DivisionPost posted:Okay, I'm going to drag you from the only life you've ever known, put down roots in a place you're completely unfamiliar with, and suck up what little money you have to your name in the process. And I'm going to use you like a cumrag and also bang someone twenty years younger. But you'll get over it because it's only "mildly obnoxious." I mean, all of that's bad, but it just makes him a douche, not a monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Taear posted:With the exception of him cheating we don't even know how much of that is true. Remember that the using for sex stuff was in her diary so it's probably not true. The stuff about the baby is probably not true (in that she says he doesn't want one, but in a flashback) and really I don't know how you're finding him that bad. The affair is the only truly lovely thing he does. The sex, fine, but we can EASILY assume that her feelings about moving to Missouri are true since she was born and raised in the city. We can also assume the same about him buying a stake in The Bar (under her name for financial reasons). Those two alone say a whole loving lot about Nick Dunne's lovely personality, even if it doesn't quite come across as you're watching since he's too busy getting throughly, utterly railroaded and it's hard not to sympathize with a protagonist under that kind of pressure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
So did the author have a boyfriend who cheated on her, or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I mean, all of that's bad, but it just makes him a douche, not a monster. A monster he ultimately chooses to enable in the little ways, the ways that count. Allowing her to tuck him into his bed, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Honestly, there's no point in trying to hash out who's worse than who, partly because the actions of one never excuse the actions of another. As the protagonist and the initial point-of-view character, it's going to be easy to sympathize with Nick. But Nick isn't any less of an rear end in a top hat because Amy railroaded him, just like those two thieving junkie fucks who rolled Amy are any less thieving junkie fucks because Amy's a murderer. More importantly: in the end, Nick doesn't just choose Amy; they choose each other. Amy comes back for Nick and brute-forces her flimsy story through, when she very easily could have let Nick hang and squeeze some money out of Desi before killing him and running off. And no matter how much he protests over her being a murderer, Nick still takes back Amy even though the only thing she initially has hanging over his head is the idea that people might not like him. (Even when there's a baby in play, you can argue that he's STILL got an out because it's not like it was conceived in an act of love or under any will of his own.) Whatever awful poo poo they've done to each other at whatever severity, they continue to invite it back onto themselves. So it's also pointless to argue about who's the bad guy or who should be the bad guy because if Nick and Amy are going to stay together, it obviously doesn't matter to them. (At least, the ending hints, until it really does.) If you're going to argue that the film is misogynistic, you have to do better than "The film makes us like Nick and hate Amy!" DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Taear posted:She was going to get him killed. Yea he's selfish and a cheat. But she was going to actually get him killed. Good. Too many of that sort in the world, in my opinion. And you keep insisting that her flight was all about getting Nick killed, but that was secondary to actually getting control of her own life and what she wanted to do, which was getting out of the shadow of "Amazing Amy" once and for all. And as for killing NPH, well, what the hell else was she supposed to do, stay locked up in his rape house? He'd overpower her if she tried the frontal assault, and he'd track her if she tried to run away, so hence the misdirection and slashy. Still self defense, in my opinion. Look, guys, I've seen a few pieces of "misogynist" media in which I am meant to hate the overbearing shrew/ monstrous psycho-bitch for the taking advantage/killing of the poor widdle nice guy, but I usually never feel that way, and applaud the woman for improving her station. When the deck is so heavily stacked against women as it has been in nearly all of history, is it really so wrong for a girl to do what she can to get ahead? When all society is based on lies and manipulation, (as this movie claims society and marriage for appearance is), why is a woman who learns how to game the system a bitch while a man is "just a decent guy doing what he has to?