![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Gone Girl
Just finished watching the David Fincher film Gone Girl and the best thing about it was Rosamond Pincher who played Amy Bloom, and that's saying something. I've admittedly never understood the appeal of Gone Girl. The plot seems sort of cliche to me. (Maybe I've just seen and read too much in this particular genre? And far better films and books within it?) Nor is it particularly good noir -- and I've read and watched a lot of noir in my lifetime. But Double Indemnity it's not. Or even close to the brilliant The Last Seduction starring Linda Forentino. It tries real hard to be cool -- with a clever plot twist, but alas, if you are at all familiar with this genre, you sort of see the plot twists coming a mile away. Amy's not likable and she's played sort of cold by Rosamond Pincher. Ben Affleck, unfortunately, plays Nick in somewhat the same manner, coldly. Neither appear to care much about anything, so as a result it's hard to care much about them.
And their characters just service the plot - they aren't really developed much beyond that. Just stereotypes of the upper-class NY and Midwestern couples, I've yet to meet anyone like this in reality - but they certainly haunt the pages of popular novels and television screens from "Revolutionary Road" to "Little Children". But not flesh and blood. It was hard to care about anyone in the story, and it felt as if the writer was more interested in exposing our media obsessed culture - where the media twists and embellishes the crime, inserting lots of hyperbole. Amy is a boilerplate sociopath, with a fucked-up childhood and narcissistic parents. Her hubby, Nick, isn't all that much better - a bored suburban husband who gets it on with a college student and co-owns a bar with his drab and somewhat clueless twin sister. Through most of the film, I felt as if I had seen it all before.
If you are a fan of David Fincher -- I'd skip this one and just re-watch either the Social Network, Seven, or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo...at least you won't be bored. And if you love neo-noir films...watch Body Heat, Last Seduction, Double Indemnity, the Postman Always Rings Twice, and the French films Les Diaboliques and Tell No One.
I didn't read the book, so I can't comment on how close it was to the original. However, Gillian Flynn, the writer of the book, also adapted the screen-play. So I'm guessing characters aren't her thing and I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the book all that much either.
2. The Astronauts Wives Club -- this has more in common with the failed ABC series Pam Am or The Playboy Club than it does Mad Men or The Hour. The characters are once-again, plastique, pretty, and dull. The series focuses on the Astronauts Wives or the women behind the men who went into space. But it doesn't really do anything interesting with them, nor expand on what we've already been told via news reels. Let's face it Glenn, Grissom, Aldrin, and Shepard kept their private lives fairly private.
It's a shame, considering we're talking about the 1960s and the US Space Race. There's a lot you could play with there - specifically the sexism of that time period and the NASA space program. But alas, ABC plays it safe and doesn't, instead it's depicted with glossy-eyed nostalgia for a by-gone era, which only existed in movies and news reels. Rent the films "The Right Stuff" or "Apollo 13" instead.
So much wasted potential.
3. Proof -- is about an ER doctor who had a near death experience, resulting in almost seeing her dead son again. She's contacted by a philanthropist portrayed by Matthew Modine who is about to die of cancer and wants to know if there is any proof of life after death. After a lot of hemming and hawing, and some issues with her teenage daughter, she finally agrees and builds a team. It has potential - if only in the casting of Jennifer Beals, Modine, Joe Morton...and the guy who plays her assistant, a Nigerian Doctor. But other than that -- not much to grab me.
4. Game of Thrones
Hmmm...we're off book for practically everyone but Ayra and Jon Snow. Which is interesting. Also interesting how they combined both of Tyrion's ship journeys in the books, and various characters. Jorah Mormount, who I'm guessing may not be long for this world dang it, has been combined with another character from the books. I like what they've done with Tyrion's storyline -- they got rid of a lot of the filler. Same deal with Jamie Lannister, Brienne, and Little Finger. Little Finger they've made far cleverer and far more fiendish than he was in the books. They've also made Cersei smarter than she was portrayed in the books and less insane.
