@jhenning said:

great story and great performances... very well done... and quite frankly, there could be a follow up movie to this.

Yeah....i hope the follow up would be Ben Affleck strangling her with piano wire in the first 5 minutes of the movie.

So a short follow up then.

Unless we have scenes of Ben pumping iron in preparation.

the only reason women don't like this movie is because the woman is not the hero. its the only reason. of course... women will never admit it. I think its ok for there to be a movie where the man is the hero and the woman is the villain. after all... I do believe this is the only time in human history when such a movie has been made.

perhaps... but I enjoy a lot of Lifetime movies... and as you probably already know... the female is the hero... every single time.... and the male is the villain... every single time.. so, for me, its refreshing to see one movie out of a million movies... where the roles are reversed. ~thanks

I just saw it for the 1st time. Wow. It was kinda like a Natural Born Killers for the 2010s with the media circus. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Tyler Perry doing a good job acting as lawyer Tanner Bolt; it's like he did some work that was far above and beyond what he offers black audiences regularly. 8/10

@Satch_the_man said:

I just saw it for the 1st time. Wow. It was kinda like a Natural Born Killers for the 2010s with the media circus. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Tyler Perry doing a good job acting as lawyer Tanner Bolt; it's like he did some work that was far above and beyond what he offers black audiences regularly. 8/10

Perry nailed it! ... Really brought the appropriate level of 'douche factor'...

Yep. You know what fascinated me about the film? It suggests that both the husband and wife were liars. When he shoved her against the wall toward the end, it lends credence to her saying in her diary that he manhandled her before. It's just an interesting, layered film.

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

Alas, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. The latter folks might miss the problem that you pointed out in your post on a single viewing - or simply overlook it because we're busy being entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that.

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

Alas, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. The latter folks might miss the problem that you pointed out in your post on a single viewing - or simply overlook it because we're busy being entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't watch films to nitpick. LOL And I've rated highly a fair share of popcorn blockbusters that require no thinking at all.

The thing about a crime thriller is that unless it is set in another time or place or universe it has to be consistent with matters of law and common sense. A crime thriller, more than any other genre, has to be rules based. For example, a crime actually has to be committed. There must be some twist as to how the perpetrator avoids detection, at least in the body of the story. To avoid that detection the writer needs to display some understanding of how the rules of law and law enforcement and science actually works. The writer of this story didn't even try to get things right.

In years gone by, writers like Agatha Christie could have someone shimmy down a drain pipe in the middle of the night, put on a false beard, ride a bicycle to the next village, commit a murder and as long as they were seen coming downstairs for their breakfast of kippers and poached eggs the next morning, Voila! they had an alibi. In these days of 'digital exhaust', gps, surveillance and so on, and all of these things are onscreen in Gone Girl, the sorts of events we see in the movie simply can't happen. I don't think that is me being overly critical. I think that is bad writing being called out.

Ftr, me having problems with the movie shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it. I'm very fond of Brussels Sprouts. I know that a lot of people hate them. It doesn't mean I enjoy them any less or need to feel bad towards people who don't share my tastes.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

Alas, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. The latter folks might miss the problem that you pointed out in your post on a single viewing - or simply overlook it because we're busy being entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't watch films to nitpick. LOL And I've rated highly a fair share of popcorn blockbusters that require no thinking at all.

The thing about a crime thriller is that unless it is set in another time or place or universe it has to be consistent with matters of law and common sense. A crime thriller, more than any other genre, has to be rules based. For example, a crime actually has to be committed. There must be some twist as to how the perpetrator avoids detection, at least in the body of the story. To avoid that detection the writer needs to display some understanding of how the rules of law and law enforcement and science actually works. The writer of this story didn't even try to get things right.

You know what you sound like? You sound like an angry, frustrated screenplay analyst. Suppose that viewers of the film don't know that "there must be a twist?" Does that invalidate their opinion of the film? Of course not.

In years gone by, writers like Agatha Christie could have someone shimmy down a drain pipe in the middle of the night, put on a false beard, ride a bicycle to the next village, commit a murder and as long as they were seen coming downstairs for their breakfast of kippers and poached eggs the next morning, Voila! they had an alibi. In these days of 'digital exhaust', gps, surveillance and so on, and all of these things are onscreen in Gone Girl, the sorts of events we see in the movie simply can't happen. I don't think that is me being overly critical. I think that is bad writing being called out.