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Good. Too many of that sort in the world, in my opinion. And you keep insisting that her flight was all about getting Nick killed, but that was secondary to actually getting control of her own life and what she wanted to do, which was getting out of the shadow of "Amazing Amy" once and for all. And as for killing NPH, well, what the hell else was she supposed to do, stay locked up in his rape house? He'd overpower her if she tried the frontal assault, and he'd track her if she tried to run away, so hence the misdirection and slashy. Still self defense, in my opinion. She is a sociopathic/has antisocial personality disorder. She has a set of ideals (money, societal status, conceptualized perfect life based on a fake book character) that have been embedded in psyche from an early age by her parents, and any partner she has is a means to achieve these goals. She is entirely narcissistic in the pursuit of these goals, has no empathy towards others, and shows no guilt or remorse in the lives she destroys in her attempt to reach her goals. The author/director’s etiological explanation for her condition is how her parents raised her—they basically manipulated her life from an early age to achieve their own goals, and in the process of creating the fake character, engrained a picture of a certain lifestyle into her psyche that eventually became her life goal. The evidence for this can clearly be seen in the process she employs to help her achieve her goals. She has a clear plan to find a romantic partner whom she thinks can get her Money/Status, manipulate them into doing so, and then continue to live their life with her in control the entire time. Her first attempt failed early, as her boyfriend just wasn’t good enough to get her where she wanted to be, and when he eventually had enough of her manipulation, she destroyed his life. The second time Desi had what it took to get her Money/Status, but was too smart for her tricks, called her out on it, and she had to leave since she didn’t have as tight a grip on him as she desired. This is shown when he calls her out on trying to control him earlier in life “I know what it’s like to be on a leash”. In the end though, he did fall for it, only 20 years later. Finally, Nick is a mixture of the two. He has to be trained and groomed, but with her help he gets her the money/status she desires, and is firmly in the palm of her hand. Only when external factors intervene (the economy crashing) does she lose control of the situation and of Nick. She attempts to end it the same way she ended her first relationship (ruining Nick’s life), and only when she sees Nick still has potential to turn things around (when she is watching the talk show), does she decide to give him another chance. You can see further evidence of this process in one of the scenes from her perspective where she describes her true first impressions of Nick. She states she acted exactly how she thought he would want her to act (“the cool chick”) to get close to him, so she could basically start manipulating him. To me it’s questionable whether she even really cared about Nick; she really just cared that she was living out her conceptualized ideal life, and that she was the one steering the boat. Nick is not a good person, and does a love of lovely things, but his individual actions have nothing to do with why she does what she does. It’s the fact that these actions represent that she has lost her control over Nick, and that is why she goes forth with her plan. If Nick had done the “right thing”, and just told her point blank “I’m not happy, I don’t want to be with you anymore” without ever cheating or hiding his feelings from her, it’s very likely she still would have done something similar to either force him to comply or ruin his life. At no point in her life does she ever express any genuine concerns for any other person. She lies, cheats, and controls her way toward her idealized life, and crushes anyone who stands in her way or doesn’t go along with the plan. She is really a grade A sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:01
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Look, guys, I've seen a few pieces of "misogynist" media in which I am meant to hate the overbearing shrew/ monstrous psycho-bitch for the taking advantage/killing of the poor widdle nice guy, but I usually never feel that way, and applaud the woman for improving her station. When the deck is so heavily stacked against women as it has been in nearly all of history, is it really so wrong for a girl to do what she can to get ahead? When all society is based on lies and manipulation, (as this movie claims society and marriage for appearance is), why is a woman who learns how to game the system a bitch while a man is "just a decent guy doing what he has to?" BECAUSE MURDERING PEOPLE IS GENERALLY A VERY VERY lovely THING TO DO AND YOU ARE A HORRIBLY BROKEN PERSON
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
 It's obvious that Amy is much, much worse than Nick. She's definitely a complete sociopath. I don't think it's necessary to downplay what Amy did, or pretend that Nick is on the same level as her.But why does that mean the movie is misogynistic? I loved Amy's character; I didn't see her as a cliche "psycho bitch" at all. She does terrible things because she has no empathy for others and will do whatever it takes to get what she wants. other people are tools at best, obstacles at worst. She's not the shrill, two-dimensional harpy you see in other movies- she has a loving mental disorder as a cause for the terrible things she does. (I would agree however, that if her parents were supposed to be equally culpable in making her a disturbed human being, it needed to be emphasized a lot more. They definitely came across as fake and far more focused on the ideal of "Amazing Amy" than the real human being in front of them, but it was nowhere near enough.) Like the general reaction here just frustrates me so much- I understand the fears about MRA stereotypes of women, but: is it possible to write a truly evil, unsympathetic female character without being considered misogynist? What does a writer have to do? I haven't read the book, but in the film it almost