Gone Girl (Fincher)

[Kurosawa Fan]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e4/mike3245/gone-girl-movie-poster-1_zpscb5c434c.jpg

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

[Kurosawa Fan]

If you read the book and enjoyed it, you're going to enjoy the film. Fincher nailed it, and it's about as accurate an adaptation as is possible. It's a lot of fun, and Affleck, Pike, and Dickens are in perfect form. The gasps and laughs in the theater just added to the experience. There was even a smattering of applause as it concluded, something which almost never happens in my area.

[TGM]

Yeah, as crazy as some of the twists are in the book, they're even nuttier seeing them play out on the screen. My audience was very vocal throughout (in a good way!), so this was a fun movie to watch with a bunch of people who didn't see any of this coming. Very faithful adaptation with a very dark sense of humor, though the only knock I really have against it was the constant fades to black to segue us into different scenes, which did give it a bit of a "made for TV" vibe, like you would see when those kinda movies fade out to commercial. But that's a minor nitpick against an otherwise pretty stellar movie.

That said, since I did read the book, it was kinda hard for me to properly gauge just how effective the first half was, seeing as I was already well aware of where the story was going. I asked my friends what they thought about the first half, and they said that they had their ideas of where the story was going but, sure enough, this thing went a WHOLE other direction, so I suppose it played out effectively enough after all.

[Izzy Black]

I disliked this one.

[Ezee E]

Loved this one.

[Ezee E]

If you read the book and enjoyed it, you're going to enjoy the film. Fincher nailed it, and it's about as accurate an adaptation as is possible. It's a lot of fun, and Affleck, Pike, and Dickens are in perfect form. The gasps and laughs in the theater just added to the experience. There was even a smattering of applause as it concluded, something which almost never happens in my area.

Yeah, my crowd in Tempe, AZ absolutely ate this up in the final third. It felt like a film festival atmosphere.

[Watashi]

Went into this movie completely blind (just saw the first trailer), and hmmm.... I don't know. Fincher's craft is impeccable, but behind the twists and turns, it's kinda hollow. It's definitely not boring. I also can't ignore the misogyny. Whether it's intentional or being satirized, I have a feeling this will get a Fight Club effect where most people are only going to get "bitch be crazy" out of the film. It feels like a horror movie specifically targeted towards men. Will need to read up on it before I reach a final verdict.

I really liked Patrick Fugit in this movie. I don't know why.

[Watashi]

I also felt Neil Patrick Harris's character was really out of place.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I also felt Neil Patrick Harris's character was really out of place.

This was the only way the film failed in adapting the novel. His character needed more attention paid than he received and needed to be shown as a greater threat. As for the misogyny, I don't see it. She is a sociopath for sure, but Go and Boney are very strong and positive female characters. I don't see any validity in calling the film misogynistic.

And Fugit was dull, but then again so was his character. Not really his fault.

[Watashi]

After sleeping on it, I think I'm going to give it a nay. I don't think it's as clever as it thinks it is. I find the "wink-wink" misdirection meta-ness groan-worthy (the "MasterMind" board game, Nick and Go playing the Game of Life, "This is just like a Law and Order episode", Nick's love of reality television). The satirization of the media doesn't cut deep enough and is just painfully obvious.

Though my biggest problem is that it's trying to be a gender morality play on marriage and the people we pretend to be and tries to find a balance that both these people are terrible people yet perfect for each other, but however the film specifically chooses a side at the end. The scene where Amy gets crossed and manipulated by the trailer trash couple brings a level reality to this manipulation game. It's another instance of misdirection that maybe Amy, this rich white girl, isn't as cold and calculating as we thought. However after that scene doesn't develop Amy or the plot any further. There's no moment of reflection. She still comes up with the master plan to kill NPH and ends up recovering by being America's sweetheart again. She still wins.

[Ezee E]

I don't think it's misogynistic either. Amy is certainly a villain, but the movie, as K-Fan stated, supports the side of Go and Boney. They're against her as well. The movie also puts NPH into a particularly creepy character that Amy's simply privy to and smarter than.

