#27
Posted: 10/4/14 at 4:33am
That moment with Desi in the bedroom, sucked the air out of the cinema. It was so shocking, chilling and disturbing.
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
#28
Posted: 10/4/14 at 6:01am
It's a respectable movie of the novel. Few changes in the script and most of them are improvements. Streamlining the Desi scenes is a huge plus. Desi is far more believable in the movie than in the book and Harris gives a smart performance. Changing Andy's press conference to being watched on air from the casino instead of in the parking lot (which was very hard to buy as a coincidence in the novel) was a huge plus. Desi's "act 3' scenes in the movie are much more believable than in the novel (though are still a weak point). Overall, Flynn's script is fine - the biggest loss is Amy's growing hostility to her parents.
Fincher's direction, though assured and accomplished according to its aims, for me generally missed the mark. I was hoping for a tone something a little more "American Beauty" with a splash of "Malice" But the result is much more tepid, a "Fatal Attraction" without the tang (if that's possible). The book has a deliciously goofy quality. The movie reaches that now and then but too often plays it straight. And the big reveal almost seems buried by the editing, a curious choice.
The casting is irreproachable. Missi Pyle is terrific. They all could have been spot on with a different directorial style.
At least that's how it strikes me on first viewing. I plan on seeing it again.
Fincher's direction, though assured and accomplished according to its aims, for me generally missed the mark. I was hoping for a tone something a little more "American Beauty" with a splash of "Malice" But the result is much more tepid, a "Fatal Attraction" without the tang (if that's possible). The book has a deliciously goofy quality. The movie reaches that now and then but too often plays it straight. And the big reveal almost seems buried by the editing, a curious choice.
The casting is irreproachable. Missi Pyle is terrific. They all could have been spot on with a different directorial style.
At least that's how it strikes me on first viewing. I plan on seeing it again.
Updated On: 10/6/14 at 06:01 AM
#29
Posted: 10/4/14 at 9:02am
Not sure if i'll go. I read the book and figured out 90% including the big twist and the surprise "gift" at the end. flynn played pretty fair and if you read closely there inconsistencies and throwaway remarks that lead you to certain thoughts and conclusions. I also saw the flaws, loose ends and thought she should have tidied up better. Since I'm not sure they saw those to begin w i'm not sure they'd have corrected them (or made them more obvious) and from a plotting perspective it'll tick me off regardless of how good the performances are.
#30
Posted: 10/4/14 at 2:37pm
If only they'd had you as editor it might have been a success. What a shame.
#31
Posted: 10/4/14 at 3:42pm
I liked the book very much.
But just because a book is a blockbuster doesn't mean it's good; dismissing criticism just because it's a dissenting view may be cute but it isn't very persuasive.
But just because a book is a blockbuster doesn't mean it's good; dismissing criticism just because it's a dissenting view may be cute but it isn't very persuasive.
#33
Posted: 10/4/14 at 7:43pm
I assumed you were finding arrogance from not towing the line of popularity.
#34
Posted: 10/4/14 at 8:39pm
The passive-aggressive attack on "arrogance" was a thing of beauty.
#35
Posted: 10/4/14 at 8:42pm
I just got home from seeing the movie for the second time. The theater was packed. As was the case at the first viewing it played like gangbusters. The sly humor of the second half garnered extended laughter from the audience that actually covered following dialog. The twists and reveals were more rewards for clever plotting than tacked on shocks.
Popularity can certainly be attained by mediocrity in popular culture.
After the sale of 8 million copies of the book and sold out screenings its opening weekend, this much raved about movie certainly seems to have achieved something north of mere popularity.
Popularity can certainly be attained by mediocrity in popular culture.
After the sale of 8 million copies of the book and sold out screenings its opening weekend, this much raved about movie certainly seems to have achieved something north of mere popularity.
#36
Posted: 10/5/14 at 12:20am
A few quick thoughts:
I thought the book was very mediocre. I thought the film was brilliant. I thought Fincher was a strange choice for director when he initially signed on, but boy, does he improve the source material.
I thought the book was very mediocre. I thought the film was brilliant. I thought Fincher was a strange choice for director when he initially signed on, but boy, does he improve the source material.
#37
Posted: 10/5/14 at 1:01am
Wow. Best and favorite movie of the year so far. I'm so rarely surprised by twists, but this one got me.
The direction and editing elevate the film to be stronger than the writing.
The direction and editing elevate the film to be stronger than the writing.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
--Aristotle
#38
Posted: 10/5/14 at 2:08am
Whatever you think, it's a solid story. It keeps you on your toes and it's a page turner. I think people get in the way too much. It's not a classic in the sense that it has really unique sentence structures, but the actual story is really quite great, and I'm excited to see the movie. And the rest of Flynn's novels are so great.
#39
Posted: 10/5/14 at 9:28am
Disagree to a certain extent. A large part of what I loved so much about the book is micro. Flynn can turn a phrase and is bitingly funny. Perceptions sing and zing. They are beautifully crafted.
#40
Posted: 10/5/14 at 11:26am
Yes- i did like some of her sentences very much. Interesting and very character appropriate.
#41
Posted: 10/5/14 at 12:40pm
The story is great, yes. But the execution is faulty and cracks as it gets closer to the finale. For me, the book is a trashy beach read. The film is genius and hypes up the social commentary.
#42
Posted: 10/5/14 at 4:37pm
***SPOILER***
Which side does the book take?
