Review: Gone Girl

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

“Gone Girl” arrives with much fanfare and anticipation. The book upon which this film is based is an international bestseller. I have no doubt that someone somewhere has said something to you along the lines of “seriously, you HAVE to read this book.” Whether you have read the book or not, this is one of those rare films that stays faithful to its source material while still feeling original and fresh.

The film follows Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) who is about to celebrate his fifth anniversary with his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). Their marriage is falling apart, something Nick confides in with his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon). But Nick’s problems today are just getting started. He soon discovers his wife missing. Their living room looks like some kind of struggle took place, and trace elements of blood remain visible. Detective Boney (Kim Dickens) and her partner Gilpin (Patrick Fugit) are on the case, but all the evidence points to Nick. He maintains his innocence, but it gets increasingly difficult with so much evidence pointing to him as the murderer and the national media crucifying him each night on TV.

While “Gone Girl” tells the tale of a dysfunctional marriage, there is one marriage here that is perfect. That’s the marriage of director and source material. Very rarely these days do we see a story come along and find its way to a filmmaker with such a unique and distinctive style that matches perfectly. David Fincher has made a career out of telling stories about outcasts or about people living their lives behind a façade.

Fincher is so polished in his craft, making him one of the absolute best filmmakers working today. “Gone Girl” is yet another example on how far he has come as a filmmaker. His chaotic, breakneck pace of storytelling in films such as “Seven” and “Fight Club” have given way to much more provocative films with infinitely more depth. That’s not to say “Seven” and “Fight Club” are bad films – they’re not; far from it, in fact. But he’s become much more versed in character and story that he doesn’t need the fancy visual tricks to carry his films. He was already proficient with the camera and with the dark suspenseful elements of filmmaking, but ever since “Zodiac” he’s taken his films to an entirely different level.

As a man always drawn to the dark and the mysterious, Fincher and “Gone Girl” is a perfect match. If you’re someone who hasn’t read the book, then you probably know someone who has. And that person has no doubt pressed you time and time again to read it. It’s the kind of story that shrouded in so much mystery that it keeps its readers guessing and addicted. The film is just as cryptic thanks to the fact that the novel’s author – Gillian Flynn – is also the screenwriter. Flynn already knows the story and the characters forward and backward which makes her the perfect candidate to adapt the novel. There are differences between the novel and film, but nothing too earth shattering. A few minor elements are left out or glossed over just for the sake of pacing, but this is an otherwise very faithful adaptation.

The dark and twisted elements of the book are brought to life so well thanks to Fincher’s grasp on the source material. I knew going into this film that there were some shocking and crazy parts to it, but Fincher turns it up a notch to make it one of the most compelling examinations of modern marriage this year. The book raises a lot of questions about how well we know our spouses, but the film visualizes it so flawlessly that it could leave any husband keeping a watchful and frightful eye on his wife moving forward.

And Fincher's familiar tone is on full display here. He always tends to work with the same people to give his films a similar yet distinctive feeling. Dark and dimly lit cinematography comes courtesy of his longtime director of photography Jeff Cronenweth. The multi-faced story occurring in different times and places is spliced together with such precision from long time film editor Kirk Baxter. And the bone chilling score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who wrote one of the most inventive and original film scores in years for Fincher's "The Social Network," adds the perfect element of mystery to a film where over half the audience knows what's coming next. All these familiar elements help Fincher focus on the story and the acting rather than micromanage all other elements of his production.

But “Gone Girl” couldn’t have been made possible without the work of Fincher’s perfect casting. Affleck is great as Nick Dunne. Many people have a hard time taking him seriously as an actor after that terrible movie he made with his then-spouse over a decade ago. He’s not a bad actor, and he proves it here. This is one of the better roles he’s done. The supporting cast around him also fits into their roles perfectly including Carrie Coon as his twin sister and Kim Dickens as Detective Boney. Lighter supporting work from Tyler Perry as Affleck’s lawyer Tanner Bolt and Neil Patrick Harris as Desi Collings – a rich ex-boyfriend of Amy’s – are also solid despite limited screen time. The real star here, however, is Rosamund Pike as Amy Dunne. The adjectives I would use to describe her character could very well spoil some of the surprising elements of this film for those who aren’t familiar with the story. Let’s just say she plays the part subdued and low key – slightly different than I imagined it in the book – and plays it very well.

