Gone Girl (Fincher)

[Kurosawa Fan]

Why exactly should Nick be [

Show Spoiler

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.

]

[

Show Spoiler

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 [

Show Spoiler

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.

]

[

Show Spoiler

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]

[

Show Spoiler

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 [

Show Spoiler

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 [

Show Spoiler

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...

[

Show Spoiler

...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 [

Show Spoiler

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?

]

[

Show Spoiler

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 [

Show Spoiler

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:

[

Show Spoiler

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:

[

Show Spoiler

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?

]

[

Show Spoiler

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.

[

Show Spoiler

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 [

Show Spoiler

"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 [

Show Spoiler

"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 "[

Show Spoiler

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 [

Show Spoiler

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. 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.