Ben Affleck's Nick remains a cheater and also slams Amy's head against the wall near the end of the movie. That move really surprised my audience, and surprised myself more than anything else in the movie.

The Mastermind and Game of Life are nothing more than winks, and certainly not something to make or break the movie.

[Ezee E]

One thing i can say against the movie is that Amy is never the "cool girl" that she monologues about. When her and Nick meet, she seems more quiet and smart than anything, but never the "cool girl" that she comes across as in the book.

One section missing from the book that I think would've worked well was the gal from high school that she also tortured. Would've been a neat layer, but other than that, I can't say that there's anything missing from the book that had to be in the movie, and all the changes made from book to screen are justifiable, or simply work better on screen. The murder is one of the best in all movies for quite some time. Sheebus.

[Rowland]

I walked out of this with very mixed but generally positive thoughts. After reading all sorts of thought-provoking reviews and think-pieces, I'm convinced that I'm either overrating or underrating it. Sonuvabitch. I agree with Wats however that for all the layers one can read into this, my impression is that it simply plays for most of the general audience as "That bitch cray."

[Henry Gale]

Whoa, this thread is Spoiler City. Pretty glad I didn't happen to come back in here after Izzy and Ezee's brief posts.

But yeah, pretty much adored this. Never read the book, so going in and taking it as it is in this way for the first time, I found to be just incredibly strong, no-frills, and often virtuously effective storytelling (even credit to Flynn and Fincher in this sense). It might not be my favourite Fincher film (which I'm not sure of anyway), but it's likely the film of his that most sums up what I love about him as a filmmaker.

There are moments here that aren't overtly stylized or heightened with their emotions that still pack a punch unlike anything in the biggest moments of other thrillers. I was going to say "thrillers like this", but realized how empty a category that is, in the very best way.

I'll have some more thoughts later, because I'm still on a pretty big high from this after seeing it last night, but I really think it's pretty amazing what this manages to do, with its marketing being a major component and asset to that too.

Easily four stars and a low to mid-range 9 out of 10. Somehow just escapes my Top 5 of the year at this point, which says more about how strongly this year is coming together than the film itself.

[Bosco B Thug]

I really liked Patrick Fugit in this movie. I don't know why. He had a number of great "He definitely did it" deliveries.

Fugit and Dickens were my MVPs.

Also, I swear I do not condone murder and craziness, but

Amy is awesome (within the context of the symbolic film, of course). Guess I might be a rad feminist.

[Henry Gale]

He had a number of great "He definitely did it" deliveries.

Fugit and Dickens were my MVPs.

Fugit's annoyed response of "Can't you just be happy your wife is alive?" to Affleck is so hilariously perfect.

And honestly, there aren't too many people that aren't MVP's in this out of the major players. I mean, this movie contains a pretty great performance from Tyler Perry!

NPH (maybe because he almost seems to be playing a creepier, dialed-back version of a combination of that Harold & Kumar bravado and his Barney Stinson) was the one player I never felt quite clicked like the rest. But Pike is just stunning and deserves every bit of praise and accolade that will hopefully come her way, Affleck delivers more effective here than anything recall him ever putting on screen, Carrie Coon is just beautifully awesome and definitely the breakthrough here (especially for those that haven't known her recently from The Leftovers), and like you said, Dickens and Fugit kill it, playing the duality of the investigation/persecution with so much nuanced humour to just the right extent. Even Scoot McNairy's one scene builds a character with a greatly resonant function to the larger story going forward.

[Bosco B Thug]

And honestly, there aren't too many people that aren't MVP's in this out of the major players. I mean, this movie contains a pretty great performance from Tyler Perry! Eh. Don't get the fuss about his perf.

[Henry Gale]

Eh. Don't get the fuss about his perf.