Now if only it were less violent and sadistic. These writers are worse than George RR Martin when it comes to killing off characters and sadistic violence. Also, at least we had Lady Stone-heart in the books killing off the Frays. Not here. I think we're stuck with Stannis and Brienne.
I have a feeling that I'm not going to be able to watch Sansa's storyline this season without cringing. Oh well, at least they didn't feel the need to show us the rape scene in graphic detail -- which is more than I can say for Outlander.
Just finished watching the David Fincher film Gone Girl and the best thing about it was Rosamond Pincher who played Amy Bloom, and that's saying something. I've admittedly never understood the appeal of Gone Girl. The plot seems sort of cliche to me. (Maybe I've just seen and read too much in this particular genre? And far better films and books within it?) Nor is it particularly good noir -- and I've read and watched a lot of noir in my lifetime. But Double Indemnity it's not. Or even close to the brilliant The Last Seduction starring Linda Forentino. It tries real hard to be cool -- with a clever plot twist, but alas, if you are at all familiar with this genre, you sort of see the plot twists coming a mile away. Amy's not likable and she's played sort of cold by Rosamond Pincher. Ben Affleck, unfortunately, plays Nick in somewhat the same manner, coldly. Neither appear to care much about anything, so as a result it's hard to care much about them.
And their characters just service the plot - they aren't really developed much beyond that. Just stereotypes of the upper-class NY and Midwestern couples, I've yet to meet anyone like this in reality - but they certainly haunt the pages of popular novels and television screens from "Revolutionary Road" to "Little Children". But not flesh and blood. It was hard to care about anyone in the story, and it felt as if the writer was more interested in exposing our media obsessed culture - where the media twists and embellishes the crime, inserting lots of hyperbole. Amy is a boilerplate sociopath, with a fucked-up childhood and narcissistic parents. Her hubby, Nick, isn't all that much better - a bored suburban husband who gets it on with a college student and co-owns a bar with his drab and somewhat clueless twin sister. Through most of the film, I felt as if I had seen it all before.
If you are a fan of David Fincher -- I'd skip this one and just re-watch either the Social Network, Seven, or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo...at least you won't be bored. And if you love neo-noir films...watch Body Heat, Last Seduction, Double Indemnity, the Postman Always Rings Twice, and the French films Les Diaboliques and Tell No One.
I didn't read the book, so I can't comment on how close it was to the original. However, Gillian Flynn, the writer of the book, also adapted the screen-play. So I'm guessing characters aren't her thing and I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the book all that much either.
2. The Astronauts Wives Club -- this has more in common with the failed ABC series Pam Am or The Playboy Club than it does Mad Men or The Hour. The characters are once-again, plastique, pretty, and dull. The series focuses on the Astronauts Wives or the women behind the men who went into space. But it doesn't really do anything interesting with them, nor expand on what we've already been told via news reels. Let's face it Glenn, Grissom, Aldrin, and Shepard kept their private lives fairly private.
It's a shame, considering we're talking about the 1960s and the US Space Race. There's a lot you could play with there - specifically the sexism of that time period and the NASA space program. But alas, ABC plays it safe and doesn't, instead it's depicted with glossy-eyed nostalgia for a by-gone era, which only existed in movies and news reels. Rent the films "The Right Stuff" or "Apollo 13" instead.
So much wasted potential.
3. Proof -- is about an ER doctor who had a near death experience, resulting in almost seeing her dead son again. She's contacted by a philanthropist portrayed by Matthew Modine who is about to die of cancer and wants to know if there is any proof of life after death. After a lot of hemming and hawing, and some issues with her teenage daughter, she finally agrees and builds a team. It has potential - if only in the casting of Jennifer Beals, Modine, Joe Morton...and the guy who plays her assistant, a Nigerian Doctor. But other than that -- not much to grab me.
