"DIE ANOTHER DAY" (2002) Review

"DIE ANOTHER DAY" Review

The 2002 movie, ”DIE ANOTHER DAY” marked several milestones in the James Bond franchise. One, it was released during the 40th anniversary of the cinematic Bond, which began with 1962’s ”DR. NO”. Two, it was the first time that a non-white actress portrayed the leading lady in a Bond film. And three, it happened to be Pierce Brosnan’s last Bond film for EON Productions.

”DIE ANOTHER DAY” starts out with a mission in which Bond has to kill a North Korean army officer named Colonel Moon, who has been illegally selling military weaponry in exchange for African conflict diamonds. Betrayed by a MI-6 mole, Bond is swept up in a chase and shootout that results with Colonel Moon being killed by Bond before falling over a waterfall. In a departure from the usual Bond formula, the agent ends up captured Colonel Moon’s father and the North Korean military. He spends the next fourteen months being tortured for information. Disavowed by his superiors upon his release, and his status as Double-0 Agent suspended by M, Bond sets out to find the mole on his own. He eventually uncovers evidence that overtakes his personal vendetta, and M restores his Double-0 status and offers MI6 assistance to help him uncover what he has found. Bond’s search eventually leads to billionaire businessman Gustav Graves, who is actually Colonel Moon surgically altered via gene therapy. Graves/Moon has been collecting African conflict diamonds for an orbital mirror system that uses the diamonds as a source of solar energy for a small area to light the Arctic nights and, if the investment goes well with buyers, provide year-round sunshine for crop development. In truth, the orbital mirror system is actually a super weapon to be used to clear a path through the minefield in the demilitarized zone that separates North Korea from South Korea. Needless to say, Bond discovers the MI-6 mole who had betrayed him and with the help of American NSA agent, Jinx Johnson, destroys Graves/Moon’s weapon and the latter’s scheme.

Since the release of the latest Bond film, 2006’s ”CASINO ROYALE”, a harsh backlash against Brosnan’s tenure as James Bond and especially, "DIE ANOTHER DAY" in particularly has grown considerably. In fact, DAD is now regarded as the worst Bond movie in the franchise’s history. Personally, I do not agree with this harsh assessment. I do not consider "DIE ANOTHER DAY" to be a masterpiece or even among the better Bond films. But I certainly do not view it as the disaster that many are claiming it to be. I can honestly say that my assessment of "DIE ANOTHER DAY" has improved slightly after my last viewing.

Pierce Brosnan had to wait three years after 1999’s ”THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH” to portray James Bond for what turned out to be the last time (so far). I do not think I would consider his performance in ”DIE ANOTHER DAY” to be amongst his finest. Yes, he had some very good moments in the film that were featured in the following scenes:

-his confrontation with M aboard the British frigate in Hong Kong Harbor

-his last meeting with General Moon before being released and exchanged by the North Koreans

-his first meeting with Gustave Graves at the Blades Club

-and his discovery of Miranda Frost as the mole

But I did have problems with certain aspects of his performance – especially his second meeting with M inside one of the London Underground tunnels and some of the sexual innuendos that he was forced to spout. In fact, that second scene with M left me with an uncomfortable feeling that dramatic angst might not be Brosnan’s forte. And I find this ironic, given his superb peformance in an old 1981 TV miniseries called ”THE MANIONS OF AMERICA”. Perhaps he simply was not up to par during the days when he shot that particular scene.