Even if they portray her as a genius psycho, I thought he was in the wrong as much as her. I really felt that the characters around them didn't feel bad for either in a "you deserve each other" kind of way. Most of the people I went with mentioned how bad they felt for him, while I really believe they both got it coming, she just outsmarted everyone.
Which side does the book take?
Even if they portray her as a genius psycho, I thought he was in the wrong as much as her. I really felt that the characters around them didn't feel bad for either in a "you deserve each other" kind of way. Most of the people I went with mentioned how bad they felt for him, while I really believe they both got it coming, she just outsmarted everyone.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#43
Posted: 10/5/14 at 5:06pm
The book has been accused of misogyny, which I think is reactionary BS for the exact reason that Nick is no peach himself. Go is really the only true-hearted character in the whole thing. I still think the story works best as satire.
I saw the movie and, like the book, I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away.
I saw the movie and, like the book, I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
#44
Posted: 10/5/14 at 5:56pm
Completely off topic, but: Is it standard now for multiplexes to have a rent-a-cop to search your backpack? Very unpleasant.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
#45
Posted: 10/5/14 at 6:57pm
I think the new terrorist threats have lowered the threshold in public spaces, esp after the Aurora shootings. I don't usually go to US cinemas but last March went w my GF to see The Grand Budapest Hotel and was surprised that the pre film included identifications as to where the exits were. So i'm thinking rentacops may be more prevalent. OR they thought u were going to tape the movie and wanted to check u had nothing w you to do that.
#46
Posted: 10/5/14 at 7:09pm
**(semi) Spoilers Ahead**
I thought that it was an excellent adaptation of the novel, but I actually wish it were longer. I loved the tone of the movie and Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck's character and acting choices, and I think that David Fincher is the only director nowadays to consistently produce extremely high quality work. It was an excellent film by any standards. My main issue with it was that it left out a lot of stuff from the book that helped you sympathize with Amy. I still rooted for her when I saw this movie, but the two people I saw this movie with hated her, which I would understand if you only saw the movie. The emphasis on "cool Amy" in the book was missing here, and it really detracted sympathy for her character. I also preferred the extended Desi scenes in the book, which made him seem much more rapey than just concerned for Amy. I would completely recommend this movie as it is an excellent piece of filmmaking, but I would say to read the book first as it has a better balance of character and includes many more intricate and exciting details. This is the only movie that I would say has a too short running time at 2 and a half hours. If this movie were 4 hours long I would appreciate it because it would allow for more details from the novel to be included.
I thought that it was an excellent adaptation of the novel, but I actually wish it were longer. I loved the tone of the movie and Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck's character and acting choices, and I think that David Fincher is the only director nowadays to consistently produce extremely high quality work. It was an excellent film by any standards. My main issue with it was that it left out a lot of stuff from the book that helped you sympathize with Amy. I still rooted for her when I saw this movie, but the two people I saw this movie with hated her, which I would understand if you only saw the movie. The emphasis on "cool Amy" in the book was missing here, and it really detracted sympathy for her character. I also preferred the extended Desi scenes in the book, which made him seem much more rapey than just concerned for Amy. I would completely recommend this movie as it is an excellent piece of filmmaking, but I would say to read the book first as it has a better balance of character and includes many more intricate and exciting details. This is the only movie that I would say has a too short running time at 2 and a half hours. If this movie were 4 hours long I would appreciate it because it would allow for more details from the novel to be included.
#47
Posted: 10/5/14 at 8:13pm
Nice input Fantod. This could have been an interesting property as an HBO miniseries. I think Dragon Tattoo (which I love) would also benefit from extended storytelling in this format.
#48
Posted: 10/5/14 at 8:40pm
Just got home from seeing this film. Overall, I genuinely liked it very much. The performances were all on point, and Fincher's direction did not disappoint. I never once got swept up into the story like you do when you are watching a great thriller. Instead, I patiently let the story unfold before me. It was because of this, and the way that the first hour of the film is drastically different from the second, that I was able to appreciate the humor through out. Many laugh out loud moments.
To me, this story was yet another reason to not get married.
To me, this story was yet another reason to not get married.
#49
Posted: 10/6/14 at 11:17am
The ultimate operative facts on page and screen are the same. Amy's wrongs obviously dwarf Nick's.
Amy begins a far less reliable narrator than Nick. By the end Nick finds himself complicit in living more a lie than anyone perhaps ever has. His biggest falling, as Go points out, is the lack of moral will to try to remove himself from mendacity.
Ultimately it's we - neither Nick nor Amy - who are under indictment. Because Flynn has revealed just how perversely we would collectively react if Nick had the moral strength to tell the truth.
Amy begins a far less reliable narrator than Nick. By the end Nick finds himself complicit in living more a lie than anyone perhaps ever has. His biggest falling, as Go points out, is the lack of moral will to try to remove himself from mendacity.
Ultimately it's we - neither Nick nor Amy - who are under indictment. Because Flynn has revealed just how perversely we would collectively react if Nick had the moral strength to tell the truth.
Updated On: 10/6/14 at 11:17 AM
#50
Posted: 10/6/14 at 1:24pm
I didn't care as much for the film as everyone else here, entertainment value aside. It was entertaining and a fascinating pot boiler and all that. It wasn't that difficult to figure out that her story didn't match up. Also, I am guessing the writer doesn't like marriage very much. It will probably win a few awards, but I personally was touched more by a totally different film, Pride, than this, which I expected a lot out of and it failed to deliver.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $106