|
Aeble posted:I just saw this movie and, not being an avid moviegoer, want to hear if I'm just stupid for not getting the ending. I thought it didn't felt satisfying at all, not really closing the story. Amy is still a psycho and might conceivably murder Nick in the near future if things doesn't play out the way she wants them to. And why does Nick go along with it? I understand the line of thought that he was screwed up and wanted the relationship as well... But if the talk of the baby was just an excuse, why does he act like he's going to leave her up until the very moment that she shows him the pregnancy test? He might need the excuse for Margo, but surely it doesn't matter to himself. shes got what is probably his child, bud. and she is crazy so you can probably ponder what might happen. he stays with her, too, because it would look bad to divorce this woman who he publically said he loved because she was batshit crazy and no one would believe him. she also owns the bar and not him. she has every card to play and all he got is an empty hand, man
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Finally went and saw this tonight - what stuck with me most was the overwhelming silence that followed just as the credits began to roll in a full room of moviegoers (even though the film had been out for a while now). I went in knowing the bare minimum, that a guy's wife goes missing and that he's the main suspect. Really glad I listened to the advice I was given here because I really enjoyed being shocked and sucked in up until the Big Twist midway through. And holy gently caress, that was a gooood reveal. I'd happily let Rosamund Pike play the Crazy Psycho Bitch of my nightmares - she really was amazing. Right now, though, all I can think about is how unsettled the throat-slashing scene made me feel, probably because of how loving clean and neat everything was. I mean, it didn't even register that the splatter above the stove was blood - here I thought it looked just like a scrape of nail polish or something. And then BLOOD loving EVERYWHERE. Waow. I can't wait to read the book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
bubblelubble posted:I went in knowing the bare minimum this is the best advice for every movie ever. but i keep seeing interstellar ads during the previews and i cant leave the theater fast enough
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
LaTex Fetish posted:this is the best advice for every movie ever. but i keep seeing interstellar ads during the previews and i cant leave the theater fast enough I've seen the previews and I still have no clue what that movie is supposed to be about
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
I liked this movie a lot more the second time even knowing all the beats. Don't let basic plot information drive you out of a theater during a preview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:I liked this movie a lot more the second time even knowing all the beats. Don't let basic plot information drive you out of a theater during a preview. dont tell me what to do bitch
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
bubblelubble posted:Right now, though, all I can think about is how unsettled the throat-slashing scene made me feel, probably because of how loving clean and neat everything was. I mean, it didn't even register that the splatter above the stove was blood - here I thought it looked just like a scrape of nail polish or something. And then BLOOD loving EVERYWHERE. Waow. I read the book before I saw the movie, and my thought at that point in the book was "This is totally a David Fincher scene."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
bubblelubble posted:Finally went and saw this tonight - what stuck with me most was the overwhelming silence that followed just as the credits began to roll in a full room of moviegoers (even though the film had been out for a while now). Off topic, but do people commonly do things like stand up and applaud at the end of movies? Maybe people in the Midwest are just boring, but no one says or does poo poo once the credits role. They just leave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Nah, I meant moreso that people tend to start talking when the movie's over. But there was a distinct lack of conversation, and it lasted for a while. It was actually kinda incredible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
bubblelubble posted:Nah, I meant moreso that people tend to start talking when the movie's over. But there was a distinct lack of conversation, and it lasted for a while. It was actually kinda incredible. everyone turned to one another to talk but all they could think about was "what are they thinking? how do they feel?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Experienced the same effect during my screening, although it felt more like people brewing over mixed emotions and not out of any sort of gravitas for the film. Anyway, I'm definitely going to check out the book now. Echoing what other people have already said, especially about the dialogue being really corny in a lot of parts that I'm not sure if it was meant to be taken seriously or taken as camp. "Octopus and Scrabble?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Mira posted:Experienced the same effect during my screening, although it felt more like people brewing over mixed emotions and not out of any sort of gravitas for the film. You couldn't tell that line was meant to be funny? Agreed that the way it ends lends to a really particular mood of silence in the cinema, it was like a shocking event had just happened (in a good way, for me).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
After just watching the film (I enjoyed it, by the way), I honestly felt that they left the movie loosely ambiguous, I mean I'm assuming they both have problems with each other, they're both somewhat 'psychotic', besides Amy who's the real psycho in the story. Affleck's character is just as aggressive towards Pike's character, the only difference being Pike takes it to the extreme. As I was watching the whole film, I got the impression that almost everyone in the movie, besides Nick and Margo, seemed really odd...like you couldn't trust them, even when they're trying to help Nick find his wife throughout the whole film. Maybe I just felt paranoid as I was taking in those scenes. I kind of felt the same way when I was watching Barton Fink, again it seemed to me that Barton was the sane character in the story and everyone else acted and looked quite odd. Also, I'm surprised no-one made a Chasing Amy joke, due to how coincidental that both films starred Affleck, had a character called Amy, Joey Lauren Adams and Rosamund Pike weirdly looked identical to each other when playing that character, and the argument that Nick is trying to find (or chasing) his wife. Bottom line, Fincher really fucks with my head. EDIT: Sorry, I forgot Joey doesn't play 'Amy', I also meant she and Rosamund individually play as Affleck's lover in both movies. I hosed up. Junior Jr. fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:This movie has been out for quite a while. Why are people still using spoiler tags? Why do people come into a thread for a film they haven't seen and get annoyed when they're spoiled, therefore forcing the use of spoiler tags, I'd wonder. It's not like there isn't a review forum if people want to know what the film is like!