EON Productions seemed to have better luck with the movie’s leading lady, Hollywood superstar, Halle Berry. Many fans felt it was improper for her to co-star in a Bond film – viewing her as a bigger star than Brosnan. I do not know if I agree with this assessment, especially since Brosnan has been famous a least a decade longer. Also, both Honor Blackman (”GOLDFINGER”) and Diana Rigg (”ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”) were already well-known thanks to the successful TV series, ”THE AVENGERS”, when they shot their respective Bond films. So, I could never see the harm in Berry following in their footsteps. She portrayed Giacinta “Jinx” Johnson, a NSA agent investigating the whereabouts of one of the villain’s henchmen, Zao. Her investigation leads to a sexy encounter with Bond in Cuba and eventually a showdown with Graves and Miranda Frost in Korea. Due to her current unpopularity with Bond fans, many of them view Berry as the worst Bond girl ever. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps in some way, she does not fit their image of what a Bond girl should be. Personally, I thought that Berry gave an excellent performance, despite some of the bad sexual innuendos that she was forced to spout. In fact, I really enjoyed Berry’s take on the competent, yet humorous and very sly Jinx. She made the character a fun person to know. And she performed her action sequences in a competent manner. Granted, I did not feel impressed by Berry’s “homage” to Ursula Andress’ watery entrance in ”DR. NO”. But I was never that impressed by Andress’ little moment, either. Although I would never list Berry among my top five Bond ladies, I would certainly list her in my top ten. Probably at number six.

British actor, Toby Stephens portrayed Gustav Graves, a billionaire with sinister ties to North Korean agent Zao, a DNA gene therapy machine and a supply of African conflict diamonds that provide energy to a new destructive weapon called ICARUS. Graves turns out to be the same Colonel Moon with whom Bond had clashed (and allegedly killed) in the movie's pre-title sequence. Stephens had the double task of portraying a credible villain against Brosnan's Bond and recapturing Will Yun Lee's performance as Colonel Moon during Graves' private moments. Personally, I felt that Stephens did a pretty good job. Not only did he managed to portray Gustav Graves' overblown persona, he also succeeded in recapturing Lee's portrayal of the scheming and arrogant Moon, who also longs for his father's approval. Unfortunately, being sixteen years younger than Brosnan, there were times I felt that Stephens seemed too young to be considered as an equal adversary for Bond. And quite frankly, some of his dialogue seemed overblown . . . even when Moon was not doing his Gustav Graves' impersonation.

MI-6 agent Miranda Frost turns out to be the mole who initially turns Bond's life, upside-down by betraying his mission to Moon and the North Koreans. Rosamund Pike gives a subtle peformance as the treacherous Frost, who seemed to blow hot and cold toward the sexually interested Bond. Her performance, in fact, strongly reminds me of American actress Grace Kelly's performance in the Hitchcock film, "TO CATCH A THIEF". However, I did have problems with Pike's love scenes with Brosnan. She seemed to come off as a little too breathless . . . and fake. Perhaps that breathless quality was meant to be an indication of Frost's fake (or real?) desire for Bond. If so, I feel that Pike may have overplayed her scene a little bit. Sophie Marceau did a more subtle and superior job in "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH". And like Brosnan, Berry and Stephens, Pike had to endure spouting some bad dialogue. Rick Yune portrayed Zao, Graves/Moon's right hand man, who is wanted for terrorist acts by the Americans and the Chinese. He is the very Zao who is exchanged by the Americans and the British for Bond at the North/South Korea border. Aside from his imposing presence, I did not find anything particularly unique about Yune's performance. All I can say is that he did a competent job. On the other hand, I found myself being very impressed by Will Yun Lee's performance as Gustav Graves' alter ego, Colonel Moon. Like Toby Stephens, he did a beautiful job in capturing Moon's arrogance, impatience and great need to impress "Daddy". And speaking of Moon's father - namely General Moon - it seemed a pity that the latter did not turn out to be Bond's main adversary. Kenneth Tsang portrayed the North Korean general as an intimidating and intelligent man that no one would want to trifle with. Even Bond seemed to feel the presence of his forceful personality after a joke failed to make any impact. I must commend Tsang on an impressive performance.