I dunno, it's not the role I most left the theatre thinking most about (or even the fourth or fifth most) but considering the expectations of someone like me who's grated by any 15 minutes of his broad comedic work or even seen the fairly banal serious stuff he's done otherwise, I just found it really impressive how effortlessly charming and assured he makes what could be a pretty well-worn caricature of a role into something so magnetic and human among all the other dizzying emotions in his scenes.

The movie has its fair share of silly archetypes that do their job for the story (Missi Pyle, Casey Wilson, and Amy's parents particularly spring to mind) that help paint a familiar artifice of the film's American urban life and celebrity culture, but Fincher guides Perry's work towards something more uniquely vulnerable, understandable, and then intermittently hilarious, and I'm not even going to be cocksure enough to think it took the director's standard fifty takes to get it to that place for each scene with him.

But it also doesn't make me eager to see whatever he does next, just impressed that his vacation into Fincherland was so beneficial for everyone. The dude is a machine, often in befuddling and scary ways, but nice to see he has other functions outside of his empiric mega-brand, particularly when they can play out like this.

[Bosco B Thug]

I dunno, it's not the role I most left the theatre thinking most about (or even the fourth or fifth most) but considering the expectations of someone like me who's grated by any 15 minutes of his broad comedic work or even seen the fairly banal serious stuff he's done otherwise, I just found it really impressive how effortlessly charming and assured he makes what could be a pretty well-worn caricature of a role into something so magnetic and human among all the other dizzying emotions in his scenes.

The movie has its fair share of silly archetypes that do their job for the story (Missi Pyle, Casey Wilson, and Amy's parents particularly spring to mind) that help paint a familiar artifice of the film's American urban life and celebrity culture, but Fincher guides Perry's work towards something more uniquely vulnerable, understandable, and then intermittently hilarious, and I'm not even going to be cocksure enough to think it took the director's standard fifty takes to get it to that place for each scene with him.

But it also doesn't make me eager to see whatever he does next, just impressed that his vacation into Fincherland was so beneficial for everyone. The dude is a machine, often in befuddling and scary ways, but nice to see he has other functions outside of his empiric mega-brand, particularly when they can play out like this. You're totally on point about how Fincher manages an array of performances (some nice and nuanced, others broad and overtly satirical) to create something telling and delicate, but I'm just honestly am befuddled by lots of people pointing out Perry when I came out of the film feeling like he barely registered as much more than a cameo. But maybe I need to see the film again. You're probably more on the wavelength of the actual truth - he has an integral and featured role, commiserating and endearing himself as part of the "Nick camp," humanizing the hotshot "amoral" lawyer by being on what ultimately ends up the "underdog"/losing side of the story. But, just reflecting my own personal experience, there was never a point where I went "Wow, Tyler Perry's so charming in this role!" or "He's bringing such an expert touch to this role!", but that's a very subjective thing and, of course, others certainly responded to his performance.

And I forget that his character has to act the grounded realist a lot, since things largely don't go their way - he's not just the fast-talking lawyer always patting Affleck on the back and calling him "baby."

[Izzy Black]

Perry's performance is the only savory thing about this turkey.

[Mara]

I saw this last night and thought it was pretty solid. I had some reservations but mostly liked the book, and this adaptation worked better than I would have expected given how much of what happens in the book is internal. I thought the pacing had a couple issues, especially between Amy's dramatic return and the end. Overall, positive.

Now, I may be colored by my perceptions of the book, but I wouldn't say the film is misogynistic so much as it is deeply misanthropic. The world of the novel and the film is populated almost exclusively by manipulative, duplicitous assholes; Amy is just the most skilled of these. There are slight exceptions for Margo and Boney, (and in flashback, the Dunne's mother) who are genuinely good people. Everyone else is horrible. It's not a story that hates women; it's a story that hates people.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Now, I may be colored by my perceptions of the book, but I wouldn't say the film is misogynistic so much as it is deeply misanthropic. The world of the novel and the film is populated almost exclusively by manipulative, duplicitous assholes; Amy is just the most skilled of these. There are slight exceptions for Margo and Boney, (and in flashback, the Dunne's mother) who are genuinely good people. Everyone else is horrible. It's not a story that hates women; it's a story that hates people.