seemed like Flynn had anticipated this reaction to the character of Amy so she included various good, likable, also 3D female characters: a) the detective as the reasonable good cop who gave Nick the benefit of the doubt for as long as she possibly could, then after the reveal, the only cop who actually questioned Amy's ridiculous story; and b) the twin sister who unquestionably had Nick's back even through all his idiocy. It just seemed 100% clear to me that the writer was not misogynist, even unconsciously- I never got that uncomfortable vibe I so often get when watching movies with female villains. Amy isn't bad because she's a woman and women are just ~craaaaaaaazy~ bitches obsessed with men; women are people and Amy is an evil loving person that happens to be a woman. Her gender heavily influenced the way her sociopathy manifested itself, but it wasn't the cause. The movie uses Amy as a mouthpiece for the feminist statements it makes, but all of that is a smokescreen. The sentiments themselves are legitimate, but Amy uses them mostly as excuses to justify her reprehensible actions. Like Megasabin said, even if Nick hadn't wronged her by cheating, it seemed like Amy still would have left him and hosed him over once she lost control of their living situation. Society definitely hosed Amy over, and she definitely noticed as it was happening, but that's not really why she pulled off her insane plan. It's no feminist revenge story, Amy is no Thelma & Louise. She was totally OK with pretending, with faking it as the "Cool Girl"... until the ideal life she imagined for herself seemed no longer possible due to money troubles and having to move to the lovely "navel of America" to watch her mother-in-law die. Only then did she decide to burn everything to the ground and start again. For all her professed principles, Amy was actually enormously self-centered. Which makes sense for a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Can the movie even be misogynistic if the novel was written by a woman?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Liam Emsa posted:Can the movie even be misogynistic if the novel was written by a woman? Yeah? Women can be extremely misogynistic. Ever heard of Phyllis Schlafly? Also, Flynn wrote the novel and the screenplay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Taear posted:Aside from the misogynistic angle of the film though, I felt there were a few plot holes that I'd like to be explained. To clarify this for you, in the lake house, the cameras were all designed to cover the exterior of the house, to spot anyone approaching or leaving the house. They did not cover the interior of the house. Clearly, Amy became familiar with exactly which parts of the house near to windows did happen to be in view of a camera, and chose one spot specifically so her performance would be seen by the camera. FourLeaf posted:Yeah? Women can be extremely misogynistic. Sure they can, but Flynn certainly isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
The cat for best supporting actor or I boycott the academy awards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
So I walked out of this movie feeling uncomfortable about what much of this thread has been concerned with: the inherent misogyny. I still think the film could have done a much better job condemning Affleck's character, but the last graph in this av club review has me rethinking the movie entirely. http://www.avclub.com/article/spoiler-space-gone-girl-209934 (I don't know how to censor text on my phone so SPOILER ALERT) "Flynn’s novel was accused, in certain parts, of being misogynist, and some of the same accusations have cropped up in relation to Fincher’s film. It’s an understandable take, especially because Amy has a history of faking rape—something that she does again in the movie’s lurid, bloody climax. But this interpretation is also very problematic; in order to subscribe to it, one has to accept Amy on her own preferred terms, as an “archetypal” woman. Amy and Nick operate by convincing others that they are somehow representative of all women or all men—which they are only because they choose to be. If anything, Gone Girl is about the way in which ugly cultural baggage—about gender roles, relationships, and sex—can obscure the truth. People can be predictable, but only because they consciously conform to certain norms and roles; what’s going on in their heads is a different matter altogether."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:To clarify this for you, in the lake house, the cameras were all designed to cover the exterior of the house, to spot anyone approaching or leaving the house. They did not cover the interior of the house. Clearly, Amy became familiar with exactly which parts of the house near to windows did happen to be in view of a camera, and chose one spot specifically so her performance would be seen by the camera. But what about him arriving with her, absolutely fine, days and days after it was supposed to have happened? That would be recorded, surely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