Judi Dench returned as M in "DIE ANOTHER DAY". By this time, she had made the role of MI-6's director as her own. But I must say that I did not find anything unique about her performance in this movie. John Cleese went from Q's assistant to the Quartermaster in his second appearance in the Bond franchise. And if I must be honest, I enjoyed Cleese's performance very much. Unlike his role in "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH", he did not ruin his character's sharp wit with ridiculous slapstick. I realize that I am about to commit an act of sacrilege, but I found myself preferring Cleese's Q to the one created by the role's original actor, the late Desmond Llewellyn. Do not get me wrong. I thought Llewellyn did a great job. But I simply preferred Cleese's more acid take on the role. Colin Salmon returned as M's assistant, Charles Robinson. I like the guy, but I barely noticed him in this movie. I did notice Michael Masden's performance as Jinx's NSA boss, Damian Falco. Who could help but notice? The Falco character came off as an aggressive blowhard. It seemed a shame that I found Masden's performance appalling, considering his reputation for portraying his past characters with more subtlety. I can only assume that he was forced to adhere to the Bond franchise's cliche of "the Ugly American". And finally, there is Samantha Bond as Moneypenny. Poor woman. Poor, poor woman. I disliked her sexual innuendo-spewing performance in "TOMORROW NEVER DIES". But I had to wince through that embarrassing sequence that featured Moneypenny's holographic dream of being seduced by Bond. Personally, I feel that Ms. Bond managed to reach the nadir of her tenure as Moneypenny and her career in that scene.

I think that it seemed fitting that "DIE ANOTHER DAY" marked the Bond franchise's 40th anniversary. In many ways, the 2002 movie reminded me of its 40-year counterpart, 1962's "DR. NO". The older movie featured Sean Connery's first performance as Bond. "DIE ANOTHER DAY" featured Brosnan's last. Both movies featured the first appearance of the leading ladies, emerging from the water. Both featured Asian or part-Asian villains. And both seemed to be hampered by what I feel were schizophrenic plots and production styles.

Actually, that is the main problem I had with "DIE ANOTHER DAY". Like "DR. NO", its story was presented in a manner in which the first half seemed more like a spy thriller and the second half, a fantasy adventure reminscent of Bond movies like "GOLDFINGER", "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE", "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" and "MOONRAKER". And instead of the two styles blending seemlessly into a solid movie as the 1977 movie managed to achieve, "DIE ANOTHER DAY" nearly became a schizophrenic mess. I enjoyed the first half very much. Bond's capture by the North Koreans, his and Zao's exchange and the search for the MI-6 mole who had betrayed him felt like a genuine spy thriller . . . well, except for that ludicrous moment in which Bond appeared in the lobby of a Hong Kong hotel. Unfortunately, screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade really screwed up the movie's second half in two ways. They had Q present Bond with that invisible Aston-Martin, which still makes me wince to this day; and they sent him to Iceland and that ridiculous ice hotel. Even worse, they subjected fans to that ludicrous ice duel between Bond (in the Aston-Martin) and Zao (in a Jaguar XKR). The movie's second half also featured the uninspiring fight between Bond and Graves/Moon aboard a military transport over Korea. The only scenes that truly made the movie's second half worthwhile were the tense scene that featured Miranda Frost's revelation as the mole and her deadly fight with Jinx aboard the transport.

Lee Tamahori ("MULLHOLAND FALLS" and "ALONG CAME A SPIDER") directed "DIE ANOTHER DAY". I thought he did a pretty solid job. But I suspect that he may have been hampered by Purvis and Wade's schizophrenic script - especially the movie's second half. Speaking of the script, I think I may have already said a lot about it. On second thought, perhaps not. For example . . . the dialogue. Yes, the movie had a some good lines. But like "DR. NO", it pretty much sucked. To be more specific, the dialogue containing sexual innuendos pretty much sucked. But that seemed to be the case in most of Brosnan's 007 films. If "TOMORROW NEVER DIES" seemed annoyingly peppered with bad innuendos, "DIE ANOTHER DAY" seemed to choke on them. I truly felt sorry for Brosnan, Berry and Pike who had to spew them every now and then. Cinematographer David Tattersall had beautifully captured the exotic color of Cuba and London's elegance. But that is as far as my admiration can go. I simply could not drum up any excitement over the Korea and Iceland sequences. Madonna sang the movie's title song (penned by Madonna and Mirwais Ahmadzar) and made a cameo appearance as a fencing master named Verity. Many fans raised a fuss over her contributions to the movie. Frankly, I found their fuss a waste of time and Madonna's contributions - both the song and the cameo - rather mediocre.