Ftr, me having problems with the movie shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it. I'm very fond of Brussels Sprouts. I know that a lot of people hate them. It doesn't mean I enjoy them any less or need to feel bad towards people who don't share my tastes.

That's all well and good, I was just expressing some difference of opinion toward the numerous posts I'd read on here recently that took the time to state that this film or that film was "implausible"... again, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. And there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't reflect on what kind of a person I am. And it certainly doesn't mean that my viewing of those films consists of "no thinking at all," LOL!

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

Alas, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. The latter folks might miss the problem that you pointed out in your post on a single viewing - or simply overlook it because we're busy being entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't watch films to nitpick. LOL And I've rated highly a fair share of popcorn blockbusters that require no thinking at all.

The thing about a crime thriller is that unless it is set in another time or place or universe it has to be consistent with matters of law and common sense. A crime thriller, more than any other genre, has to be rules based. For example, a crime actually has to be committed. There must be some twist as to how the perpetrator avoids detection, at least in the body of the story. To avoid that detection the writer needs to display some understanding of how the rules of law and law enforcement and science actually works. The writer of this story didn't even try to get things right.

You know what you sound like? You sound like an angry, frustrated screenplay analyst. Suppose that viewers of the film don't know that "there must be a twist?" Does that invalidate their opinion of the film? Of course not.

In years gone by, writers like Agatha Christie could have someone shimmy down a drain pipe in the middle of the night, put on a false beard, ride a bicycle to the next village, commit a murder and as long as they were seen coming downstairs for their breakfast of kippers and poached eggs the next morning, Voila! they had an alibi. In these days of 'digital exhaust', gps, surveillance and so on, and all of these things are onscreen in Gone Girl, the sorts of events we see in the movie simply can't happen. I don't think that is me being overly critical. I think that is bad writing being called out.

Ftr, me having problems with the movie shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it. I'm very fond of Brussels Sprouts. I know that a lot of people hate them. It doesn't mean I enjoy them any less or need to feel bad towards people who don't share my tastes.

That's all well and good, I was just expressing some difference of opinion toward the numerous posts I'd read on here recently that took the time to state that this film or that film was "implausible"... again, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. And there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't reflect on what kind of a person I am. And it certainly doesn't mean that my viewing of those films consists of "no thinking at all," LOL!

I actually applied the term 'no thinking at all' to myself and my own viewing history, so I don't understand why you interpret that as a criticism.

The point was that some movies require thinking and some don't. Not that some people think and others don't.

Crime thrillers are a sort of puzzle. That is why they are sometimes called 'Whodunnits'. Part of the joy of these sorts of stories is trying to guess what is really happening. That way we can be surprised, shocked or delighted with the big reveal. If you're not trying to work out what is going on I would suggest something is wrong, either with the story or your choice of movie.

When writers ignore the norms of the genre, either by glossing over issues of practicality, or by violating norms of law or procedure: that's bad writing. It cheats us of the chance to work out what is happening. The classic trope in bad fiction is to introduce the guilty party in the final act. You couldn't have guessed they did it because you didn't even know they existed. In Gone Girl you couldn't have worked out that Amy would get away with it because there are dozens of common sense and obvious reasons that prevent you getting to that conclusion.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

Alas, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. The latter folks might miss the problem that you pointed out in your post on a single viewing - or simply overlook it because we're busy being entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't watch films to nitpick. LOL And I've rated highly a fair share of popcorn blockbusters that require no thinking at all.

The thing about a crime thriller is that unless it is set in another time or place or universe it has to be consistent with matters of law and common sense. A crime thriller, more than any other genre, has to be rules based. For example, a crime actually has to be committed. There must be some twist as to how the perpetrator avoids detection, at least in the body of the story. To avoid that detection the writer needs to display some understanding of how the rules of law and law enforcement and science actually works. The writer of this story didn't even try to get things right.

You know what you sound like? You sound like an angry, frustrated screenplay analyst. Suppose that viewers of the film don't know that "there must be a twist?" Does that invalidate their opinion of the film? Of course not.

