A couple of pretty big plot holes, but that’s not unusual for movies of this type, it’s a awful lot to keep in the air.
Biggest difference between the book and the movie that I noticed (if I’m remembering the book correctly): b/rednecks who rob Amy know (or strongly suspect) who she is; the m/rednecks just know that she’s hiding something and won’t want to get the police involved.
I saw the film yesterday, and I really enjoyed it. I will be recommending it to my friends. I knew nothing of the book, but knowing it was a Fincher film, and was getting great word of mouth, it was a film I figured I had to see.
For positives, I’m already a big fan of Fincher, he’s done my favorite film (Fight Club) and some others I really enjoyed, and now that I’ve seen it, he definitely was the right director for this. His pacing was excellent, though not quite perfect, and he pulled some stellar performances out of the cast. And from that, I will be shocked if Rosemund Pike doesn’t get an oscar nod. Her performance was captivating and terrifying. Obviously, her character was going to outshine everyone, but it really was the subtleties that brought what could have been a flat character to life; just enough frailty and uncertainty to make the frigidity and calculating nature not purely dominate. And on that note, also an excellently subdued performance by Affleck. Hell, I’m not a fan of Tyler Perry, but he was quickly lost in the character of the lawyer. I also loved the satire of the media and the little speckles of humor throughout to keep it from getting too heavy. There were also nice little clues throughout it that hinted at coming parts without giving it away. For instance, him checking his phone discretely through the first part of the film, clearly eluding that it was something he was hiding, and then it made sense when Andie showed up. I’m interested in seeing it again, though probably not in theaters, to see what other subtle hints I may have missed.
For some negatives, while for the most part the pacing was great, it did drag in a few spots, though I’m not really sure how it could have been rectified. After the big reveal in the middle, it needed to walk through everything, but I felt like it went on a little too long. Similarly, I liked the portion with Amy in hiding with the rednecks, but I felt that dragged on a little too long. The issue I had was just that I had a feeling for about 10 minutes or so there like the movie should have been drawing to an end and it kept going and I wasn’t sure why. To some extent, I like that, because it kept me anticipating what was going to happen, but it just dragged on a little long. Same with the whole section of Amy living with Desi. It was clear pretty quickly that she was setting him up, and I was waiting for the hammer to drop. Admittedly, though, I was caught off guard when she slashed his throat, and that might not have quite been as effective without the build; I’m unsure. And, I felt the weakest character was the detective, she just struck me as incompetent, which is fine for the character, but why would she be running such a high profile case if she was without more oversight from the state or FBI. She was one of the first responders to the missing person report, and it seems strange that she would both be both.
Not having read the book, I was definitely caught by surprise by most of the twists. Obviously, the big twist in the middle was probably difficult to translate, and I thought it was pulled off about as well as it could be. For those who have read the book, my biggest curiousity is about Amy’s parents. Did they go into more depth in their characters in the books? It seems clear to me that a big part of how she ended up being who she is is because of the Amazing Amy books and the whole idea of appearances and superficiality. Surely her upbringing and her parents’ flaws would have given us some insight into why. I’m also still not completely sure exactly what parts were real and which parts were made up. Maybe that’s part of the idea?
Last comment, though, is on the ending. I loved it, and I liked how it came full circle to the beginning. The whole audience, I’m sure, was hoping that Bolt and the detective would help Nick catch her, but instead we’re left unsettled that he’s stuck in such a terrifying situation. A bold move on Fincher’s part, and the theater was dead silent as the film ended.
We’re not given any more info on Amy’s parents in the book than we get in the movie IIRC. The endings of both the book and the movie are equally appalling, and equally effective, I’d say. Now go read the book, Blaster Master - you won’t be sorry!
Here’s NPR’s review of the movie, with links to two good essays - one with spoilers, one without - that are also worth a look: Who's Worth Your Trust In Fincher's Moody, Atmospheric 'Gone Girl'? : NPR
I thought the presentation of the parents was one of the most skillful parts of the book. Without telling us outright, Flynn succeeded in showing us that Amy’s parents were passive-aggressive douchebags–and that, as you surmised, their influence (and genes?) must surely have contributed to Amy’s sociopathy.
I read that Gillian Flynn added the bit about Nick’s “villainous chin” because Ben Affleck had been cast in the role, with the dimple in his chin.
I noticed that in the movie, there was a much quicker, simpler introduction to Amy’s parents and their role in Amy’s attitude than I remembered in the book. It was a year or two ago, but I remember understanding their influence on her much better in the novel. I even commented on the way out that this important detail was glossed over, and there wasn’t nearly as much explanation of why she was so bitter and resentful in the movie.
Kind of spent 5 minutes on how they stole her childhood, rubbed in her failures, made a lot of money, etc. and that’s why she turned out so awful.
I guess I thought the movie as a whole spent a lot more time on Nick’s POV than really fleshing Amy out.
As opposed, I guess, to the people who wrote “Sleeping With the Enemy,” “Sling Blade,” “Fried Green Tomatoes,” “What’s Love Got To Do With It,” “Once Were Warriors,” and a hundred more, not to mention the entire lineup of Lifetime.
Flynn actually takes the more common theme and to some extent turns it on its head (though there’s a lot more to the story than merely domestic violence, so it’s really not that simple.)
Note that most of the entertainment (movies and television) products you mention here are relegated to the “chick flick” category. “Sling Blade” isn’t–but the rest* are pretty much titles that men groan at being asked to watch.