Anyone worried that “Gone Girl” will be another Hollywood butcher job of one of his or her favorite books can rest easy. At a time when Hollywood takes too many liberties with popular novels, this one turns out to be one of the most faithful adaptations of a book in recent years. There isn’t a better director out there to handle subject matter such as this than the masterful David Fincher. He’s taken a story that’s not just dark and turned it around to be a social examination on both marriage and the media’s guilty-until-proven-innocent stance. There’s so much to enjoy about this film. No matter if you’ve read the book or not, it’s a wild and crazy ride from beginning to end. 

Review: A Million Ways to Die in the West

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

Seth MacFarlane is better heard from and not seen. After writing and directing his first big screen feature two years ago – “Ted” – the creator of TV’s “Family Guy” proved himself to be competent enough to take his sense of humor onto the big screen. I really liked “Ted” and thought it was a smart comedy, even if he flirted with crossing certain lines with his jokes. That’s what he’s known for, so there shouldn’t be any surprises there. With his sophomore feature “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” MacFarlane steps in front of the camera this time and tries his hand at being a leading man. The results are disastrous.

MacFarlane plays Albert Stark, a sheep farmer in the Arizona frontier in 1882. He’s just been dumped by his girlfriend Louise (Amanda Seyfried), a young woman who he says is the only reason he’s happy in this awful time and place. His best friend is the naïve Edward (Giovanni Ribisi) who dates the town prostitute Ruth (Sarah Silverman). Ruth sleeps with many different men in town every day, but refuses to have sex with Edward until they’re married. Both Edward and Ruth have Albert’s back in this difficult time, especially after Albert discovers that Louise is now dating Foy (Neil Patrick Harris), a dashing man with a glorious moustache.

Enter the new girl to town, Anna (Charlize Theron), who is instantly attracted to Albert’s charming personality. What Albert doesn’t know about Anna is she’s actually married to Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), the most feared outlaw in the entire frontier. She keeps this little fact about her quiet as a means to protect Albert. Anna decides that she’s going to help Albert become a more confident person and a better gunslinger. That way he can beat Foy in a duel and win back Louise.

The premise of “A Million Ways to Die in the West” works – surprisingly. The storyline makes sense. The characters are likeable. There’s a definite rooting interest in Albert and Anna. The only problem is MacFarlane has completely polluted this entire film with the kind of trashy jokes he’s not able to deliver on “Family Guy.” From the moment the film starts, it’s full of juvenile toilet humor that is not at all funny.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: he did this in “Ted” too. He did, but to an extent. The humor is very adult oriented, but it worked for what the film was all about. Furthermore, “Ted” had a very big heart at its core. It was a very well written and well-made film, even with the dirty jokes. The story and the situations helped make the film funny. The dirty jokes added to the humor.

“A Million Ways to Die in the West” completely relies on the toilet humor to generate its laughs. Most of the jokes are overused and worn out, having been included in just about every sex comedy since the genre began. I’d be lying if I said this movie didn’t have its humorous moments; I did laugh at times. But this is by no means a movie that will have you rolling in the aisles. Unless you’re 12. Or jokes about genitals cause you endless hours of side-splitting laughter.

MacFarlane is a decent enough actor in his own right, but he’s probably better suited to work behind the camera, or in a voice-over booth. He’s not a leading actor, and proves himself unworthy by essentially playing himself here. And he doesn’t allow the rest of his supporting cast any room to move around either. Every single person in this film has been better elsewhere. The only person I enjoyed in this film was Harris simply because of the absurd level in which he played his role.

I can’t say I’m surprised by anything about “A Million Ways to Die in the West.” I was hoping MacFarlane could tap into that same type of magic he found with “Ted” but it didn’t work at all this time out. There was no emotional connection made at all. But should one really expect an emotional connection from every film they see? I don’t think it’s too much to ask for. And MacFarlane has already proved he can do that with a movie riddled with adult jokes. Just because it’s crude doesn’t mean it can’t connect with an audience.

The only emotions I felt out of this film with disgust and boredom. Despite its intermittent moments of genuine humor, the film has a very poor script that doesn’t do the story any justice. It’s a painful movie going experience, and I was glad when it was finished.