I suppose the security system might not have been activated while the place was sitting empty, and only turned on once they got there and got inside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:I suppose the security system might not have been activated while the place was sitting empty, and only turned on once they got there and got inside. Again though, it still means they'd wonder why it took so long. I guess she could have said something about it in her deposition but to me it's a big thing that the film should have at least brushed over a little - since they mention the cameras over and over and over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:BECAUSE MURDERING PEOPLE IS GENERALLY A VERY VERY lovely THING TO DO AND YOU ARE A HORRIBLY BROKEN PERSON Again, what loving murder? The only time she kills somebody, it's to escape being held by a crazy creep who wants a very specific image for him to hug and kiss and love and call George, and to require her not to kill him is to require her to either accept that or wait for rescue like a good little damsel in distress. Which option would you take? And as for the frame job, it was apparent to me that it was actually never going to get as far as the death penalty: he had an excellent lawyer who would have saved him from that, and a loving sister that foots the bill. Plus, he's great at manipulating others himself, as we saw with that one interview; I've got no doubt in my mind that the holes in the case would have prevented him from the death penalty, if not got him off entirely, even if she actually killed herself. After all, she is only a woman, and there's plenty more where that came from, am I right, fellas?  Megasabin posted:She is a sociopathic/has antisocial personality disorder. She has a set of ideals (money, societal status, conceptualized perfect life based on a fake book character) that have been embedded in psyche from an early age by her parents, and any partner she has is a means to achieve these goals. She is entirely narcissistic in the pursuit of these goals, has no empathy towards others, and shows no guilt or remorse in the lives she destroys in her attempt to reach her goals. The author/director’s etiological explanation for her condition is how her parents raised her—they basically manipulated her life from an early age to achieve their own goals, and in the process of creating the fake character, engrained a picture of a certain lifestyle into her psyche that eventually became her life goal. But see that's the thing:Every trait you list as something that makes Amy worse than Nick- the narcissism, the set of ideals, the manipulation- is something that Nick exhibits too. He manipulates everyone around him and doesn't give any sign that he actually cares about anyone beyond his adorable kitty, and the only difference between his manipulation and Amy's is that he has to spend significantly less effort to do it. Besides, all of the things Amy "lies" about- the temper, the violence, the self-centeredness- are traits Nick actually end up exhibiting, so how much of what she wrote was actually lying? Again, the only difference I discern between Amy and Nick, is that Nick is too much of a coward to go to the lengths that Amy does in getting what she wants. A lot of people around here seem to think I'm defending Amy's actions, and I'm not. As some of you have said, she is an evil woman, one of the most deliciously realized, in depth female villains to have graced the screen in a long time. I'm not downplaying the terrible things she does, and I'm not sympathizing with her; any sympathy I have is with the poor baby they're going to have. But I am trying to get people to examine why they revile her for her actions, and not anybody else for doing the same actions. Some folks in this thread are bound and determined to take Amy to task for lying, manipulating others into an image, and punish them for not living up to it, but when last I checked, EVERYONE in this movie lies, manufactures an image, and punishes others for not living up to it. This is a society of lies and deceit, where people keep up appearances and the only societal rule is "Do as thou wilt, but don't get caught," and yet we insist on holding Amy to a higher standard than we do any other person, saying "She's a psycho-Bitch who uses men!" when everybody uses everybody. Why? In the world presented here, is she really that much of an aberration, when the task of keeping up appearances makes sociopathic ghouls of nearly everybody?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Honestly, there's no point in trying to hash out who's worse than who, partly because the actions of one never excuse the actions of another. As the protagonist and the initial point-of-view character, it's going to be easy to sympathize with Nick. But Nick isn't any less of an rear end in a top hat because Amy railroaded him, just like those two thieving junkie fucks who rolled Amy are any less thieving junkie fucks because Amy's a murderer. Aside from the fact that Nick is still clearly not portrayed as being as bad as Amy, no matter how you argue it, I think an important point has to be made. It doesn't ultimately matter how the movie ends - Amy and Nick could make weepy sincere apologies to each other and we could be shown them both making a genuine effort thereafter to be good people, and the film would still be misogynistic. The key is that even if you think Amy's actions are justified, the way she expresses her anger is just a sequence of stereotypical actions, and this plays into the still widespread belief that women have this massive power they can and will use over men if they are willing to abuse societal assumptions. Nick is shown to be stereotypical - having an affair with a younger woman and abusing his position as a teacher to do so; ignoring his wife in favour of video games or sports - but those