Gone Girl - Analysis and Review

Marriage...

It's been a while since I reviewed a film. It has also been a while since I reviewed a David Fincher film. This should be interesting....

The Plot

When Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home after contemplating a decision he has to make, he finds his wife, Amy Elliot Dunne (Rosamund Pike), is missing. Not only that, but signs of a struggle are evident in the home. With Amy's family, law enforcement, and the media wrapping themselves around this disappearance, the evidence starts to point to Nick as the prime suspect for her vanishing. Or perhaps, her murder.

Analysis

If there is one thing in this film that works wonderfully well, it is the portrayal of the media. Being a film student who has to go through some television and broadcast, I know how the news operates. Especially when it comes to stories like this. Our mission is not to tell the truth, our mission is to show the facts. How we choose to show those facts and what we think of them is completely up to us, the media. "If it bleeds, it leads." That's the motto behind it. 

It is a disgusting truth about how journalism works. And I know that journalists are always about finding the truth, yet I know ideal intentions of being a truthful journalist can easily be shattered. That is not the type of world that we live in. Yet we have the media as our voice of truth. There is a reason why we watch the news because that is where the truth is suppose to lie. That is only half true. Yet this film also displays how easy it is for the media to influence people into believing what the truth is. 

The media is powerful. It is neither a force for good, nor a force for justice. It wants to believe it is, but there is no way it can be.

But it is still powerful.

Review

I don't exactly know how to review this film. Mainly because to talk too much about it would be a great disservice. So all I can say is this: The cast of the movie is incredible!

Ben Affleck delivers an extremely subdued performance, and I do mean really subdued performance. His portrayal as Nick is probably one of the most difficult performances to critique. Mainly because some would say that he doesn't steal the show. But the thing is, he's not suppose to. Part of this movie is for him trying to not stand out, trying not to do anything wrong. In other words: become invisible. He does that. And yes, there are moments when his performance elevates, especially once the first act is gone. But I'm just letting you, reader, know this. He's suppose to not stand out. It is part of the character, and he does it brilliantly. This is a guy who just wants to be left alone in order to focus on what is happening to him, but he gets constantly thrown into the spotlight. It is a terrific portrayal that may not put people at ease that he's the new Batman. But believe me, if he can do this, he can play Batman.

Then of course there is the supporting cast. You may not have heard of her, but Carrie Coon is a name you should know. She portrays Nick's sister, who has to help him through these tumultuous times. The chemistry between her and Affleck does feel like a genuine brother and sister relationship. She really delves in to how a family member would act in this situation. As secrets begin to unfold, Coon convinces the audience that no matter what is discovered, she will stand by her brother. She's the one thing that not only keeps Nick sane throughout the whole ordeal, but keeps the audience sane as well.

There is also Tyler Perry and Neil Patrick Harris. Perry plays Nick's Defense Attorney, while Harris plays someone connected to Amy's past. Perry shows that in the hands of a capable director, himself not included, he is a true acting force. That man sold me as a suave and highly intelligent attorney who can easily predict how the media will play things out. He's a master strategist, and Perry will make you believe he is. Harris on the other hand is kind of jarring. He doesn't do a bad performance, he's a phenomenal actor, but there was something about him being in the movie that seems to have stood out. Like he doesn't belong there, while at the same time he does. I guess it works well with his character as this extremely rich man who has all the pretty toys, but his presence was just jarring. Again, he's still incredible, it's just a little weird seeing him in this movie.

There are many others in this film who are great. Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit are great as the detectives on the case. Though Fugit's character does come off as one note detective who only thinks that Nick is guilty. Dickens' character is the one Detective who does grow in the film, but as this is not a true detective story it is clear that we won't see the extent of that growth. Then there is Missi Pyle as an obvious satire on Nancy Grace. She is the embodiment of the media and how it manipulates information to get a rise out of people. She does this exceptionally well. Hell, even the girl from the notorious Blurred Lines music video, Emily Ratajkowski, gives a fine performance despite being in the film for only four small moments and topless in two of them. That is the sign of an incredible director when everyone in the film from large roles to small roles are all incredible as a whole.