Agree completely. Hard to call it misogynistic when the only two characters worth a damn are both women. Glad you liked it. I was waiting for your response.

[max314]

...I wouldn't say the film is misogynistic so much as it is deeply misanthropic.

"Deeply misanthropic" could be the title of Fincher's biography.

[Pop Trash]

I'll have to think about it some more, but I'm pretty sure I really dug this. I'm an auteurist/style-is-the-substance type and I think Fincher really elevated the ending to have an otherworldly dream like quality to it (another great Reznor soundtrack helped immensely). The film is also edited to the hilt. It's not quite Zodiac but, man, that editing, camera placement, and lighting really do it for me. I don't really get the charges of misogyny here any more than I would get charges of misandry towards Mary Harron's film version of American Psycho.

[Morris Schæffer]

Decent, strongly acted, but straining at credibility. Why exactly should Nick be forced to live out his days with Amy by the end? Yes, because the public would eat him alive, but if the man is unhappy, and now knowing he's living with a throat-slitting, well, cunt, surely he's free to do as he pleases. The movie makes it look like amy's just checkmated Nick. One thing though, the baby, was it his?if it's Desi's baby, then there's nothing in that regard holding Nick back from leaving Amy either.

Feels a bit far-fetched as a treatise on what marriage really is although I guess you could see it as crazy psycho-thriller too.

EDIT: Was it always her intention to kill Desi and return or did she see that her situation was hopeless and that the only way to screw Nick was to actually return as the victim of Desi? Even though initially she thought that vanishing into thin air was the ideal way to screw her husband.

The plot is really, kinda, sorta, far-fetched.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Why exactly should Nick be forced to live out his days with Amy by the end? Yes, because the public would eat him alive, but if the man is unhappy, and now knowing he's living with a throat-slitting, well, cunt, surely he's free to do as he pleases. The movie makes it look like amy's just checkmated Nick. One thing though, the baby, was it his?if it's Desi's baby, then there's nothing in that regard holding Nick back from leaving Amy either.


That's his child. That's why he feels trapped. He can't imagine leaving that child in the care of Amy without him to look over him/her. It's definitely his. This is addressed by her letting him know that she didn't throw away his frozen sperm like she pretended to do. She kept it and used it when it suited her.


Was it always her intention to kill Desi and return or did she see that her situation was hopeless and that the only way to screw Nick was to actually return as the victim of Desi? Even though initially she thought that vanishing into thin air was the ideal way to screw her husband.

She definitely intended to kill Desi and return to Nick. She recognized that with Desi, she was trapped like a rat in a cage. She was powerless, something she simply can't live with. Nick gave her enough of a sign through his interview, by wearing the watch and groveling to her when he knew she had set him up at that point that she recognized that going home was her best option. She knew she could control Nick at home.

[Morris Schæffer]

She definitely intended to kill Desi and return to Nick. She recognized that with Desi, she was trapped like a rat in a cage. She was powerless, something she simply can't live with. Nick gave her enough of a sign through his interview, by wearing the watch and groveling to her when he knew she had set him up at that point that she recognized that going home was her best option. She knew she could control Nick at home.

but we are agreed that if her cash hadn't been stolen by the pool girl, Amy would have continued on her original path which is to remain invisible forever? That the only reason she sought out Desi is because she had to re-adjust her original plans? Or was there some other reason she returned home at the end? Like for example the interviews Nick gave or that he was being protected by a hot shot lawyer?

[Pop Trash]

but we are agreed that if her cash hadn't been stolen by the pool girl, Amy would have continued on her original path which is to remain invisible forever? That the only reason she sought out Desi is because she had to re-adjust her original plans? Or was there some other reason she returned home at the end? Like for example the interviews Nick gave or that he was being protected by a hot shot lawyer?

KF might answer this better since he actually read the book but my take on the film...

...was that Amy changed her plans after the robbery and did a zig-zag by way of Desi. Granted, I don't know what she would have come up with had Desi not come through or not existed (or be happily married). I think the unknowability of the Amy character is what makes this film/story so interesting. There's some bizarro logic that no sane person would come up with which is why the ending is so ambiguous as to what Amy exactly wants or what she wants to accomplish by staying with Nick.

[Kurosawa Fan]

but we are agreed that if her cash hadn't been stolen by the pool girl, Amy would have continued on her original path which is to remain invisible forever? That the only reason she sought out Desi is because she had to re-adjust her original plans? Or was there some other reason she returned home at the end? Like for example the interviews Nick gave or that he was being protected by a hot shot lawyer?

The robbery definitely changed her plans, but I'm not sure how she would have reacted to the interview had she not been robbed first. I'd like to think she still would have seen it as an opportunity to refrain from taking her own life, as a sign from Nick that she can manipulate him for the rest of their marriage, but I think Pop Trash is correct that there is a certain amount of unpredictability to her that keeps her so dynamic and interesting for the audience, so I'm not really sure. And I think that wildness, that unpredictable element of her personality, as well as her power over Nick (who is a pathetic schlub to begin with), is what makes Nick want to stay with Amy, even putting aside the pregnancy.

[Morris Schæffer]

Not sure I'd describe Nick as a pathetic schlub, the man is certainly capable of standing up to himself by, well, resorting to moderate and sudden violence, as evidenced by when he smahes her head against the wall at the end, and since she describes herself as a survivor, i'm not sure what purpose it serves by moving back with him, a relationship which seems bound for terrible disaster, given that Nick himself has stated in the beginning that he couldn't take it any longer, and now apparently he's resigned to the fact that he'll have to. If amy is a survivor, then why re-enter a relationship that may end in tragedy for her? Then again, she is quick-witted and resourceful.

which reminds me, i'm of to google that pupil mistress of his. Those tatas were astounding.

[Pop Trash]

One thing I missed:

What happened to Nick's dad that caused his house to go vacant? Did he die or was he put into an assisted living home?

[Winston*]

One thing I missed:

What happened to Nick's dad that caused his house to go vacant? Did he die or was he put into an assisted living home?

He's put into an assisted living home. There's a scene where Nick takes him back there from the police station.

I enjoyed this movie. I liked that it was sillier than I expected.

[Henry Gale]

which reminds me, i'm of to google that pupil mistress of his. Those tatas were astounding.

You miiiight be able to find some pictures of her online.

If you are familiar with the musical hit "Blurred Lines", I'd say it and her were mutually beneficially to their respective successes.

[Morris Schæffer]

Heh, neil patrick harris will host the next Oscars.

[Henry Gale]

I guess his opening being "Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the 87th Oscars. I apologize if I sound a bit hoarse tonight. Boy, does my throat ever hurt.... Thanks for nothing, Rosamund!" is now a given, right?

[Morris Schæffer]

I guess his opening being "Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the 87th Oscars. I apologize if I sound a bit hoarse tonight. Boy, does my throat ever hurt.... Thanks for nothing, Rosamund!" is now a given, right?

I wish he'd drop the "Thanks for nothing, Rosamund!" and trust that audiences are smart enough to make the connection regardless. :)

But we are assuming of course that the British actress will be nominated. Probably.

[Wryan]

Well, I enjoyed this, but I was seriously worried for the first 20 minutes or so. If "too clever by half" is the phrase, this was "too clever by three or four" for a while. But then it loosened up and really got going, mercifully saving itself, for the most part, from becoming an underlit Gilmore Girls episode. Didn't read the book, but unfortunately I had heard that there were craaazy shifts...which only prepared me for them instead of letting me be shocked by them. I originally thought she was alive and playing him and would come back, but then he'd kill her for real. If this is supposed to be an exaggerated summation/expose of "modern marriage" (that phrase splashed over every. single. review), then by god there are some messed up couples out there. It makes me feel pretty sad if the current nature of relationships means (or is thought to mean) sealing yourself off inside a festering wound because you can't leave and, well, that's just how it's going to be. I wonder how many people out there are living with such unhappiness.

