 

 

I have one question though: Was Amy pregnant with NPH's character's child or did she do something creepy to get pregnant from Nick? Like drug him and rape him in his sleep or something as disgusting. 

 

What I didn't like was the R-Rated scenes. I don't get why movies need to have those nowadays. The only sex scene I can excuse was Amy/NPH right when she killed him, but the others weren't really that necessary to the movie. 

Edited January 23, 2015 by SosaLola

[hendersonrocks]

I have one question though: Was Amy pregnant with NPH's character's child or did she do something creepy to get pregnant from Nick?

 

I don't think it came through quite as clearly in the movie as it did in the book--she used Nick's sperm from their prior visits to a fertility clinic. He thought the samples had been destroyed, but she (surprise!) went behind his back to keep them viable. Or something along those lines.

Edited January 23, 2015 by hendersonrocks

[JBC344]

I don't think it came through quite as clearly in the movie as it did in the book--she used Nick's sperm from their prior visits to a fertility clinic. He thought the samples had been destroyed, but she (surprise!) went behind his back to keep them viable. Or something along those lines.

Correct.  In the movie you see Nick talk about it with Go about he and Amy trying to have a baby to fix their marriage and doing it through fertility doctors.  When Amy comes home and Nick threatens to leave her that is when she tells him about keeping his sperm on ice behind his back and using it as her insurance policy so to speak.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

So, I have finally seen this after picking it up at Redbox, and I can't even fully process it yet except to say that it was very weird to go from totally hating Ben Affleck's character to wishing like hell that he would kill the psycho he was married to. I had not read the book first, and I guess I should have prepared myself, butt I'm not really sure if that would have worked, because wow. More later, possibly.

[methodwriter85]

I kind of loved that the evil psycho got exactly what she wanted. The bit where she's smiling as people treat her like Princess Diana was pretty fucking hilarious.

[Chaos Theory]

I actually loved this movie. I love evil psycho women movies. Now I want to read the book.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Slovenly Muse]

Just saw this movie, never read the book.

 

 

I also couldn't tell whether the authorities' meagre investigation and easy acceptance of her story - which stunk to high hell - was meant as a searing indictment of how media taints impartiality. Amy had been cast as the victim, so whatever she says is the truth, no matter how many holes and inconsistencies are in her story.

 

I wondered about this too, and I don't know how this scene is described in the book, but what really struck me in the movie was how Amy was working so hard to portray herself as the fragile, victimized, blood-soaked damsel who had endured a terrible ordeal while the investigators were looking in the wrong place... and as the camera pans around, we see that she is in a small room sitting (looking rather pathetic) in a wheelchair being absolutely dwarfed by a horde of MALE agents... and Boney. Since she is so brilliant at (as another poster put it) "weaponizing" female stereotypes for use against men, I wondered if these men, these male investigators, having seen the clusterfuck of a media circus the case had become, were honestly just too afraid to push back against her story, lest they end up the ones being portrayed as poor broken Amazing Amy's latest abusers. The PR involved in being perceived as disbelieving a rape victim's story, especially in a case like this, could be really intimidating. It was probably easier for them to accept the facts that made sense, shrug off the ones that didn't and call it a win for the agency.

 

Boney, the only other woman in the room, was willing to poke at those holes in her story, but she was shut down quickly by the male agents, who took the case right out of her hands. My assumption was that a fear of perceived sexism was what motivated that sorry excuse for an investigation. Amy used that fear to her advantage.

 

As for Nick, someone asked upthread how he came across to someone who hadn't read the books. I admit, I thought he was a jerk, a loser and a pretty pathetic patsy, right up until he began to really fight back. When he revealed that he knew Amy better than he'd like to think, when he refused to lie down quietly in that frame she had so expertly constructed for him, and actually began to climb out of it far enough to manipulate her right back, there was something happening there. I could see him becoming better than he was, in a way, meeting her challenge in a way he may not have known he was capable of until that moment. That helped with the ending a lot, because we understand that while he is totally trapped by her, he is also capable of playing on her level (or at least close enough), of playing an extended cat-and-mouse game to extricate himself from her clutches... only he doesn't. Because she's right. Now that she has pushed him and challenged him like this, he'll never be satisfied with any other woman who doesn't inspire him to the heights of manipulation that she has.

 

He has proven that he is capable of playing her, of knowing her well enough to be able to fight back against her and manipulate her into doing things she would otherwise never do. The fact that he doesn't even try, that he decided not to try, and to stay with her after all that, it shows that he IS somewhat addicted to the challenge she presents him. That's what sells it just enough for me, I think.

 

It's funny, I really enjoyed the experience of watching this movie. I found it thrilling and unpredictable and wholly engaging... even when it was over and I was reflecting back on it, feeling unsure of what it was really ABOUT, or what it was trying to say, or whether or not I even liked the ending... I can't deny that I really, really enjoyed watching this movie.

 

Also, NPH was PERFECT in that role. The exact amount of creepy, sweet, pathetic and possessive. Right from the moment when he didn't deny the accusations of stalking when Nick asked, he started leaving the signs of being a well-disguised predator. The way he delivered the line, "I'm not going to force myself on you," gave me actual chills. And yet he was no match for her; not even close. I'm not sure how that character was written in the book, but on screen, I found him (and NPH's portrayal) extremely effective.

[methodwriter85]

In the book, Desi was over-the-top creepy. As in he had actually set up a flower garden for Amy, based on her favorite flower from the late 1980's, and he was giving her wardrobe choices to make her look like her Preppy 80's Girl self, when they had dated. Amy was also supposed to look exactly like his mother. They toned it down a little bit so that it was more subtle, but Neil definitely kept the creepiness there.

 

One thing I wish had translated more from the book over to them movie was Nick's fear that he was doomed to be just like his father, a horrible, emotionally abusive guy who failed at being a dad. I thought that did a lot to explain why Nick refused to leave Amy once he knew she was pregnant.

 

I did really like, though, how they depicted the "Nick and Amy" fame aspect of it. Their story turned them into a commodity, and I thought the movie did a great job of showing that.