But then there is someone I'm missing. That is the other lead of this film. The titular Gone Girl, Amy Elliot Dunne played by Rosamund Pike. This is HER movie. This is THE movie that will get her the recognition she deserves. This is the movie that may get her an academy award. She is the standout of this film. The whole movie revolves around her character and her disappearance. There are so many layers to this missing woman, layers that by the end of the film may even make you question your own significant other. This is her best role, and will hopefully get rid of that stigma of her being a Bond Girl in the final Pierce Brosnan Bond film. I don't know how to explain or give you a reason why she is incredible. The only way for you to know, is to see the movie yourself.

If there is a negative for the film I will say that there are times that the film feels like it drags. But here is the strange part. Even though it drags, especially with a runtime of 2 hours and 25 minutes, for some reason you want more. You don't want it to end. You want it to keep going. So you're trapped in this feeling of, "this movie is too long," and "I want more!" So it is strange that a movie can actually make me feel this way. Because I did feel the drag, but at the same time I wasn't bored. It is strange that I didn't want this to end. Even when I thought it was ending, I was relieved it didn't. Yet at the same time I wished it did. It a strange thing. But still definitely worth a watch.

Final Thoughts

This is definitely a David Fincher film. Everything about this movie has his signature on it. And it delivers on all fronts. Every single person in this film is perfectly casted for their roles, even though Neil Patrick Harris does not visually fit into the film he is still incredible. There is that feeling of it dragging on, but it never feels boring. This is a movie that will definitely be talked about for the rest of the year and all the way to the Oscars. Go see this film. And bring a date...if you want to break up with that person after the movie.

SCORE: 8.9/10 - There is that feeling of drag, but other than that, this film is incredible.

Batman V Superman - The Suits of the World's Finest

Be honest...you want to see the above happen

As many know there is this little movie coming out in 2015 2016 called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. A film that is a sequel or rather follow up to the financially successful and critically divisive Man of Steel that is also to be helmed by the same director: Zack Snyder. Now, my opinion of Man of Steel is one of overwhelming love yet still have to acknowledge that there are a lot of problems with the movie. Problems that can be easily fixed. 

One could argue that the film could've started during Lois's introduction with just a simple two hour running time. I can see the film working without the first 30 minutes, but then that means I won't have my awesome John Carter/StarWars/Heavy Metal opening prologue with Russell Crowe reminding the world he's a badass. I'll even be the first to say that the dialogue is atrocious. Not even magnificent performances from magnificent actors could save it. That's why most of the blame gets directed at writer David Goyer. He's an amazing storyteller, but when it comes to dialogue he is very weak. That's why his best scripts become phenomenal when he is partnered with another writer. That's where Argo's Oscar Winning screenwriter, Chris Terrio, comes in to save the script from suffering another atrocity of language. But the story, well, I can guarantee you it will be amazing...I hope.

When this film was announced as the sequel to Man of Steel, I thought this was the smartest decision DC/Warner Bros. has ever made to compete with Marvel/Disney. I have no problems with Batman being in the movie. I do have a problem with Wonder Woman being in the movie because she could've been saved for another film. But seeing as how they want to subtly build the Justice League in this movie so that the next movie is Justice League, it does show a sign of concern.

It is perfectly fine for people to think this movie will be a cluster f#@% because what seems to have started as a simple battle between The Dark Knight and the Man of Steel now seems to be including The Amazing Amazon and a couple of others. If Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2 have taught us anything, too many characters is a bad thing. Especially Amazing Spider-Man 2 because it sacrificed the story for the sake of world building to catch up with their parent competitors. Which seems to be what is happening with this movie. But then again there was this other movie called: X-Men: Days of Future Past. A movie that has roughly 25 well known comic book character in it yet still turned into a phenomenal film. Why? Because it knew what to focus on and not try to give everyone valid screen time but instead necessary screen time to serve a purpose for the greater story. That is what I feel like this Batman v Superman movie is doing. That's not to say that it could go either way. Time will tell. But till then. We have our contenders.

The Dark Knight

The casting of Ben Affleck has been controversial but his costume wasn't. I love costumer designer Michael Wilkinson. He was Snyder's costume designer on 300 and Watchmen, and he really gets comic book design. His showcase in Watchmen was an obvious homage to DC Comics movie history with the different costumes which were designed better than his predecessors. Then of course there is his work on Man of Steel with designing the iconic Superman Suit and Krypton. Pure genius. And that genius shows in the above image.

This is the first Batman costume since the 1960s Adam West show that actually looks like the costume from the comics. If one were to look at the details, it is obvious that this costume is suppose to be made out of cloth instead of the armor from Nolan's Dark Knight films. The cowl and the gloves do seem like the same material of the Burton Batman films, but it is a nice merging of what made him iconic in the movies with what is known in the comic. I'm so happy that they went with this direction as opposed to the armor. This version may have padding inside to accentuate Affleck's ever growing muscular physique but it helps with the comic book image of showcasing perfect bodies in tight spandex. This may also be the first film adaptation to actually be black AND GRAY instead of all black! It sure as hell looks like it. It is perfection on so many levels that people who can't see it are obviously not comic book enthusiasts. But it can't be denied that Affleck looks like Batman. Whether or not he can pull it off, that is the real question.

Man of Steel

A powerful contrast with the black and white image of Batman, this is Superman. And I really mean IS Superman. Michael Wilkinson did a fantastic job with his first rendition of the costume for Man of Steel. A lot of people thought it was another rubber suit with texture on it, but in reality it is actually a spandex suit with chain mail textured onto it in order to subdue the bright colors. This upset some fans, especially the removal of the red trunks, but his new rendition of Supes' costume should make fans happy. It keeps the design of the first while tweaking a few bits.

His gauntlets are now blue instead of gray and extend to more of the arm. The alien lines on his sides actually seem to go up this ribs. The belt buckle now seems to be gold and square now instead of an oval. Plus the color looks brighter than the last suit which was toned down for the serious tone. This suit is still toned down but it is still obvious that the colors are bright. Especially coming from the S-Sheild which seems to be brighter than the rest of the costume. Henry Cavill is already monstrous in size and the added padding  is just to remind you that he is. And it works beautifully. Just look at that image. It does remind me of Kingdom Come's Superman who is suppose to be older. Cavill does look a little bit older in this pic. Maybe it's just the lighting on the hair... But that doesn't matter. CAVILL IS SUPERMAN! But if you like Christopher Reeves then I understand. But for me Henry Cavill is Superman.

What about a certain...Amazing Amazon?

Well according to Zack Snyder, he hasn't filmed scenes of actress Gal Gadot in the costume yet because she still has a long time to get buff and ripped. But given from what Wilkinson has done with Superman and Batman, I'm confident that his design of The Amazing Amazon will be breathtaking on the beautiful woman they have playing her. Whether or not she can act though is not my main concern, it is how they're going to portray the character is what got me more worried. But that is a topic for another day.

Final Thoughts

Come on! They both look like their comic book counterparts! Just look! LOOK!

I'm a big DC Comics fan, yet my favorite movie is a Marvel film: X-Men Days of Future Past. Well, the movie rights are technically not owned by Marvel so.... blah! What I'm saying is that the costumes of DC Comics are the most difficult to translate to screen because they were created in a time when spandex was the way to go for Superheroes. Marvel had the chance of establishing themselves in a time period when costumes can gradually cross the line between standard to grounded. So for costume designer Michael Wilkinson to maintain the idea that superhero costumes are pretty much just colored sculpted bodies and make it work is amazing. In fact these two costumes for this big movie are so far my favorite adaptation of a superhero costume. They're faithful yet updated. The way it should be. I anxiously await the reveal of Gadot in the red, white, and blue costume but also the looks he has for the entire Justice League.

Marvel may be more fun, but DC has their production design trumping them all the way. Now... all they need is to make this movie good. Yup. JUST this movie good. They can screw up the Justice League movie because it will always be compared to The Avengers, but THIS movie about the battle between the most iconic superheroes of all time has to be good. It has to. IT HAS TO!

Why Luke Evans would've made a great Batman and Perseus

I remember it very clearly. It was April 2, 2010, I was out with some old high school friends and some new college friends watching the Clash of the Titans remake. Having seen the original Clash of the Titans when I was much younger, within the first few minutes of the remake I was already making judgements about the movie. Then came the scene on Olympus where we see Liam Neeson as Zeus in all his shiny armor glory along with Ralph Fiennes introduction as the scheming Hades. The rest of the Olympian Pantheon was present in their shiny armor, but other than Zeus and Hades there were only two other gods that had lines: Poseidon played by Danny Huston and Apollo played by... who is that?