On the whole, I disagree with the prevailing view that "DIE ANOTHER DAY" was the Bond franchise's worst movie or one of the worst. Frankly, I have seen worse Bond films. In fact, I have a slightly better view of "DIE ANOTHER DAY" than I do of the movie it was supposed to be celebrating - namely "DR. NO". But it seemed a shame that Brosnan's last Bond film had to be one of sheer mediocrity.

"DIE ANOTHER DAY" (2002) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 20th James Bond movie, "DIE ANOTHER DAY". Directed by Lee Tamahori, the movie starred Pierce Brosnan as James Bond:



"DIE ANOTHER DAY" (2002) Photo Gallery

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (2005) Review

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (2005) Review

To my knowledge, there have been at least ten screen (film and/or television) adaptations of Jane Austen's 1813 novel,"Pride and Prejudice". I believe it has been adapted more times than her other five novels. This is not surprising. It is probably the most beloved of her six novels. I have seen four of those adaptations, myself. And one of them is director-writer Joe Wright's 2005 film adaptation.

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" starred Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen as Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. The story focuses on Elizabeth's dealings with marriage, manners and other issues in the landed gentry society of late Georgian England. Elizabeth and her four sisters are encouraged by their mother to find a suitable husband before their father's estate is inherited by a distant male cousin. The Bennet family is heartened by the blossoming romance between Elizabeth's older sister Jane and a wealthy bachelor named Charles Bingley, who has rented a neighboring estate. But the family are unaware that Mr. Bingley's even wealthier friend, Fitzwilliam Darcy, has grown attracted to the extroverted Elizabeth. However, obstacles block the path of true love. Mr. Darcy and Bingley's snobbish sister Caroline disapprove of his romance with Jane, due to the poor behavior of Mrs. Bennet and her three youngest daughters. And Elizabeth has developed a deep dislike of Mr. Darcy, due to his own distant and haughty behavior. Through a series of setbacks and misunderstandings, true love finally flourishes in the end.

Wright's adaptation of Austen's novel was a box office hit and earned numerous award nominations, including a Best Actress nomination for star Keira Knightley. But like the 1940 adaptation with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, this 2005 film has attracted a great deal of criticism from Austen fans for its failure to be closely faithful to the novel. Many have complained how Wright changed the dynamics within the Bennet family. Others have complained by the less than sterile appearance of the Bennet estate and the movie's late 18th century. As far as many readers were concerned,"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" should have been set between 1811 and 1820 - Britain's Regency era, since the novel was published in 1813. So, how did I feel about Wright's take on Austen's novel?

I might as well be frank. I did have problems with "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE". I could have understood Wright's decision to portray the Bennet household with a less than pristine appearance. The Bennet manor was not the first to be portray in this style. The Western home in 1963's "TOM JONES" looked a lot messier. But Squire Western lived on the estate by himself, until the arrival of his daughter Sophie and his sister Aunt Western. Mrs. Bennet managed the family estate in Wright's movie. One would think she and the house servants would be able to keep a cleaner home. And I was not that impressed by most of the costumes worn by the Bennets. I found them rather plain and worn for an upper class family from the landed gentry. Mind you, they did not have the same amount of money as Mr. Darcy or the Bingleys. Except for the Netherfield ball sequence, their costumes seemed to hint that they barely possessed enough money to scratch out a living. Yet, at the same time, they had both house and field servants?

