|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, as near as I can tell, is a story about how badly Stieg Larsson wanted to gently caress a bisexual woman with tattoos and piercings. This is true. It is a bad book. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by David Fincher is a movie that is primarily about how bad the book is.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Nah. Oplev's film has one really good performance. Fincher's film has nothing. Compare Blomkvist in the book to Blomkvist in Fincher's adaptation. In the book he is a suave James Bond-esque superdetective who can't resist, and has nothing stopping him from, sticking his dick in everything in the nearest vicinity. In the movie, Blomkvist is a bumbling old idiot, and Salander is pulled in to basically salvage his massive fuckup of a contract. Lisbeth basically spends the entire movie being entirely unimpressed with his work on the project and does a vast majority of the work herself. Remember that she spends hours upon hours researching the case in an actual library whereas Blomkvist tries to sneak around outside a house with an entire wall made of glass and gets caught and tortured for his troubles. When Blomkvist rebuffs Salander at the ending, the tone is completely different from the book. The movie spends an entire, like, what was it twenty minutes? On Salander going on a cross-country trip to personally demolish the life of his prosecution from the beginning (whom it's important we never actually meet, by the way - only see him on television, adding to his omniscient presence), and immediately thereafter she's unceremoniously dumped. It was Fincher's decision to not actually have the camera appear anywhere near Blomkvist's prosecutor whose name I forget, but instead only observe him through media. So it's Fincher's decisions that change Salander from a gothic version of a "manic pixie dream girl" to a vengeful omniscient super-vigilante. And then it's Fincher's decisions that lead to the tone of the ending changing from "aw, she loves him but can't be with him!" to "AHAHAHA OH poo poo BLOMKVIST YOU hosed UP SHE IS GOING TO WRECK YOU." The concerns about Gone Girl are a little worrying, but Fincher has made two movies now that deal with masculinity's role in sexuality, and both turned out fine and well-reasoned. I'm optimistic for Gone Girl. It seems to me like the central conceit of Gone Girl, if those spoilers are true, is "Man, marriage seriously is a dumb and hosed-up idea."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:More that it's bad in all the ways Oplev's movie is, and in some new ways too. Are you gonna discuss the movie or are you just gonna state the same opinion at people over and over again?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
I saw it. It's good! So I guess I gotta start by addressing the elephant in the room. People who are criticizing the movie for being sexist are having red flags thrown up in their mind about certain buzzwords and catchphrases, verbal or metaphorical, in the movie, and it seems like they're so shocked by those that they're experiencing selective memory. Yes, Amy absolutely is a pastiche of all of an anti-feminist's fears, but to act like Nick is presented as sympathetic is insane, given that the first words of the movie are him saying how he wants to crush his wife's skull - and then those words experience a refrain at the end! Not even starting on how he's cheating on his wife and constantly poo poo-talks her behind her back. But Gone Girl elevates over just being a revenge fantasy on a lovely husband. An earlier poster pointed out that Amy is easily outsmarted by a group of common muggers, which is absolutely correct. Of course, it's important that she was mugged by the guy who just fifteen (?) minutes earlier had been revealed as a sleazebag hitting on everyone in the park. So the entire "point" of Gone Girl is that of an imagining of a typical anti-feminist's nightmares, and how easily they fall apart in the face of logic (which matches the fact that Amy is a caricature in a story of fairly realistic characters) - even if the MRA nightmare of a woman who threw rape accusations out like candy and looked to ruin the lives of every man she met was real, she would still be on the losing end of a patriarchal society. Fincher doesn't even need to make up a fantasy society where this would happen, because he's smart enough to realize that it already exists. It's essentially an accusation of anti-feminists hoping to uphold the status quo, and that their fight isn't actually about equality. Amy is the exact kind of woman they're afraid of, and in their dream society, she still loses. Nobody makes this clearer than than Tyler Perry's character. From the first moment we see him, he's called out as whatever the male equivalent of a widow-chaser is, and only proves to be that way even more so as the movie goes on. If this movie really WERE on the side of Nick and the patriarchy, he'd be seen as a hopeful solution despite being maligned by the masses, instead he's just a universal scumbag. The crucial scene is that of the reactions of people as they watch Nick's interview, commenting on how heartfelt he seems - but we already just saw Nick talking with his lawyer about how much he needs to hide his hatred for his wife. It's the exclamation point on the idea of a "subjective truth" that fuels the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:If anything, I'd worry more about the film's ableist leanings. The antagonist has a medical problem so stigmatized that Nick will gladly spend the rest of his life playing games with her and fearing his own brutal murder instead of suggesting, "Uh, hey. Let's go see a loving doctor." This is how stigmatized mental illness is. Amy would almost certainly never willingly go to a mental clinic, and it's not like they can prove that she's crazy anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Liam Emsa posted:Does it, though? When Amy and the trailer park girl are talking, it's about what guy beat her up and then about the harmless guy living next door. What other conversations between two women are there? They were joking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Yeah, their decision to abandon making funny videos that use movies as a pretext for murder jokes in order to pretend to be actual movie critics was a horrible idea. P much tuned out on the RLM guys after they uploaded a video defending Daniel Tosh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Lots of things made this the worst, but mainly the "this insane woman creates two completely airtight, extremely complex fake crimes and gets away with both of them by coercing her husband even though she has no leverage over the husband whatsoever" thing. Dude someone posted this already earlier in the thread: LaTex Fetish posted:shes got what is probably his child, bud. and she is crazy so you can probably ponder what might happen. She's got plenty of leverage. You should probably read the thread. Also the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Dystram posted:A child that isn't even born yet and thus doesn't exist, which, when it is born and grows up with probably have lots of the mental illness Pike's character has. Great leverage! The entire nation is now watching Nick and Amy and leaving Amy right as she's pregnant is going to utterly demolish Nick's already-damaged reputation. You should probably read the thread. Also the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The problem is that staying with Amy will demolish Nick's already-damaged life. Which is in my opinion worse than just the reputation. If he leaves Amy, everyone in America will be knocking down his door. He'll be back on the news as a scumbag husband who left his wife immediately after she got pregnant. He could either spend his life harassed by one person, or harassed by 299,999,999 people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Dystram posted:It's because it's not there. The book and the movie are not satire, nowhere is it stated it's a satire. You're attributing satire to it to excuse bad writing. I remember the big "DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A SATIRE" title card before Borat started, yeah. Dystram posted:You are overestimating the length of the public's attention span. You are underestimating the damage that having all of America hating you can do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Uh, nowhere else has anyone ever called Gone Girl a mediocre book made popular by housewives (???) so your opinion isn't actually valid. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Would for sure like to see the author claiming she intentionally wrote a satire, otherwise it's not You're gonna seriously go into CineD of all places and argue for authorial intent being absolute?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Dystram posted:yeah because death of the author bullshit is just that, bullshit Okay so if you don't even understand basic poo poo then this discussion is pointless I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 00:00
|
|