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:Also, I'm surprised no-one made a Chasing Amy joke, due to how coincidental that both films starred Affleck, had a character called Amy, Joey Lauren Adams and Rosamund Pike weirdly looked identical to each other when playing that character, and the argument that Nick is trying to find (or chasing) his wife. Could be because there's one in the title of the thread. Edit; Nvm, turns out I've been reading the title wrong in my head all this time. Sorry for being snarky. Cakebaker fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:Could be because there's one in the title of the thread. I wasn't referencing it, but, now I want the title to be Affleck Chases Amy All Over Again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Saw the movie and loved it. The ending boggled my mind, though in the end I think Amy will get what's coming to her. Psychopaths can't help themselves; she'll eventually do something stupid that she can't talk her way out of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Finished reading the book last night and then went out tonight and saw the movie. Loved it. Really great adaptation of the book with some rushed parts, but anything changed made sense and was just to move the story along at a better pace then how the book went. Really great film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Gozinbulx posted:Saw this last night. While there are probably problems with the story and act structure (felt like it had..5 acts or something), the movie was so well made and so well acted, I was engrossed. It never felt slow and I welcomed the long runtime. This is, obviously, not the point of your post, but you know what else has 5 acts? Every Shakespeare play. Point being that if you thought that the movie "never felt slow" then there's a good chance that there aren't problems with story and act structure, but something else that's throwing you off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Just chiming in to say this was, without a doubt, the worst film I've ever seen in a movie theater. And I watched both Van Wilder 2 and the Conan reboot in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Just chiming in to say this was, without a doubt, the worst film I've ever seen in a movie theater. And I watched both Van Wilder 2 and the Conan reboot in the theater. My worst movie was Cold Mountain. I hated that movie. I really wanted to walk out of it. Why was it worst?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
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. The absolutely perfect, no-mistakes frame job was bad enough, but when Affleck doesn't react to his wife's reappearance with an immediate "this woman tried to frame me for her murder here's a list of things she accused me of in her diary that were false, which she planted and also here are all her hand written notes showing where she left the clues for the cops to find" I really checked out. The man got into a loving shower with a woman literally covered in the blood of a murder victim so she could wax poetic about how evil she is. I mean poo poo, the video logs from NPH's house combined with his phone records would show that he didn't kidnap the wife. loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Thanks, Detective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Sorry if I bursted your bubble Ebert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Sorry if I bursted your bubble Ebert.  He was being sarcastic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
There are literally scenes in the movie in which the characters point out that there's evidence of holes in her story and that the investigators/media/public doesn't care, they just want a good story. Do you think that's there on accident or that it might be making a point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Yeah the FBI wanting to buy her narrative because "they want a good story" sure makes sense, especially with how easily that narrative falls apart. The FBI, as an organization, is a sucker for a good crying blonde.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Movies often have exaggerated examples of real world situations. Gone Girls theme of "people love a good story" is pretty far fetched and its chances of happening in real life are pretty small, but I still think it works and is consistent with the movies world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Law enforcement is definitely never corrupt or lazy in real life. There's plenty to legitimately criticize in the film but "the police didn't follow proper protocol in this black comedy" making it the worst film you've ever seen makes you kind of dumb. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
I look forward to the day when writers and directors sit down and think "Hm. You know I want to tell a story but it won't be perfect like real life and people will tear it apart. Oh well, let's not and just go out and film myself doing some stupid poo poo and put it on you tube. Or make a documentary."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
John Doe could never have pulled off all seven murders in those completely impractical ways. Here's how I would have done it:
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
The movie you watched is fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Man, I tried reading the first couple of pages of this thread, and all the arguments, heated discussion, etc. can be pretty much cleared up by reading the book. Y'all should really read the book. Anyway, just saw this and was pretty surprised at how packed the theatre was considering it's been out for like 2 months. I went in to the movie blind, so I could be surprised at the casting choices (all I remember from a brief trailer months back for this was that Affleck was Nick) and was pleasantly surprised. Almost everybody was really well-casted. NPH was kind of a surprise, but he fits the bill. They really turned up the creep factor on him in the movie though. You really do feel sorry for Desi and sympathize with him way more with in the book. I really didn't like Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt at first, but I guess he was serviceable. I understand why they did it (pretty much combining Tanner Bolt and Tanner Bolt's wife into one character), but eh. There's some rushed