I was not impressed by the change of dynamics between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. They seemed a bit too affectionate in comparison to their portrayals in other movies. Wright's decision to make this change seemed to defeat the purpose of Austen's narrative. He forgot that the incompatible marriage between the well-born, yet caustic Mr. Bennet and the middle-class and boorish Mrs. Bennet was one of the major reasons that led youngest daughter Lydia to leave Brighton with the roguish George Wickham. Mrs. Bennet's shrill manners and obsession with matrimony for her daughters, and Mr. Bennet's cynical disregard for his wife and society led to their failure to discipline their youngest daughters - Lydia and Kitty. But we never see this in Wright's film. He had every right to justify Mrs. Bennet's search for future sons-in-law. But the affection between her and Mr. Bennet makes it difficult to explain their failure to discipline Lydia and Kitty.

I also had a problem with George Wickham. I felt sorry for Rupert Friend. He is a very good actor who was handed over a role that turned out to be a ghost of its former self by Wright. Friend is also a very handsome actor. But he was really not given the opportunity to display Wickham's charm and talent for emotional manipulation. Worse, the Elizabeth/Wickham scenes failed to convey any real friendship between the two, before Elizabeth's discovery of his true nature. They were simply not on screen together long enough to justify Elizabeth's outrage over Mr. Darcy's alleged treatment of Wickham. Wright's treatment of the Charles Bingley character was also a problem for me. I am aware that Mr. Bingley has always sought his friend Mr. Darcy's approval, regarding the other man as his social superior. But Mr. Bingley has also struck me as a more social and extroverted man. Wright made sure that his Mr. Bingley, portrayed by Simon Woods, was socially active. But he also transformed Bingley into a shy and reticent man. And the idea of a quiet Mr. Darcy and a shy Mr. Bingley as close friends does not quite seem right to me.

However, there is no such thing as a perfect film - at least not in my experience. Yes, "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" is a flawed movie. But it is not the disaster that some Austen fans would have many to believe. Despite some changes in the characterization and the 129 minutes running time, Austen's tale remained intact under Wright's direction and Deborah Moggach's pen. And a few of the changes made by Wright and Moggach did not bother me one bit. In fact, I found them rather interesting. One change in the movie involved the Elizabeth Bennet character. This "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE"delved more into the impact of the Bennet family's shenanigans upon her psyche with scenes that featured Elizabeth's brief flight from the crowds of the Netherfield ball, her penchant of keeping personal secrets from her closest sister Jane, and occasional bursts of temper. Many also complained about the film's late 18th century setting, claiming that Austen's novel was a Regency tale. I said this in my review of the 1940 adaptation and I will state it again. There was no law that "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" had to be set in the 1810s because of its final publishing date. Austen's tale is not a historical drama, merely a comedy of manners and a romantic tale. Besides, her novel was originally completed some time in the late 1790s - the same time frame as this movie.

Despite my complaints about the plain wardrobe for the Bennet family, I must admit that I was impressed by most of Jacqueline Durran's costumes - especially for the Netherfield Ball sequence. I felt that the most interesting costume was worn by Kelly Reilly (as Caroline Bingley in the aforementioned sequence:



Some fans felt that Durran made a misfire in the creation of this particular costume, which they believed evoked the high-waisted fashions of the first two decades of the 19th century. They especially took umbrage at her gown's lack of sleeves. What they failed to realize was that women's fashion was in a stage of transition between the late 18th and early 19th century. Older women like Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine de Bourgh wore the older 18th century fashions, while younger females began wearing dresses and gown with a higher waistline. It made sense that Caroline Bingley, being familiar with the more sophisticated London society, would wear such a gown. There is a 1798-99 painting called"Madame Raymond de Verninac" in which the subject wore a similar looking gown:



Other technical aspects of the movie that proved to be a lot less controversial. Roman Osin's photography proved to be one of the movie's biggest assets. I found it lush, yet sharp and rich in color. And it certainly did justice to Sarah Greenwood's production designs and Katie Spencer's set decorations, which captured the look of Britain at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century beautifully. I especially enjoyed the photography featured in Elizabeth's journey with her Gardiner relations to Derbyshire. Another segment that displayed Osin's photography and Greenwood's work beautifully was the Netherfield Ball. I especially enjoyed the tracking shot that touched upon the behaviors and emotional states of the major characters, before finally settling upon a secluded Elizabeth, heaving a sigh of relief.

Wright had the good luck to find himself with a first-rate cast for his movie. Jena Malone's Lydia Bennet struck me as more of a show boater or poseur than any other interpretation of the role. Carey Mulligan gave ample support as her slightly older sister and emotional pet, Kitty. Talulah Riley did a very good job in capturing Mary Bennet's self-righteous nature. Yet, at the same, she was surprisingly poignant - especially during the Netherfield ball sequence. Despite Moggach and Wright's attempts to paint Mrs. Bennet's determination to marry off her daughters in a more positive light, Brenda Blethyn still managed to capture the character's gauche manners and silliness. And for that I am grateful to the actress. Donald Sutherland's take on Mr. Bennet seemed less cynical than Austen's take on the character. Thanks to Moggach's script, Sutherland's Mr. Bennet almost loses his bite. But not completely. Sutherland managed to retain some of the character's sardonic humor. And I really enjoyed his performance in the scene that featured Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth's discussion about her feelings for Mr. Darcy.

Despite my complaints about the characterizations of Charles Bingley and George Wickham, I cannot deny that both Simon Woods and Rupert Friend gave first-rate performances. However, I suspect that Woods was given more to work with, even if Moggach's portrayal of his character struck a wrong note within me. There is an interesting post-script regarding Woods' casting - he was Rosamund Pike's (Jane Bennet) ex-boyfriend, when they filmed "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" together. The movie featured only one of Mr. Bingley's sisters - namely the gold-digging Caroline Bingley. Kelly Reilly's take on the role strongly reminds me of Frieda Inescort's performance in the 1940 movie - cool and sarcastic. Reilly had some choice lines, my favorite being her comment about her brother's guests at the Netherfield Ball:

"I can't help thinking that at some point someone is going to produce a piglet and we'll all have to chase it."

Yes, I realize that Jane Austen did not write it. But who cares? It is such a droll line, even if it was spoken by the unspeakable Caroline. I read somewhere that Joe Wright had convinced Judi Dench to portray Lady Catherine de Bourgh, claiming that he loved it when she "played a bitch". And yes . . . Dench's Lady Catherine was deliciously bitchy. On the other hand, Claudie Blakely gave a nice performance as Elizabeth's best friend, Charlotte Lucas. She also had one memorable moment in which her character tried to explain her decision to marry William Collins, Elizabeth's unpalatable cousin. "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" marked the first time Keira Knightley worked with Tom Hollander. His Mr. Collins did not strike me as obsequious as previous versions. For some reason, Hollander reminded me of a socially awkward geek. The scene featuring Mr. Collins' attempt to get Mr. Darcy's attention struck me as particularly funny. Penelope Wilton and Peter Wight gave solid performances as Elizabeth's aunt and uncle, the Gardiners. But I did not find them particularly memorable. Rosamund Pike made a very beautiful and charming Jane Bennet. She perfectly conveyed the character's shyness and penchant for thinking too good of others.

Matthew MacFadyen was not that well known to U.S. audiences when he was cast in the role of Mr. Darcy. I realize that I am going to attract a good deal of flak for this, but I am glad that MacFadyen did not try to recapture Colin Firth's take on the role. An actor or actress should never try to copy another's performance. Frankly, I thought MacFadyen did a fine job on his own. He is the only actor to openly convey Mr. Darcy's inability to easily socialize before the story's second half, due to some silent acting on his part. I especially enjoyed his performance with Knightley featuring Elizabeth's rejection of Mr. Darcy's first marriage proposal. But Keira Knightley, as Elizabeth Bennet, contributed just as much to the scene as he did. For some reason, the actress has attracted a great deal of bashing from moviegoers. I will not try to determine the reason behind their behavior. But I will compliment Knightley for her performance. Like the other actresses who have portrayed Elizabeth, she conveyed all of the character's wit, prejudices and exuberant nature. But thanks to Moggach's screenplay, Knightley was given a chance to put a new spin on Elizabeth's character. Due to the Bennet family's behavior, Knightley was able to convey Elizabeth's increasing emotional distance from them. Many critics did not care for this new spin on the character. I, on the other hand, found it fascinating and new.