Top dollar is earned by entertainment products–books, movies, television, what-have-you–that please men, and that’s because in general women will consume those products without complaint. Both men and women will buy tickets to Sling Blade, but once a “chick flick” designation is applied, men are less likely to buy a ticket. Entertainment products that aim at pleasing women are ghettoized (and males will watch them only under protest). Entertainment products that aim at pleasing men just make more money, because they get a wider audience.
That’s really all I’m pointing out; I just find all this kind of thing interesting. I’m not saying that one form of entertainment is better than the other.
Isn’t that what I was pointing out? 
*I’m not familiar with Once Were Warriors. From the title I’d guess it might belong with *Sling Blade *in the “not a chick flick” category, but…?
“Sleeping With The Enemy” was a suspense film.
Really, what this has to do with Gillian Flynn “throwing her own gender under the bus” I don’t understand. Flynn writes a movie with a female sociopath and a husband who is, if not a sociopath, a man of highly questionable character at best. It’s a pretty good suspense yarn. “The Silence Of The Lambs” doesn’t throw men under the bus, or psychologists, does it?
No more so than Agatha Christie did Englishmen, or Dashiell Hammett Americans, or Simenon Frenchmen, I think.
These posts seem to express a misconception: namely, that I was claiming something along the lines of whatever demographic qualities a story’s villain has, that’s a demographic group being Thrown Under the Bus by the story’s author.
That’s not what I was claiming.
Stories (and by that I mean novels, screenplays, teleplays, and so on) vary in the extent to which their authors attempt to please their target audiences–aka “pandering.” One method of pandering to an audience is to make the villain a stand-in for whatever group the audience presumably resents.
But the throwing of the author’s own self-identified demographic group under the metaphorical bus happens only in a fraction of all cases of written works that pander-to-an-audience.
A familiar example might be a male writer selling a typical virtuous-woman-in-danger-from-murderous-man teleplay to Lifetime Original Movies.
It’s possible to write a woman-in-danger-from-man story that contains no pandering at all (and no throwing under busses). But it’s also possible to write a story with that plot that’s chock full of pandering to the Lifetime audience of women who would enjoy two hours of viewing a perfectly noble, pure, and self-sacrificing woman being victimized by a cold, unappreciative, selfish, and violent man.
A man who would write such a teleplay is certainly throwing his own gender under the bus. But, hey: it’s a living! (And it can be a good one.)
It’s the shaping of the characters to make those of one demographic trait sympathetic, and those of another demographic trait demonic, that makes it pandering. And if that shaping follows the pattern of ‘writer shapes characters of his or her own self-identified demographic trait as being by nature Awful and Reprehensible and No Damn Good,’ then we get the type of pandering that includes the flinging of bodies under mass-transport vehicles.
Both Nick and Amy are unlikeable people. I still don’t see any of this “throwing ones own gender under bus” you seem to be so fond of claiming. If you think that either Nick or Amy was portrayed as “noble, pure and self-sacrificing”, then I don’t even know what to say.
I saw this movie yesterday and really enjoyed it. I did not read the book and only saw a preview on-line.
I really enjoyed it. The acting was perfect. The story was interesting and surprising.
I was shocked that Amy was so devious and enjoyed her distress at having to return to her stalker to get help because she had planned everything so well but didn’t account for being robbed of all her cash. Take that, mean girl.
NPH makes a pretty good bad guy.
I liked Detective Boney, too. She is a sharp cookie finding clues right of the bat and marking them with post-it notes (I could really feel how scary and awkward that would be to someone) and then again in the end asking hard questions of Amy at the press conference that everyone else ignored because Amy was still a sympathetic character to the public eye.
I even liked the ex-boyfriend. His creepy story of his experience dating Amy just shows how devious she was (is) which makes you fear for Nick’s future. He is either gonna have to get real smart real quick or he may wind up dead or in trouble in the future. I don’t really think he’s a bad guy. Or maybe he is… He did push her a couple of times and cheat on her. Hmm…
It’s odd that the movie left them in an unresolved situation. Usually a movie will wrap things up.
I’ve read the book; haven’t seen the movie. In the book, both Nick and Amy are very much shown “warts and all” as the book progresses, with various unsavory revelations coming at differing times, of course. Each has moments of seeming sympathetic, and at other times they are shown thinking or doing things that look questionable.
At story’s end, though, Nick is voluntarily choosing to stay with someone he not only doesn’t love, but (for good reason) fears–all For The Sake of a Child. Many seem to see this as admirable behavior, even if Nick wasn’t presented as Noble etc. from page one. For example, the person who posted just after you:
If you read around on the Internet you’ll see a lot of sentiment to the effect that Nick really came through as a good guy in the end, sacrificing his own happiness and safety in order to protect a child, even if he was kind of a jerk earlier in the story.
And, when the heck did Amy get pregnant? She was with her ex-stalker for a few weeks wasn’t she?
I thought she’d saved it from the sperm bank and used that, despite him thinking it had been destroyed.
Yes (sperm bank).
In the book it’s mentioned that Nick found a letter from the sperm bank to both of them, notifying them that the sperm would be destroyed at the end of such-and-such period, in the trash. The conclusion Nick drew about Amy’s attitude turned out to have been erroneous.
I have one question after seeing it yesterday. Did Nick actually attack Amy before the disappearance? The flashbacks are from Amy’s diary, but after that scene it’s revealed that Amy is an unreliable Narrator.
No, that was a lie, too.