“Gone Girl” is a hard film to review because it’s based on a book I would consider to be a masterpiece of “genre” fiction (technically a mystery/thriller but really more a deep psychological profile of a psychopath and a marriage folded into a thriller framework), and unlike 99.99 percent of books, it was a monster hit that people may have actually read. So anyone reading this review may have something heavily spoiled for them if I say “it follows the book closely” or “it diverges too much.” It’s a bit of a pickle and maybe you shouldn’t read further if you’ve read the book but don’t want spoilers for the movie…
For the most part, Gone Girl is very faithful to the book but there still seems to be something missing. It’s a cliche to say that the book is better, but the film version really lacks the character depth and a lot of the dark charge of what made the book so special.
What Works: Ben Affleck is probably the right actor to play a guy trying a little too hard to get you to like him (just look at how many times he’s “apologized” for dating J-Lo or at his shamelessly p.c. defense of Islam on Real Time, painting a nuanced Bill Maher into the boo-hiss villain in a public relations wrestling match), and he may be about the best choice for Nick. [On an eerie note, the guy actually does look a little bit like Scott Peterson or some dude who’d be in a real-life situation like this.] I also liked the always great Kim Dickens as Detective Rhonda Boney (the only translation to the movie I liked better than the book), and Casey Wilson makes for a convincing small town yokel desperate to get sucked into the spotlight of a true-crime media sensation.
What Doesn’t: I’m just not sold on Rosamund Pike as Amy. I would have loved to have seen a more specific, dynamic actress in the part, and I don’t get why it didn’t occur to anyone to cast Ben’s real-life wife Jennifer Garner (who would actually make a great Amy) in the part. Seeing a real-life couple take on these parts is such an irresistible hook, I can’t be the only one who’s thought of it. [Brad and Angelina would have also been great, David Fincher’s worked with Pitt more than any other actor so it couldn’t have not crossed his mind.]
A larger problem may be that the film keeps nearly all of the book’s main plot but not enough of its soul. There’s terrific gallows-humor and dark wit in the novel that isn’t totally present in the film, and there’s a tense, anything-could-happen urgency in the book that is also missing here. And I put a lot of the blame squarely on director David Fincher’s shoulders. On the surface, Fincher (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Fight Club) should be the exact right director to tackle a sophisticated genre novel with the allure of dark thoughts bubbling right beneath the surface, but he films the thing with all the urgency and dread of a Cadillac commercial. It’s too sleek, and never gets fully beneath the skin of its two twisted main characters.
What I Would Have Done Differently: It’s hard to fault Gillian Flynn (writer of the book and screenwriter of the movie) for being a bit nervous in the adaptation, but an old-pro like Fincher should have known how to move around that. They could have kept more of the sharpest (and funniest) lines from the book and dug a little deeper into what makes Amy and Nick tick.
Okay I stopped reading until I watch the movie. :)
But I have to say, I really was looking forward to the review, I will try to watch the movie by this weekend.