Gone Girl is a film that primarily revolves around the idea of perspective, whether that be a husbands perspective of his marriage, a wife's changing perspective of her husband, the perspective of the police in a missing persons investigation or the perspective of the media as the investigation develops. It follows the disappearance of Amy Dunne from the small town where she lives and the growing media circus surrounding her husband, Nick Dunne, told from both Nick's point of view during the investigation and Amy's point of view in flashbacks taken from her diary, two narrations that offer very different perspectives of the same marriage.
To say any more about the plot could ruin it - even though Gone Girl was released four years ago - this is a film that deserves to be seen with as little previous knowledge as possible. The film contains one of the most interesting, captivating stories that draws you in from the start and consistently subverts expectations and develops in unpredictable ways, never letting go of the audience.
It's a film of two distinct parts, splitting the running time fairly equally between a mystery and a thriller, separated by a plot twist that is only obvious in retrospect. The film keeps a consistent tone throughout, a grim reality that is used to mask the more unbelievable aspects of the story while also allowing the dark humour embedded in the film to get through. Large parts of Gone Girl are pure satire, particularly the parts involving the medias growing interest in the case and how easily they decide that the husband is guilty based on pure speculation. It's a mocking look at the witch-hunt mentality that the media can inspire, with one scene in particular having a sympathetic, supporting crowd turning into an angry mob in seconds based on a few sentences from one person.
Originally presented as the archetypal couple, both Nick and Amy Dunne are fully realised, three-dimensional characters by the end of the film, each of them conforming to and then subverting audience expectations. The film slowly peels away the layers of deception that covers their marriage as it progresses, each new reveal taking the story in a new direction while also changing the audiences perception of the plot and the characters involved. I can only assume that the casting of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike was deliberate here - both actors that have struggled with typecasting in the past and since the films release, being used to portray characters that are constantly battling the idea that they are being defined by their relationship despite their efforts to avoid that.
Both of the leads play their characters excellently, with Pike in particular giving a career defining performance. Both Nick and Amy are characters that the wrong actor or the wrong director could have easily mishandled, but there is a deft touch throughout that keeps things on track. If people are still doubtful of Affleck's acting abilities after his mid-Nougties losing streak, Gone Girl is surely the film to change minds if Argo didn't already. There is something to be said for the supporting cast as well, with a lot of strange casting decisions (including Tyler Perry and Neil Patrick-Harris) really paying off.
Gone Girl has defied expectations throughout and isn't afraid to make an audience feel uncomfortable. It's tense, enthralling and at times darkly funny, and it has one of the most interesting, memorable and down right loathsome antagonists of recent years.
The Hobbit trilogy can only be defined by it's complete lack of restraint, the same restraint that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy so good, and The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies is a near perfect example of why this lack of restraint matters.
It's a perfect example of the padding that was added into Jackson's King Kong and the earlier Hobbit films, but this time we have an entire film that is easily 80% new material, or additions to pre-existing events that serve no real purpose. Tauriel has almost nothing to do, the addition of Legolas to the proceedings adding nothing of value to the film other than the rule of cool and Gandalf's adventures are quickly dealt with to move onto what the trailer referred to as the defining chapter in Middle Earth - a nice way of selling the film, but one that is thoroughly incorrect. The result of the battle is inconsequential to the only character that the audience actually cares about, and being as this is a prequel, we already know who survives, so any dramatic tension that could have been built in that regard is already gone by the time the audience is in their seats.
Despite this focus on one battle, action fatigue fails to set in. The film periodically takes breaks from one set piece to focus on another in order to refresh the sense of scale that the battle holds, and for the most past this works quite well. The camera never lingers on one set piece for too long, moving from one set of dwarves to the men to another set of dwarves to Bilbo to the elves and the orcs. This constant movement could have felt jumpy or overly erratic, but it makes the battle feel as large as the battles seen in LOTR. The over reliance on CGI that Jackson has fell into really stands out here though - it would have been nicer to see more practical effects, a highlight of the Lord of the Rings films being the realism given to the battles by the use of extras.
Minor characters in the book are bumped up to major characters status, and it doesn't feel like fan service for the most part thanks to some passable writing and the addition of minor sub-plots that, despite being fairly extraneous to the main story, matter to the characters involved in logical ways.This isn't to say that these sub-plots aren't nonsense, but the film seems to realise this and plays up to it, adding in small moments of humour that wouldn't have been present in the Lord of the Rings. No one will be looking back on The Hobbit films as a solid trilogy in their own right, but at the same time these won't end up as infamously bad as the Star Wars prequels.
I've tried not to go into too many details of the plot itself to avoid spoiling the story for anyone that hasn't read the book that was first published 80 odd years ago, but the meandering nature of the plot does get tiresome before the battle really kicks in, spending too much time setting up the position of each of the armies, and is again indicative of the poor, padded writing that the trilogy suffers from as a whole. There are more flaws than I've gone into here (the best action scene happens near the start, the only interesting sub-plot is wrapped up far too quickly and Bilbo is barely in it), but I don't think anyone expected greatness from this film. The Battle of Five Armies concludes The Hobbit films in the same way they started - full of padding, overly long, but still reasonably fun. It's an entertaining couple of hours, but it isn't a couple of hours you'll be dying to repeat.