Joe Wright's "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" has its flaws. There is no denying it. But I can say the same for the other three adaptations of Jane Austen's novel that I have seen. For me, the movie's virtues outweighed its flaws. And its biggest virtues were Roman Osin's photography and a memorable cast led by the talented Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen. This was Joe Wright's first film and so far, my favorite he has done during his seven years as a director.

"GONE GIRL" (2014) Review

"GONE GIRL" (2014) Review

I have a confession to make. I have never read Gillian Flynn's 2012 novel, "Gone Girl". Which means I would be the last person to compare it to its 2014 film adaptation, directed by David Fincher. But in regard to my opinion of the movie, I am more than happy to give it. 

"GONE GIRL" is a mystery thriller about a Midwestern man, whose wife has gone missing. Due to a lack of a body, Nick's behavior and clues pointing to him being his wife's killer, the police, the media and the public begin to suspect that he may have killed her. "GONE GIRL" begins on the fifth anniversary of Nick and Amy Dunne, in which Nick announces his intentions to divorce Amy to his sister Margo "Go". When Nick returns to his home, he discovers that it is in disarray. He also realizes that Amy is missing. While a team under Detective Rhonda Boney investigates Amy's disappearance and Nick, the movie reveals flashbacks of their five-year relationship - from their first meeting at a party in New York City; their courtship and wedding; the economic and personal woes that led them to movie to Nick's Missouri hometown; his affair with a local college student; and their eventual estrangement. Because Amy's parents had used her as their inspiration for their "Amazing Amy" children's books, her disappearance catches the attention of the media. By the movie's mid-point, Detective Boney and the North Carthage police come to believe that Nick had murdered his wife. It is also at this point when the narrative reveals that Amy is not only alive, but had framed Nick for her murder.

I might as well say it. "GONE GIRL" is an emotionally crazy film that can almost put the ABC series, "SCANDAL", to shame. Its first half seemed like your typical, yet well done mystery thriller about the disappearance of a spouse. But once the narrative reveals that the missing woman, Amy Dunne, is actual alive, the movie transforms into this wild and crazy tale filled with lies, desperation, greed, obsession and melodrama. The ironic thing about "GONE GIRL" is that this transformation did not harm the movie's narrative one bit. If anything, it made the movie more interesting. And I have to thank Gillian Flynn, who not only wrote the novel, but also the screenplay; and director David Fincher for keeping this insanity under control and making it believable. 

Another aspect about "GONE GIRL" that I found very interesting is that it provided an interesting insight into the illusions that exist in our society. The movie explored the downside of celebrity and the media's culpability into it. This exploration of celebrity even reveals how families (including Amy's parents and her own marriage to Nick) exploits it for their own gain. Three scenes remind me of this - the revelation that Amy's parents used her life as the inspiration for their novels, Nick's performance on a talk show in order to prove his innocence, and the performance that both he and Amy give in the movie's conclusion to prove the happy state of their marriage.

The visual style for "GONE GIRL" seemed to possess that rich, smooth look that marked other films directed by David Fincher. I am not surprised. The cinematographer for this film, Jeff Cronenweth, had worked with Fincher in three other films. I especially enjoyed how Cronenweth's recaptured the color and look of the Midwest, especially the movie's location shots in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which served as North Carthage. The movie also benefited from Kirk Baxter's editing. The latter certainly had his work cut out for him in the movie's second half. I wish I could say that I found Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score memorable. But I would be lying. All I can say is that it served the movie very well and there did not seemed to be a flat note out of place. Trust me, I have seen movies in which the score and the narrative seemed to be in a state of conflict.