On the upside, very pleased to see how many fantastic female characters were in this. It's packed, and they're all knocked clean out of the park. Also, makeup nom for Patrick Fugit's hair. Calling it.

[number8]

Affleck's delivery of "Why is every woman picking on me?" is hilarious. He's perfectly cast for this role.

Super fun movie. I was rooting for Amy the whole time. The scene where Nick locks himself in a room and sits with his cat petrified in a corner is just so funny and fantastic.

[dreamdead]

This works quite well as a dark comedy, as others have suggested. Where it flounders a little is in extending Amy's psyche into more than just the role of the vengeful betrayed-wife.

Flynn's novel has multiple sequences where Amy's narrative voice rails at the role-playing implicit in women's attempts to be the Cool Girl; the film has just one, where Amy's driving and railing at the women driving alongside her, but it's a moment that's so immediately after the narrative switch that it loses any ability to exist as cultural critique, becoming more of a final narrative thread suggesting her cruelty. The concision of these moments for the film are inevitable, but do damage the cohesion of Amy's credibility in her rage. And though Amy's clothing choices with Harris suggest a re-adoption of that Cool Girl mentality, it loses just a little something in the transition.

Not as solid as I'd hoped, but Affleck a perfect casting choice. The main loss is that a book's diary entries feel less likely to be fabricated, whereas the film conceit of falsifying a diary feels more logical. Difference of the medium...

[Sxottlan]

Gone Girl now makes two Fincher films in a row where I've looked forward to his movies, enjoyed them while watching them and then nearly forgot about them a week later.

[DavidSeven]

I liked it. This seems like good material for Fincher; it makes good use of his ability to convey icy detachedness. It sort of reminded me of a Korean revenge thriller -- with its deadpan line deliveries, clean aesthetic, dark humor, dynamic tonal elements and narrative outlandishness.

I thought the scenes where Nick and Amy first meet and build their relationship could've been done better. I would have liked to see more contrast there with the present-day scenes. Those flashbacks felt a little too scripted, the tit-for-tat dialogue too contrived. Was that the point? It seems like this story would resonate more if we felt more genuine emotion in those scenes -- even if the characters were supposed to be putting on "show." But "heart" isn't exactly Fincher's forte.

That's only a minor quibble. This movie suits Fincher very well. It feels like a bold movie, something outside-the-box. Thematically, it's a good conversation piece, but to me, that's secondary to how well it's executed at a plotting and formal level. I hope it performs well financially. I'd like there to be room for more stuff like this.

[number8]

Those flashbacks felt a little too scripted, the tit-for-tat dialogue too contrived. Was that the point?

I doubt it, since Nick's dialogue with Go are written the same way.

I have a question, actually. Do you guys think the flashbacks we see are unreliable? I think it's an interesting question if you consider that Amy uses a lot of truth in her fake diary and Fincher is pretty selective as to what gets visualized. Seems interesting to consider that the ones that are visualized actually happened. Including Nick shoving her to the ground. Because really, is there any reason to believe Nick telling the cops he never did that?

I can see Fincher wanting to be provocative and mischievously constructing the film to force audiences to make assumptions and take characters' words at value.

[Pop Trash]

All the flashbacks are unreliable but unreliable doesn't necessarily mean untrue. They are intentionally vague and ambiguous as to what really happened. Hence the audience never knowing if Nick got physically violent with Amy or if that was a plant in her diary.

[dreamdead]

Eh, I don't think there's really ambiguity in Nick ever hitting Amy. When Amy's accosted at the motel, the girl mentions how Amy's never really been hit before. That sense is verified by Fincher's framing of her feebleness in that moment.

By the way, for those who like their films with a more intensive film history background, David Bordwell's got you covered (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2014/10/21/gone-grrrl/). Leave Her to Heaven sounds awesome...