stereotypes are not commonly used to hurt men in the same way that false accusations of rape or impregnation-as-punishment are against women. I don't mean to get all D&D, but a movie like this does not exist in isolation, and we have to take into account imbalances of power in our society when evaluating its treatment of both male and female characters. I might remind you that a hot topic this past year has been trying to remove the stigma around accusing someone of rape and validating women's claims to their own bodies; there has been no similar movement dealing with removing the stigma around a man having an affair with a younger woman. Also, with respect to Flynn's position, I would just quote this statement of hers once again: quote:For me, it's also the ability to have women who are bad characters … the one thing that really frustrates me is this idea that women are innately good. And state that she's completely missing the point that having a bad female character is not the issue, it's having a completely stereotypically bad female character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Taear posted:Aside from the misogynistic angle of the film though, I felt there were a few plot holes that I'd like to be explained. Yeah. Another poster addressed this saying the cameras only covered the outside, but there are a lot of issues. As someone else posted, what about her showing up initially (recorded) under no duress at all? Time stamped to be a while after she said she was brought there. I'm guessing some of the potential camera issues might be addressed by saying that she got a hold of the recording data and deleted the stuff showing her arrival and anything that didn't look consistent with her story, assuming the recording was somewhere she could get to it. I think the issue is, as a practical matter, there's now way she could get away with being on the road in the cabin for days and then being at the lake house for weeks and make up such a complicated story about what happened. Way too much time and events and evidence to track, and with already a ton of obvious discrepancies in her original narrative about the husband killing her, no way the death of the rich guy would not be scrutinized really carefully and further evidence found. Even if she paid cash only and used payphones etc., there would be phone records of his, and likely some record of his travel up to the casino, gas or food credit card charges, record of him receiving a call from the casino area just before heading up there. Even just combing over the lake house, just from her having stayed there for weeks there would almost certainly be physical evidence inconsistent with her story. This aspect does kind of bug me, I realize that at a certain point you just kind of have to shrug your shoulders and say "It's one of those movie things, gotta roll with it", but the plot is convoluted enough that it's hard not to be a bit distracted by those kind of holes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:And as for killing NPH, well, what the hell else was she supposed to do, stay locked up in his rape house? He'd overpower her if she tried the frontal assault, and he'd track her if she tried to run away, so hence the misdirection and slashy. Still self defense, in my opinion. Look, I'm going to have to pull you up there. Desi is obviously creepy and overbearing, but , unless I missed something, there's nothing in the film to say the he assaulted her or was keeping her locked up there. The only reason she can't leave is because she has no money and it would risk blowing apart the giant ruse she'd constructed. On another note, as an editing decision, I felt that the last half hour of the film, after she comes back, was pretty unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Yeah. Another poster addressed this saying the cameras only covered the outside, but there are a lot of issues. As someone else posted, what about her showing up initially (recorded) under no duress at all? Time stamped to be a while after she said she was brought there. To be fair, regarding this the movie does go into it a bit Neither Affleck nor Kim Dickens believe her story, which is evident when Dickens asks her to clarify some points. It's then that Amy basically says "Can we please go back to the time I was kidnapped and raped instead of your trivial questions." Note that the only woman in the room is the lone dissenter. Anyway, Dickens then mentions the FBI took over and they closed the book on it because they don't care. They've seen it as something that was hugely mishandled, and want it to go away. Besides. If they do have her on tape arriving at the house there's nothing to stop her from saying she was too scared to do anything. The only scene I didn't initially like is when Nick visits the ex who was accused of rape. It's largely unnecessary but it does serve the purpose that Amy can't just leave a relationship, she has to scorch the earth before she can move on and reinvent herself again for the next man. It's still a great movie though, and it's jet black in its comedy. It feels like I'm watching a Brian DePalma movie. I could easily see this coming out between BODY DOUBLE and DRESSED TO KILL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Weirdly, I didn't buy the dude who got fake-rape-accused, at least not entirely. I mean, I dont doubt the event happened, but clearly you only get one side of that story, and the other dudes Amy fucks with are seen from an