Gone Girl (2014)

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Just because we don't face the same kinds of problems women do doesn't mean we can't still be concerned about them. That's like saying I'm not allowed to complain about being underpaid at work because there are others barely able to scrape by with a dollar a day in Africa and Asia.

1) A mod's already told us not to go down this road, so this'll be my last post on it.

2) I don't disagree with you. But I'm just saying that I don't think we fact the same problems females do in relation to our gender/sex.

 

[John Marston]

I'm not sure what went on here (I assume more than what's left of it now), but gender-based social issues are pretty much at the very heart of Gone Girl's thematic content. It's worthwhile and relevant to discuss them here, and I'm sure promoting the conversation was the whole point of the novel.

Discussing social issues can go on for pages and can get really ugly due to differing opinions. I hope mods keep this thread focused on reviews

[AniNate]

Discussing social issues can go on for pages and can get really ugly due to differing opinions. I hope mods keep this thread focused on reviews

 

If it gets ugly, then deal with the offenders. Otherwise, I appreciate civilized debate.

Edited October 13, 2014 by tribefan695

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I have to agree. I feel like social issues are relevant to discussing film. But I'm not a mod, so I'll just stop here.

[The Panda]

I'll just say it'll take a really strong performance for Pike to not deserve the Oscar win.

[CJohn]

You guys can create a thread in the Real World to discuss this type of stuff. If you want to, go ahead and do it. 

[DeeCee]

I'd totally forgotten who his girlfriend was until a minute ago.

[The Panda]

You guys can create a thread in the Real World to discuss this type of stuff. If you want to, go ahead and do it.

I think the thing is that you can't discuss the themes and issues of this movie without bringing those topics up, they're everywhere.

[rukaio101]

I don't see the issue with debating this kind of stuff if everyone stays calm and polite about it (like we have so far). Hell, if we can spend 100+ pages discussing Batman, we should be allowed to discuss this.

 

Anyway, I just got back from seeing the film and I'm just going to parrot everyone in praise of Rosamund Pike. Holy shit, she was good. She balances Love and Hate perfectly on a razor's edge and, even if you don't support her, you can't help but admire the style with which she pulls this shit off. I found myself whispering 'You Magnificent Bitch' near all the way through the film. Seriously, she needs her own sitcom. Maybe a flatshare with Cersei from Game of Thrones.

 

The problem however, with Pike being as good as she was, is that when you look back before she started to let loose, the film really isn't as good. It's not bad, but it feels pretty sluggish. Ben Affleck carries it well enough and certainly had that deliberate slightly-wooden tone that made it difficult to tell whether he was or was not guilty but he's second-class compared to Pike. (Speaking of Affleck and Batman, who wants to see Rosamund Pike as the new Joker? I would fucking love that.)

 

Of course, as others have mentioned, Perry was good and the skewering of the media was spot on. But Pike really steals the show here and someone's going to really have to impress me to make me think she doesn't deserve Best Actress this year.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Affleck's really good in the role. His performance holds a lot back, which makes it a perfect contrast to Pike's "let everything loose" performance. As a result, both performances elevate each other.


The problem, watching the film the 2nd time, is that as good as Affleck's story and performance is, once you know the twist, it no longer matters, imo.

But Affleck still deserves a lot of props for his performance. Honestly, he's as good as (or almost as good as) Pike, just in a completely different way.





 

[Goffe]

I think Affleck is the weak link of the film, practically everyone was better than him in it, Carrie Coon is being overlooked, she was great.

[dashrendar44]

David Fincher could make a pinhead deliver a great performance. The thing is his micro-managing and perfectionism is to make sure that at the end of the day he will obtain exactly what he wants on screen from the actors even if it means doing 500 takes of a lip biting and CG the hell out of it. The more I watch his movies, the more I think he should get a lot of credits in crafting his actors performance and how they come across on-screen as much as the actors themselves.(Sometimes unbeknownst to the actors)

 

People don't realize how much Fincher is like a more diligent George Lucas or a higher skilled Robert Rodriguez in post-processing movies to the extreme that doesn't let randomness or half-assing mentality sneak in to weaken his clockwork machinery. I mean like those directors he is a CGI freak. Unlike those, he tries to make them seamless and invisible or at least showcase his specific vision. That does not only mean putting CG-sugar powder on Rosamund Pike's lips, that also means that he CG blends multiple takes from actors into one shot to produce the effect he wants his actors to elicit and provoke in a scene (unlike most directors that do it in editing phase cutting around the angles, Fincher pushes it to another level):