[transmogrifier]

Easily Fincher's best since Zodiac, his funniest since Fight Club. Glad they kept the ending, because it makes both the book and the movie.

[quido8_5]

I liked this, but I'm struggling to see it as a great film. Fincher's direction is on-point, the acting is tremendous and it works well as a lean, entertaining pot-boiler. On the other hand, it's totally unconcerned with answering any of the questions it raises. While the cynicism works well and kept me smiling throughout the film, it left me feeling a little icky leaving the theater. It seems like a deliberate choice for both the novel and the film to be firmly apolitical (or, at least, fuck-everyone), something I typically respect. Gone Girl, though, seems to delight in touching on the complex while remaining almost absurdly simple. Right now I’d consider it a fun time at the movies and a thoroughly entertaining film. “Great” will have to hold out for a rewatch.

***/****(M)

[Grouchy]

I have a question, actually. Do you guys think the flashbacks we see are unreliable? I think it's an interesting question if you consider that Amy uses a lot of truth in her fake diary and Fincher is pretty selective as to what gets visualized. Seems interesting to consider that the ones that are visualized actually happened. Including Nick shoving her to the ground. Because really, is there any reason to believe Nick telling the cops he never did that?
I think everything we see coming from her diary is unreliable, but at the same time there's enough room for ambiguity there that one could accept that what you see actually happened even though the events leading there were manipulated by her. We really never know the full extent of her scheming.

Loved this. Fincher has developed a unique style that's all his own, specially when it comes to the editing, which is almost frantic and works by stockpiling an impressive amount of information in quick shots. The story is very good, outlandish but effective, and I hadn't read the book so I wasn't spoiled. Amy is a scarier and more repellent psychopath than most, one of the most disgusting villains in recent memory in fact, because her crimes are so grounded in the reality of human relationships. I loved the film, to sum it up. Not Social Network or Zodiac good but still memorable.

[Ezee E]

Saw this a second time and liked it even more.

[MadMan]

That was a powerful and really creepy movie. Nick comes off as a moronic asshole while Amy is a psychopathic manipulator. Loved that final shot and I want to hear the score again. I was reminded more of The Game but also of The Social Network also.

[Dukefrukem]

Fuck. Is this his best? Need to sleep on it.

[Ezee E]

Fuck. Is this his best? Need to sleep on it.

No, but it's amazing.

His best use of score in a movie though.

[MadMan]

So far this is the only Fincher film that I felt could have lost 20 minutes and still turned out the same. Doesn't change the fact its one of the year's best.

[Stay Puft]

His best use of score in a movie though.

Yeah, I might agree with this. Really loved the score. Pervasive and unnerving, and a great compliment to the twists and ambiguities.

I wouldn't rank Gone Girl among Fincher's best, but I enjoyed it a lot more than his last three. Had a lot of fun with it. Thought for sure I knew exactly where the mystery was going, was surprised when the twist I predicted was revealed even before the film's halfway point, and it just kept twisting and turning from there. A total blast to watch.

[Yxklyx]

Yeah, saw this finally. My third favorite of his after Seven and Fight Club.

[Peng]

Rewatched this, and damn, is this the double casting coups of the decade? Rosamund Pike seemingly comes out of nowhere to capture the slippery role of Amy *just* right. Her unknowable enigma of the film’s first half gives way and is shaded into the half-satiric/half-sincere extreme of blackest comedy, both fascinating and a complete hoot (the heel-clicking jump of joy, the quick contemptuous spit, the intensely unblinking TV watching while gobbling down ice-cream; the most delicious soap-opera fainting ever captured on film, I could go on and on).

Meanwhile, Ben Affleck is a serendipity of written character and actor’s real-life baggage. I couldn’t get over how apt he is when I first heard the casting, but the sheer feeling of serendipity would come later when the first trailer came out, and the “smile” scene, a seemingly unfilmable passage in the book, is perfectly captured in both its douchey cluelessness and second-handed embarrassment of relatability, all in a flash of a second.