objective point of view, rather than telling their own story. I'm sure if we just heard Desi's side of the story, he'd seem pretty sympathetic too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Weirdly, I didn't buy the dude who got fake-rape-accused, at least not entirely. I mean, I dont doubt the event happened, but clearly you only get one side of that story, and the other dudes Amy fucks with are seen from an objective point of view, rather than telling their own story. I'm sure if we just heard Desi's side of the story, he'd seem pretty sympathetic too. The book mentions a few other times where Amy has spent a lot of time enacting a hugely disproportionate revenge on someone she didn't like (she spends a year getting a truck driver fired because he cut her off in traffic). I'm not sure if they cut that because they felt it was redundant, or because removing it made her character slightly more ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Weirdly, I didn't buy the dude who got fake-rape-accused, at least not entirely. I mean, I dont doubt the event happened, but clearly you only get one side of that story, and the other dudes Amy fucks with are seen from an objective point of view, rather than telling their own story. I'm sure if we just heard Desi's side of the story, he'd seem pretty sympathetic too. Like Doctor Spaceman said there are other instances in the book where she does this, and it's not just to men. She destroys the social life of a girl who was supposedly her best friend as a kid. And I think we're expected to believe the fake rape because when we learn about it, Nick's life is systematically being destroyed at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Yeah I mean there's never any cast really doubt on it, and Nick certainly takes it at face value. There's no opposing view offered, and the story the guy tells is reasonable enough. Like I said it's the only scene in the movie I don't like that much, though I do appreciate it for offering more view into Amy's psyche. What's interesting is that Neil Patrick Harris is deliberately ambiguous when Nick meets him. I'm not sure if it explains it in the book, but at least in the film you're unsure if he was as bad as Amy makes out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Saw this yesterday and I thought it was good but not great. Not my favorite Fincher film, though I wouldn't say I was bored while watching it, although I don't feel like I'm ever gonna have the desire to watch it again. Gotta echo what DivisionPost and some others are saying in this thread, though. I didn't feel like it was a misogynistic movie so much as it was about a couple who does lovely stuff to each other and deserves each other. Yes, I feel like Amy was an insane sociopath that I grew to hate as more of her actions were revealed, but Nick also cheated on her and enabled her so it's not like he was portrayed as a saint or anything. That's why I don't feel like any of the dumb loving MRA validation claims are true. Nick's no hero here. My thoughts on the movie weren't even close to "Amy did all this poo poo and Nick's just a good guy trying to repair his life after being hurt by a woman." I don't think that was Fincher's intent, and to come to that conclusion, I think you've gotta be reaching. Neither Amy nor Nick comes out looking like a good person at the end of the movie. But aside from that, I really enjoyed the score, which I already knew going into the movie. I enjoyed the hell out of Tyler Perry's performance, which I never thought I'd be saying. I liked all the dark comedy elements that had me giggling throughout the runtime. I thought it was well-paced for the most part, although there was probably a handful of scenes that could've been cut and the movie wouldn't have suffered at all from it. I didn't enjoy the cinematography as much as in other Fincher movies overall, though there were some moments that I enjoyed a lot. For example, there was one shot of Affleck walking up some stairs that looked exactly like the shot in The Social Network's opening credits when Jesse Eisenberg is running up some stairs on Harvard's campus. And the whole bloodbath scene in which Amy slits Desi's throat was a visual treat to behold. But I feel like Fincher's trademark creative camerawork wasn't as present here as it is in a lot of his other movies. (I watched Panic Room for the first time ever last night after seeing Gone Girl, and man, the cinematography in that was way neater than Gone Girl's.) The movie kept me moderately entertained, although I don't think I'll be buying it on Blu-Ray or putting it on my year-end favorites list or anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