 

For instance, imagine a scene in which Affleck is talking to Pike located in their house's lobby both framed in a single mid shot with no cuts. If he only likes one portion of Affleck's take and not the other, he will take out the portion he doesn't like and blend in another take of that portion he prefers while the audience will think that Affleck did it in one single take. (Because he blocked the camera set-up and actors planning ahead so he already set the angle that won't change whatever takes he'll need to recompose the actor performance in post-production, it's like the motion control process applied to actors instead of models).

 

Likewise, in the same scene, if he doesn't like how Pike reacts to Affleck's line or her body posture in the frame, Fincher can CG blend another take of her or just the portion he wants into the final master take. That's how far Fincher uses computer effects nowadays, a total control freak over the tiniest microscopic subtleties of an actor's performance that can be broken down and be pieced together with computer editing and trickery, nobody will bat a eyelid.

 

Check out this video:

 

 

At 1'46, you get a glimpse of that process and how mind-boggling it can be in terms of crafting performances and blend multiple performances/interactions between actors in the same shot taking editing and building an actor's performance from the puzzling footage to another level.

Edited October 14, 2014 by dashrendar44

[The Panda]

David Fincher could make a pinhead deliver a great performance. The thing is his micro-managing and perfectionism is to make sure that at the end of the day he will obtain exactly what he wants on screen from the actors even if it means doing 500 takes of a lip biting and CG the hell out of it. The more I watch his movies, the more I think he should get a lot of credits in crafting his actors performance and how they come across on-screen as much as the actors themselves.(Sometimes unbeknownst to the actors)

 

People don't realize how much Fincher is like a more diligent George Lucas or a higher skilled Robert Rodriguez in post-processing movies to the extreme that doesn't let randomness or half-assing mentality sneak in to weaken his clockwork machinery. I mean like those directors he is a CGI freak. Unlike those, he tries to make them seamless and invisible or at least showcase his specific vision. That does not only mean putting CG-sugar powder on Rosamund Pike's lips, that also means that he CG blends multiple takes from actors into one shot to produce the effect he wants his actors to elicit and provoke in a scene (unlike most directors that do it in editing phase cutting around the angles, Fincher pushes it to another level):

 

For instance, imagine a scene in which Affleck is talking to Pike located in their house's lobby both framed in a single mid shot with no cuts. If he only likes one portion of Affleck's take and not the other, he will take out the portion he doesn't like and blend in another take of that portion he prefers while the audience will think that Affleck did it in one single take. (Because he blocked the camera set-up and actors planning ahead so he already set the angle that won't change whatever takes he'll need to recompose the actor performance in post-production, it's like the motion control process applied to actors instead of models).

 

Likewise, in the same scene, if he doesn't like how Pike reacts to Affleck's line or her body posture in the frame, Fincher can CG blend another take of her or just the portion he wants into the final master take. That's how far Fincher uses computer effects nowadays, a total control freak over the tiniest microscopic subtleties of an actor's performance that can be broken down and be pieced together with computer editing and trickery, nobody will bat a eyelid.

 

Check out this video:

 

 

At 1'56, you get a glimpse of that process and how mind-boggling it can be in terms of crafting performances and blend multiple performances/interactions between actors in the same shot taking editing and building an actor's performance from the puzzling footage to another level.

 

That's really interesting, and honestly I don't care if Fincher utilizes CG in that way because it works and I don't notice at all.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

David Fincher could make a pinhead deliver a great performance. The thing is his micro-managing and perfectionism is to make sure that at the end of the day he will obtain exactly what he wants on screen from the actors even if it means doing 500 takes of a lip biting and CG the hell out of it. The more I watch his movies, the more I think he should get a lot of credits in crafting his actors performance and how they come across on-screen as much as the actors themselves.(Sometimes unbeknownst to the actors)

 

People don't realize how much Fincher is like a more diligent George Lucas or a higher skilled Robert Rodriguez in post-processing movies to the extreme that doesn't let randomness or half-assing mentality sneak in to weaken his clockwork machinery. I mean like those directors he is a CGI freak. Unlike those, he tries to make them seamless and invisible or at least showcase his specific vision. That does not only mean putting CG-sugar powder on Rosamund Pike's lips, that also means that he CG blends multiple takes from actors into one shot to produce the effect he wants his actors to elicit and provoke in a scene (unlike most directors that do it in editing phase cutting around the angles, Fincher pushes it to another level):

 

For instance, imagine a scene in which Affleck is talking to Pike located in their house's lobby both framed in a single mid shot with no cuts. If he only likes one portion of Affleck's take and not the other, he will take out the portion he doesn't like and blend in another take of that portion he prefers while the audience will think that Affleck did it in one single take. (Because he blocked the camera set-up and actors planning ahead so he already set the angle that won't change whatever takes he'll need to recompose the actor performance in post-production, it's like the motion control process applied to actors instead of models).

 

Likewise, in the same scene, if he doesn't like how Pike reacts to Affleck's line or her body posture in the frame, Fincher can CG blend another take of her or just the portion he wants into the final master take. That's how far Fincher uses computer effects nowadays, a total control freak over the tiniest microscopic subtleties of an actor's performance that can be broken down and be pieced together with computer editing and trickery, nobody will bat a eyelid.

 

Check out this video:

 

 

At 1'56, you get a glimpse of that process and how mind-boggling it can be in terms of crafting performances and blend multiple performances/interactions between actors in the same shot taking editing and building an actor's performance from the puzzling footage to another level.

This is insanely interesting. Is he the only director doing this right now? If so, others better catch up quickly.

[dashrendar44]

This is insanely interesting. Is he the only director doing this right now? If so, others better catch up quickly.

 

I think other directors are doing it in terms of altering or enhancing a performance (mostly to blend CG doubles or face swap for stunt shots like Edge Of Tomorrow, correct small details they don't like about an actor's take so instead of reshooting it, they post-processed it with existing reels and CG trickery. For hence, adding tears on actor's faces to be more convincing while crying), not to Fincher's insane amount, but are not very opened about it because people will think the actors performance are all but cheats and tricks if they discover that what you think is a straight and raw emoting performance is in fact pieced together by a software in one seamless shot. (Even if filmmaking amounts to a huge mindtrick).

 

I can't find a lot of information about it but I think Gravity is one another movie using that technique to piece together different actor performances into one seamlessly.(Considering Cuaron's love for long shots, it was adequate)

Edited October 14, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Ezen Baklattan]

Probably won't add anything much new yeah, but yeah, this was pretty damn great. I feel like the book gave a more balanced portrait of the two characters, especially Nick, who seems more likeable in the movie, but that's my one real complaint with the film. It's amazing how well everything works in building up tension and unease in manners that avoid convolution but maintain enough brevity and subtlety to really drive its points home. The ending, while it may go on a bit too long, leaves me feeling scared for their relationship, and it's a kind of brilliant juxtaposition with the media getting their Disney-style resolution of Amy and Nick's reunion, whereas they don't know the truth of Amy's journey, leaving Nick to feel in a way not too different that how Amy said she felt in her diary.

 

That's pretty freaky stuff.

[JohnnyGossamer]

I recommend this movie partly because I love it so much, partly because it's so pitch black in its wit and mostly because so few have seen it. So, here goes... To those that loved Gone Girl for it's sinister sense of diabolical fun, please, by all means, check out Kind Hearts And Coronets. Awesome, awesome black comedy with Alec Guinness playing 8 parts.

Edited October 15, 2014 by JohnnyGossamer

[Heretic]

Fucking awesome. Haven't been to the cinema since I think late July, but I'm glad I went to see this.

[The Futurist]

Fucking awesome. Haven't been to the cinema since I think late July, but I'm glad I went to see this.

Watch out now.

Amazing Amy knows about you.

[James]

Great, great movie! Easily Top 3 for the year. I haven't read the book so I went in unspoiled. Awesome story, directing and acting. I see a lot of praise for Pike, but not nearly enough for Affleck. In the end, he carried a big part of the movie and that question (is he guilty or not?) remained unanswered till the middle of the film because of his acting skills.

My audience also liked it. A few claps at the end, which never happens here.

 

A+