Funny how Apollo only had two lines yet I remembered him after I saw the movie. I didn't completely understand why, but something about the actor who played Apollo stood out to me. Perhaps because it was such as small role and that he was one of the few gods to actually have lines? That's what I told myself after leaving the theater. It wouldn't be until I bought the DVD (out of pure Greek Mythology fan bias than for being an actual good movie) and watched that deleted scenes that consisted MOSTLY of this actor having Apollo originally playing a larger part in the movie that I realized something. This guy who goes by the name of Luke Evans should've, in my opinion, been the guy who played Perseus.

It really had to do with a deleted scene dealing with Apollo stating to his half brother Perseus (the hero of the movie played by Sam Worthington) that "(they) are brothers." It really was that moment where I thought what if their roles were switched. I have nothing against Sam Worthington. He's a decent actor, though he has yet to wow me. However there was something about this Luke Evans guy who seemed to have more of a draw and a presence. He definitely fit will playing the god Apollo, had his role not been reduced to just two lines instead of an entire sub plot that was deleted. However seeing him just reminded me immediately of the original Clash of the Titans star, Harry Hamlin. They both had presence and a voice that says leading man and legendary hero. I kept thinking about it a little bit more and thought casting Luke Evans as Perseus would've been perfect. Hypothetically had he been cast as Perseus instead of Sam Worthington, would that have made the movie better? Probably not. However it would've made this version of Perseus more compelling. Sam is capable of playing a compelling character if the character is written to be compelling. The Perseus in the remake was not written as a compelling character but rather as a cookie cut out cliche hero character. It takes a compelling actor to make a cliche something watchable, and that was something that Luke Evans had.

Luke would've made a very interesting Perseus. He has looks, the voice, and if he had been casted hopefully the hair would still be in tact because he has that too. Had I been involved with the film as a casting director or as the director of the film in general he would've been my first and only choice. However there are factors I have to put into consideration. The first being no one in America knows who he is. I didn't know who he is. So, the casting of Sam Worthington was definitely meant to draw in the Avatar audience because everyone in the world has seen him in that. However, he did get put into the film so he had to have auditioned for more than one part. If I was the director or casting director of the project I would've taken a gamble with him as Perseus because he just fits the bill perfectly. Although if I was the director of the Clash of the Titans remake, the story would've been completely different but that's not really what this post is about. It's simply stating this idea that's been going around in my mind for three years now. I would've liked the 2010 Clash of the Titans more had Luke Evans been given the role instead of Sam.

Since then I've been following this guy's career to see if anything big is going to happen to this guy. There are cases where you see an actor do a small part in a film who is more compelling than anyone else in the film that you just know that person is going to become someone. And good thing he did. Immortals, Fast & Furious 6, and now The Hobbit trilogy. I'm really glad that right now he has some name recognition because I believe he is one of the most compelling actors in the business. Not the greatest, I'm not saying he's Oscar worthy, but he is definitely someone who you won't have a problem watching or even criticize his acting. That's why this next thought came to my mind recently.

The casting of Ben Affleck as Batman is said and done. I have no problem with it other than the fact that it means I won't see a film directed by the Affleck for a while. But when there was still speculation about who should be the next Batman, I had two choices in mind: Josh Brolin and yep you guessed it Luke Evans. The thought of him playing Batman would've done wonders for propelling his career even further. If The Hobbit movies don't, then him getting casted as Batman surely would.

It would've been a nice nod to Immortals by having Luke (who played Zeus) and Henry Cavill (the new Superman and the lead of Immortals) to be seen side by side one another. Luke definitely has the charm and the voice to pull off an older Batman. He is older than Cavill by about five years so it does fit the bill of an Older Batman as a nemesis and potential mentor figure for Batman. However as the fates may have it, Ben Affleck has the role which means I'll never see Luke Evans as Batman. Then again I'll never see him as the lead in a Clash of the Titans remake. He's got a nice career ahead of him after The Hobbit, and I look forward to seeing what else he does in the future.