There are three things about "GONE GIRL" that made it incredibly memorable for me. I have already commented on David Fincher's direction and Gillian Flynn's narrative. What I have not commented on are the performances featured in the film. There were supporting performances that struck me as enjoyable, yet brief. Scoot McNairy gave an interesting and realistically frantic performance as Amy's ex-boyfriend, who had an unpleasant break-up with her, when he failed to live up to her expectations. Missi Pyle was a hoot as the Nancy Grace-style commentator that spent most of the movie accusing Nick of murder. Lisa Banes and David Clennon gave subtle performances as Amy's ambitious and snobbish parents, Marybeth and Rand Elliott. Patrick Fugit gave a sly performance as Detective Boney's sardonic assistant, Officer James Gilpin. Emily Ratajkowski was solid, yet sexy as Nick's young mistress and student, Andie Fitzgerald. Sela Ward gave a brief, yet amused portrayal of TV talk show hostess Sharon Schieber.

"GONE GIRL" proved to be the first motion picture I had seen Neil Patrick Harris in years. And his role as Amy's college boyfriend, Desi Collings, was the first dramatic role I had seen him do. Personally, I thought he did a fantastic job in portraying the controlling Desi, whose obsession with Amy struck me as rather creepy. The best thing about Harris' performance is that it proved to be subtle, yet effective. Tyler Perry seemed to be having a ball as Nick's famous and successful defense attorney, Tanner Bolt. The actor did a great job in conveying his character's legal smarts and common sense. Of all the characters, Perry's seemed to be the most amused. And his hilarious, yet spot-on assessment of Nick, Amy and their marriage nearly had me on the floor, laughing. Aside from Perry, Kim Dickens gave the most grounded performance in the film as the North Carthage police detective, Rhonda Boney, who is assigned to investigate Amy's disappearance. I rather enjoyed Dickens' no-nonsense performance and was rather relieved that her character did not automatically assumed Nick's guilt, while conducting the investigation. I have never seen Carrie Coon before "GONE GIRL" (I have only seen one episode of HBO's "THE LEFTOVERS" and did not recall seeing her in it). And she proved to be a revelation as Nick's twin sister, Margo "Go" Dunne. I thought she did an excellent job of balancing Margo's pragmatic and frank opinion of both Nick and Amy, and at the same time; willingness to allow Nick to emotionally manipulate her. Superficially, Margo seemed like a cut-and-dry role. But Coon did such an excellent of exploring the character's emotional state.

"GONE GIRL" has been out in theaters for over a month-and-a-half and already, the media has Rosamund Pike pinpointed for an Academy Award nomination for her performance as the complex and manipulative Amy Dunne. Frankly, I agree with him. I thought she did a superb job in portraying Amy's chaotic moral compass and her penchant for wallowing in illusions that extended to molding the men in her life to fit her "perfect" image of manhood. There were moments when Pike's performance seemed in danger of sliding into theatricality. But in the end, the actress kept her performance under control. Ben Affleck seemed to have no trouble in keeping his character, Nick Dunne, under control. One could say that he seemed to have little difficulty in portraying Nick's complacent and occasionally lazy personality. Many have claimed that Affleck was merely playing himself. I will not make such an assumption, considering I do not know jack shit about Affleck's true personality. I will state that I was more than impressed by his brilliant portrayal of Nick, who proved to be, underneath the lazy douchebag persona, just as chaotic as Amy. And like her, he possessed a talent for manipulation and wallowing in illusions.

Although Rosamund Pike is being touted by the media for an Academy Award nomination, I have not heard anything similar for Ben Affleck or the movie in general. Personally, I believe it is one of the better movies I have seen this year. And I believe it deserves numerous nominations - not just for Pike, but also for Affleck, Carrie Coon, writer Gillian Flynn and David Fincher. Regardless of whether it receives numerous Academy Award nominations or not, I look forward to the day when it is finally released on DVD. It is that good.

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (2005) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery featuring photographs from the 2005 version of Jane Austen's novel, "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE". This version stars Keira Knightley and Matthew McFaydden:


"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (2005) Photo Gallery