In years gone by, writers like Agatha Christie could have someone shimmy down a drain pipe in the middle of the night, put on a false beard, ride a bicycle to the next village, commit a murder and as long as they were seen coming downstairs for their breakfast of kippers and poached eggs the next morning, Voila! they had an alibi. In these days of 'digital exhaust', gps, surveillance and so on, and all of these things are onscreen in Gone Girl, the sorts of events we see in the movie simply can't happen. I don't think that is me being overly critical. I think that is bad writing being called out.

Ftr, me having problems with the movie shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it. I'm very fond of Brussels Sprouts. I know that a lot of people hate them. It doesn't mean I enjoy them any less or need to feel bad towards people who don't share my tastes.

That's all well and good, I was just expressing some difference of opinion toward the numerous posts I'd read on here recently that took the time to state that this film or that film was "implausible"... again, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. And there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't reflect on what kind of a person I am. And it certainly doesn't mean that my viewing of those films consists of "no thinking at all," LOL!

I actually applied the term 'no thinking at all' to myself and my own viewing history, so I don't understand why you interpret that as a criticism.

The point was that some movies require thinking and some don't. Not that some people think and others don't.

Crime thrillers are a sort of puzzle. That is why they are sometimes called 'Whodunnits'. Part of the joy of these sorts of stories is trying to guess what is really happening. That way we can be surprised, shocked or delighted with the big reveal. If you're not trying to work out what is going on I would suggest something is wrong, either with the story or your choice of movie.

When writers ignore the norms of the genre, either by glossing over issues of practicality, or by violating norms of law or procedure: that's bad writing. It cheats us of the chance to work out what is happening. The classic trope in bad fiction is to introduce the guilty party in the final act. You couldn't have guessed they did it because you didn't even know they existed. In Gone Girl you couldn't have worked out that Amy would get away with it because there are dozens of common sense and obvious reasons that prevent you getting to that conclusion.

I had to stop and reflect on Gone Girl, and I came to the conclusion that maybe an actual crime was not committed in its start. A wife disappears without explanation. So, I guess you're stating that writers cannot break the rules and a paradigm must be followed in every script and every film, without fail. That's fine. Moreover, it's 3:20 A.M. and I'm more inclined to just let what you have to say go anyway. You make some good points.

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I thought the movie was poorly paced, overlong, and full of improbabilities and sometimes, flat out impossibilities. Affleck's customary bumbling everyman worked ok, but Pike's OTT psychopath was really too much. And the core premise that the disappearance of an ordinary housewife, even the daughter of authors of childrens' books, would create such a media circus that it would put a man's life at risk on the flimsiest of evidence, and further, oblige him to live with a murderer 'forever after', is frankly absurd. The reality is he could easily have sold his story, walked from the marriage, and lived out his life as a bar owner and freelance writer for the rest of his days.

And what of the grifters who robbed Amy? Clever enough to work out she is on the run and faking her injuries and disguised but not clever enough to cash in by coming forward? That's a huge plot hole. For a movie that runs to nearly 3 hours there would have been plenty of time to dot the i's and cross the t's.

It continues to astound me that 10s of millions of dollars can be spent on films with hundreds of cast and crew and yet blatantly obvious problems with the plot never get spotted or corrected. And these are not problems that only a lawyer or a detective or a doctor would spot. They are obvious problems.

Alas, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. The latter folks might miss the problem that you pointed out in your post on a single viewing - or simply overlook it because we're busy being entertained. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't watch films to nitpick. LOL And I've rated highly a fair share of popcorn blockbusters that require no thinking at all.

The thing about a crime thriller is that unless it is set in another time or place or universe it has to be consistent with matters of law and common sense. A crime thriller, more than any other genre, has to be rules based. For example, a crime actually has to be committed. There must be some twist as to how the perpetrator avoids detection, at least in the body of the story. To avoid that detection the writer needs to display some understanding of how the rules of law and law enforcement and science actually works. The writer of this story didn't even try to get things right.

You know what you sound like? You sound like an angry, frustrated screenplay analyst. Suppose that viewers of the film don't know that "there must be a twist?" Does that invalidate their opinion of the film? Of course not.

In years gone by, writers like Agatha Christie could have someone shimmy down a drain pipe in the middle of the night, put on a false beard, ride a bicycle to the next village, commit a murder and as long as they were seen coming downstairs for their breakfast of kippers and poached eggs the next morning, Voila! they had an alibi. In these days of 'digital exhaust', gps, surveillance and so on, and all of these things are onscreen in Gone Girl, the sorts of events we see in the movie simply can't happen. I don't think that is me being overly critical. I think that is bad writing being called out.

Ftr, me having problems with the movie shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it. I'm very fond of Brussels Sprouts. I know that a lot of people hate them. It doesn't mean I enjoy them any less or need to feel bad towards people who don't share my tastes.

That's all well and good, I was just expressing some difference of opinion toward the numerous posts I'd read on here recently that took the time to state that this film or that film was "implausible"... again, some of us watch films to nitpick them, yet more of us simply watch them to be entertained by them. And there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't reflect on what kind of a person I am. And it certainly doesn't mean that my viewing of those films consists of "no thinking at all," LOL!

I actually applied the term 'no thinking at all' to myself and my own viewing history, so I don't understand why you interpret that as a criticism.

The point was that some movies require thinking and some don't. Not that some people think and others don't.

Crime thrillers are a sort of puzzle. That is why they are sometimes called 'Whodunnits'. Part of the joy of these sorts of stories is trying to guess what is really happening. That way we can be surprised, shocked or delighted with the big reveal. If you're not trying to work out what is going on I would suggest something is wrong, either with the story or your choice of movie.

When writers ignore the norms of the genre, either by glossing over issues of practicality, or by violating norms of law or procedure: that's bad writing. It cheats us of the chance to work out what is happening. The classic trope in bad fiction is to introduce the guilty party in the final act. You couldn't have guessed they did it because you didn't even know they existed. In Gone Girl you couldn't have worked out that Amy would get away with it because there are dozens of common sense and obvious reasons that prevent you getting to that conclusion.

I had to stop and reflect on Gone Girl, and I came to the conclusion that maybe an actual crime was not committed in its start. A wife disappears without explanation. So, I guess you're stating that writers cannot break the rules and a paradigm must be followed in every script and every film, without fail. That's fine. Moreover, it's 3:20 A.M. and I'm more inclined to just let what you have to say go anyway. You make some good points.

The crime that begins the story is that Amy fakes her own death. Despite the split narrative, we as the audience are never in much doubt that Nick is innocent. We might have half expected a twist and that Nick really did kill Amy. That is the trajectory that is relatively conventional.

But it all goes off the rails immediately. There is not a shred of evidence to link Nick to her murder and yet the story proceeds as tho there were.

And ok, Amy is deranged, but she is not stupid deranged. Where was she headed in a junk car and staying in cheap motels? This course of events doesn't go anywhere. Can't go anywhere. She has limited funds. She cannot re-emerge. This isn't like Body Heat where Matty Walker is seen lounging on a tropical beach in the final scene. As master plans goes, this, well, isn't.

But if I had to point to a single plot point that was outrageously bad it is this idea that she can pretend Desi kidnapped her on Day One. For all she knew the guy could have been in Paris at the time. The security vision from the lake house proves he wasn't there until he brought her there (was it two weeks?) later. And she with her hair dyed and dressed in 'bait store chic'. And his cellphone and gps and internet will also prove he wasn't in Missouri the day of the kidnapping (because we as an audience KNOW he wasn't). Seriously, his phone and internet records are going to be the first things the cops check when they investigate his homicide. The guy doesn't need to be alive to have an alibi.

I haven't seen this film in awhile, and I watch "new" films regularly. So I was rusty on the storyline of this one. Thanks for the pointers. Again, you make some good points - that should probably be heeded by anyone trying to make a crime thriller.

The main thing I was trying to say in my fatigue this morning is that many people don't go to the movies for elitist reasons. They go to feel something. I agree with you on the Ben Affleck character's options in the film, but the film's writers were adapting a book, and they wanted the story to go a certain way. And the film grossed a lot of money, regardless. EDIT: There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with plausibility/credence in how a film is written.