To me, the film seemed a lot stronger and more interesting in the first half, where it is still somewhat ambiguous and mysterious and we are not too sure what is going on. After the reveal of Amy's plot, which seems to come about mid movie, it just seemed a lot less interesting and compelling. And I agree with whoever posted that the part after Amy comes home, after the murder, seems entirely tacked on. I understand that there was that chilling ending they had to get to, but I think it could have been achieved with a lot less screen time and exposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Are we at a point where we don't have to put tags on spoilers? This entire thread has been a large black box for three pages now. I saw it in a movie theater where the entire middle section was for some reason missing and crossed off with police tape which added a dumb cool atmosphere to the film. Anyway, I liked it, didn't love it. Basically felt the same way I feel about almost all of Fincher's output- well-made, great score, interesting thoughts on humanity, but it also goes on about 30 minutes too long and by the time it makes its point, regardless of how powerful it is, I had almost lost interest. Also interesting how a Tyler Perry line got the biggest laugh in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Again, what loving murder? The only time she kills somebody, it's to escape being held by a crazy creep who wants a very specific image for him to hug and kiss and love and call George, and to require her not to kill him is to require her to either accept that or wait for rescue like a good little damsel in distress. Which option would you take? And as for the frame job, it was apparent to me that it was actually never going to get as far as the death penalty: he had an excellent lawyer who would have saved him from that, and a loving sister that foots the bill. Plus, he's great at manipulating others himself, as we saw with that one interview; I've got no doubt in my mind that the holes in the case would have prevented him from the death penalty, if not got him off entirely, even if she actually killed herself. After all, she is only a woman, and there's plenty more where that came from, am I right, fellas? They are not the same though. Nick is an rear end in a top hat, especially towards Amy, but he isn't a literal sociopath, and his actions overall are far less destructive. The movie actually deliberately goes out of it's way to show this: 1) Nick's relationship with his mother, Nick's relationship with his sister, 3) Nick's acts of pretty seemingly genuine empathy/kindness towards townsfolk he grew up with. Now some of these relationships are less than perfect, as he manipulates and lies to his sister, but despite that the movie overwhelmingly demonstrates that he has a very real relationship with her, and in the context of this relationship you can see him demonstrate caring, empathy, and guilt. This is even show with his 20 year old girlfriend to some extent-- as he was clearly using her, but at the same time cares for her to some degree, and doesn't want her to get damaged by everything that's going on. At no point does he view either his sister or girlfriend as disposable tools to be used and then discarded. Amy on the other hand has 0 real relationships. Everyone in her life is either someone she is using or someone she despises. If someone is useless to her, they either don't exist or they have failed her and deserve to be punished. She also is far more destructive than Nick, going far beyond simple lying and manipulation to outright destruction of people's lives, and literally killing someone. The book actually drives this point further apparently, with several more examples of how she has done this to others she isn't involved with in a romantic way. These characters are not the same, their actions are not the same, and they should not be viewed the same way. Megasabin fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Just saw this movie and loved it. Some spoiler-free thoughts: The cast is perfect top-down, Tyler Perry is scene-stealer of the year. Fincher really dialed up the dark humor compared to the book (not that there wasn't dark humor there, too). There were a lot of big laughs at my screening. I think someone in this thread compared it to Basic Instinct, and that feels accurate. A slick, grimy, wildly problematic good time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
I spent the whole third act looking at the background expecting Jerry O'Connell and John Rhys-Davies to tumble out of a portal into this horrible world where the Lifetime channel was founded by MRAs. I kept telling myself "no way is the movie going to go this direction" and yet it kept diving under my worst expectations over and over again with every turn. It'd be fine if it were just an over the top silly movie, but its also deeply insulting in some of its implications, so gently caress this movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Nick's a lovely guy, but he's not an insane murderer - the sane thing for Amy to have done was to divorce the poo poo out of him, not concoct a Machiavellian scheme to send him to death row. Amy is one of the most cruelly evil characters I've seen in a film in a long time, and that says a lot. She's right up there with Albert Spica on the list of Characters Who Need To Eat A Giant Bowl Of poo poo And Die Miserably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:The movie actually deliberately goes out of it's way to show this: 1) Nick's relationship with his mother, Nick's relationship with his sister, 3) Nick's acts of pretty seemingly genuine empathy/kindness towards townsfolk he grew up with. A lot of this is much more about Nick's identity and desire to be seen as a "good guy" than it is about genuine kindness. Nick's relationship with his sister, in the present, is more about providing him the validation that he feels his wife isn't giving him since she stopped being the "cool girl" that she was when they met (the affair serves this purpose too). Nick uses women to make him feel better about himself and gets enraged when they don't cater to his needs (note the comment he makes about "i hate when women get in my way" or something, and his treatment of Boney when