parts, and you really lose some of the narrative, since the book is pretty much diary entries from 3 characters, but overall it's a great adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Constellation I posted:Man, I tried reading the first couple of pages of this thread, and all the arguments, heated discussion, etc. can be pretty much cleared up by reading the book. Y'all should really read the book. The book is not the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I can already tell this is going to be the most controversial movie of the year and I'm kind of looking forward to it. Man, this post is from October and was probably true until this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:This is an awesome reading and I agree with it, but I feel like the film would've worked better if he had been abusive to her. As it is Nick is just a little bit too much of a victim for this reading to land 100% and that's probably why you have people claiming it's an anti-woman film. I feel like very subtly the movie hinted that while he may not have hit her or been aggressively manipulative, he did treat her poorly and took advantage of her at times. While no excuse for her actions I think having a character who is light gray on the hero to anti-hero scale is a bit refreshing, someone who is not really looking for redemption or to be a role model but just a normal jerk who is still a victim. The themes of "living out the story" and "reality blurring with the lies" could be a way to view the ending scene where he pushes Amy against the wall- he was never physically abusive but after that narrative dominated the world around him falling into aggressive behavior due to the reality (understandable) is chilling since it looks identical to if he was just a wife beater (not understandable). Unzip and Attack posted:The absolutely perfect, no-mistakes frame job was bad enough, but when Affleck doesn't react to his wife's reappearance with an immediate "this woman tried to frame me for her murder here's a list of things she accused me of in her diary that were false, which she planted and also here are all her hand written notes showing where she left the clues for the cops to find" I really checked out. The fact she was able to organize the frame job so well is partially due to her having a really long time to get every last detail accounted for and because her sucky husband does not pay attention to her. The fact shes been going around increasing her life insurance, getting fake evidence ready, and even having planned it out on a calendar is why my disbelief was suspended with almost no trouble. His emotionless reaction on the news is what stuck him as the murderer in the media because "we have problems and I don't love her anymore" is a honest explanation for not sobbing on Nancy Grace but not the story people want to hear. UPDATE: Husband of Missing Woman More Frustrated Than Heartbroken sounds like an Onion article even if true in a lot of cases. To be fair though, some of the cops did mention that things seemed too perfect before it turned into Trial by Media. I do agree though that the second that baby is born I would have her arrested or put in psychiatric holding to keep her the gently caress away from my baby. My mind would be counting down the seconds until a chance to get the kid away from the mother safely opened up- the motivation of staying with her for the child doesn't really hold up for me if hes fine with having a sociopath raise his kid. WeLandedOnTheMoon! posted:Living your entire life in the shadow of a fictional and idealized version of yourself will certainly do a number on you, huh? Amazing Amy Makes a Mess! is one of the best promotional materials I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
I feel like I saw the greatest black comedy in years played straight. It's ambitious as hell, but it's just not a good enough drama to pull it off. The comedy is a redeeming factor for a flawed movie and not an addition that turns good into great. Maybe it's brilliant because it hits all the right notes of a tabloid crime. You never really know why people go bad and the conclusion is never satisfying. I wonder if the movie would have been better if Amy's setup was shown earlier in the movie instead of treated as the big reveal. I rarely enjoy stories with a big mystery that gets solved midway through. Pop that bubble early or at the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Yeah the FBI wanting to buy her narrative because "they want a good story" sure makes sense, especially with how easily that narrative falls apart. The FBI, as an organization, is a sucker for a good crying blonde. FBI legit would let people go if it would be hard to prove their guilty, cause a huge media backlash, and harm the organization in some way. The media would eat up Amazing Amy playing them for fools though so they the FBI would be 100% with going after her. While the story wouldn't be as sexy as husband kills wife or wife abducted by strange rear end in a top hat who keep her in a rape dungeon, the story of a z list celebrity faking all of that to get back on her husband just for cheating on her is major tabloid fodder. It isn't like the Santanic Sex Panic or Central Park 5 or another boring case of a media/law gently caress up. It's has academy award winning film written all over it (ha) It's a story though and is trying to make a point. Realism isn't always good. Old Doggy Bastard posted:I feel like very subtly the movie hinted that while he may not have hit her or been aggressively manipulative, he did treat her poorly and took advantage of her at times. While no excuse for her actions I think having a character who is light gray on the hero to anti-hero scale is a bit refreshing, someone who is not really looking for redemption or to be a role model but just a normal jerk who is still a victim. It's funny, I cringed like anything during that scene but found it weird that I would when his wife is threatening to either frame him for attempted murder or child molestation or a bunch of other things, it's way more than understandable and kinda what a lot of normal or even good people would have done, and you hit on why succinctly. NutritiousSnack fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:25 |
|
NutritiousSnack posted:FBI legit would let people go if it would be hard to prove their guilty, cause a huge media backlash, and harm the organization in some way. But that's exactly why they wouldn't do it, for the reason you just said. Amazing Amy played them for fools, so instead of telling everybody they got played for fools, they quietly let the whole thing go. It's not that they necessarily buy it, it's that going along with it keeps their image intact. The movie's all about image and people going against reality to manipulate how society views them.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 16:52
|
|