she suspects hom most). A point I'd argue the film is making is that, due to the dominant power structures we have, male cruelty in relationships are part of the hegemonic norm to the point where they're almost imperceptible; this is how someone like Amy can exist and feel they need go to such extremes to "get even". It's an inherently feminist point, not a misogynistic one, though you can of course disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:I spent the whole third act looking at the background expecting Jerry O'Connell and John Rhys-Davies to tumble out of a portal into this horrible world where the Lifetime channel was founded by MRAs. I kept telling myself "no way is the movie going to go this direction" and yet it kept diving under my worst expectations over and over again with every turn. It'd be fine if it were just an over the top silly movie, but its also deeply insulting in some of its implications, so gently caress this movie. It's so expected and yet still so depressing that the movie is attracting so many posts like this. Do you not have the ability to think for yourself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:It's so expected and yet still so depressing that the movie is attracting so many posts like this. Do you not have the ability to think for yourself? Where do you think I'm getting my opinion of this film from? I went and saw it because A)its fincher and B) the reviews were trending towards very positive, I came out thinking I must be insane because no movie had repulsed me remotely like this in a long time, and nothing in this thread comes even close to swaying me. Do you have a compelling defense for the film? It would be nice if someone presented one, especially since it sounds like I must be way off base here. I've read through the thread and it seems to be divided into two camps: those who have a similar opinion to me and those who feel like the characters were balanced in their respective failings, which even if you believe that, is no excuse for the film's prodigious use of mra memes. Come on off your high horse and make a case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:Where do you think I'm getting my opinion of this film from? I went and saw it because A)its fincher and B) the reviews were trending towards very positive, I came out thinking I must be insane because no movie had repulsed me remotely like this in a long time, and nothing in this thread comes even close to swaying me. Do you have a compelling defense for the film? It would be nice if someone presented one, especially since it sounds like I must be way off base here. I've read through the thread and it seems to be divided into two camps: those who have a similar opinion to me and those who feel like the characters were balanced in their respective failings, which even if you believe that, is no excuse for the film's prodigious use of mra memes. Come on off your high horse and make a case. It's a bit bizarre to tell someone to come off their high horse and make a case when you haven't bothered to do so yourself. Say what you don't like about the movie ("MRA meme" does not constitute a full argument, at least be specific) so people have something to respond to, rather than just reiterating your disgust over and over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:Where do you think I'm getting my opinion of this film from? I went and saw it because A)its fincher and B) the reviews were trending towards very positive, I came out thinking I must be insane because no movie had repulsed me remotely like this in a long time, and nothing in this thread comes even close to swaying me. Do you have a compelling defense for the film? It would be nice if someone presented one, especially since it sounds like I must be way off base here. I've read through the thread and it seems to be divided into two camps: those who have a similar opinion to me and those who feel like the characters were balanced in their respective failings, which even if you believe that, is no excuse for the film's prodigious use of mra memes. Come on off your high horse and make a case. Read my earlier post. It doesn't fit into either of your categories. Also Megasabin's posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Does it speak badly of me that I sat through this entire movie not once thinking about MRA or misogyny or anything of the like? I even looked women in the eye instead of avoiding them e: it is a loving movie you dorks
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:Where do you think I'm getting my opinion of this film from? I went and saw it because A)its fincher and B) the reviews were trending towards very positive, I came out thinking I must be insane because no movie had repulsed me remotely like this in a long time, and nothing in this thread comes even close to swaying me. Do you have a compelling defense for the film? It would be nice if someone presented one, especially since it sounds like I must be way off base here. I've read through the thread and it seems to be divided into two camps: those who have a similar opinion to me and those who feel like the characters were balanced in their respective failings, which even if you believe that, is no excuse for the film's prodigious use of mra memes. Come on off your high horse and make a case. wow I didn't realize that author Gillian Flynn regularly posted in /r/TheRedPill, where'd you find this out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:47
|
|