4. Game of Thrones
Hmmm...we're off book for practically everyone but Ayra and Jon Snow. Which is interesting. Also interesting how they combined both of Tyrion's ship journeys in the books, and various characters. Jorah Mormount, who I'm guessing may not be long for this world dang it, has been combined with another character from the books. I like what they've done with Tyrion's storyline -- they got rid of a lot of the filler. Same deal with Jamie Lannister, Brienne, and Little Finger. Little Finger they've made far cleverer and far more fiendish than he was in the books. They've also made Cersei smarter than she was portrayed in the books and less insane.
Now if only it were less violent and sadistic. These writers are worse than George RR Martin when it comes to killing off characters and sadistic violence. Also, at least we had Lady Stone-heart in the books killing off the Frays. Not here. I think we're stuck with Stannis and Brienne.
I have a feeling that I'm not going to be able to watch Sansa's storyline this season without cringing. Oh well, at least they didn't feel the need to show us the rape scene in graphic detail -- which is more than I can say for Outlander.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-06-22 06:51 pm (UTC)SPOILERS FOR GAME OF THRONES: Also agree that most of the streamlining of GoT is an improvement, but do miss Lady StoneHeart. I didn't think it was quite as clear that Jon Snow was really dead at the end of the book as it is in the HBO version, but then, there's a lot of argument that there are various ways for him to be alive.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-22 10:02 pm (UTC)On GoT - I still have 4 episodes to go, but I'm sort of spoiled on what is going to happen by various media outlets. (If you don't want to be spoiled on that series, you either have to ignore media outlets or watch it as it airs.)
Agreed on Lady Stoneheart - while there were aspects of that story thread that grated, other aspects worked very well and lent some humor to the story. (Stoneheart hunting the Frays.) But I can sort of see why they cut it -- too difficult to pull off and far too convoluted.
Haven't seen Snow's death on screen yet, but I thought it was pretty clear he was dead in the book. When I read it -- I thought, okay, there's no way he could have survived that. But, we do have the whole "warg" thing set up -- so who knows.
Not sure how that's going to work on the television series - they haven't really set up the warg bit with Snow or Ayra on the television series, only with Bran. So...he may actually be dead on the tv show.
Was surprised they killed off Ser Barristan - I don't think Martin killed him the books.
And I was spoiled on Myrcella dying - which does not happen in the books. So, hmm.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-22 10:06 pm (UTC)And yes, lots of violence, rape, mayhem, and death in the TV that's not in the books. And god knows there was plenty in the books.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-23 01:07 am (UTC)And yes, lots of violence, rape, mayhem, and death in the TV that's not in the books. And god knows there was plenty in the books.
I've noticed that as well. I don't see why they felt the need to add more -- it's not as it there wasn't enough already in the books. Modern Television writers are more sadistic than GRR Martin.
And it seems to be a trend with somewhat well-written television series at the moment -- almost as if the writers are attempting to see just how much they can get away or how badly they can shock their audience.
I'm at the point in which...I sort of expect them to kill off/or torture characters and am surprised when they don't. It's no longer shocking or all that interesting. Yeah, yeah, so you killed off so and so, totally saw that coming. YAWN. When a few years back it was..."OMG I can't believe they killed ____."
no subject
Date: 2015-06-23 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-06-23 01:55 am (UTC)So the book is slightly better, I take it?
My problem with Amy is that she wasn't interesting. Very flat and ineffectual character, so I assumed that it was how she was written? I don't mind unlikable characters as long as they are interesting. This character...just felt one-dimensional and somewhat flat.
And, yeah, Outlander went way too explicit with rape. Just ugh. I hated GoTs use of rape, and even that paled in comparison to Outlanders repeated use of it.
I've had the last four episodes of Outlander taking up space on my DVR for months now. I read the book -- I knew what was coming. It was pretty graphic in the book, but hey it's a book - you can skim. Ron Moore unfortunately likes to do graphic rape and torture scenes (see BSG, DS Nine and Caprica). So...I've been procrastinating watching those last four episodes. I may just refrain entirely. Already warned a friend of mine to do so.
Unfortunately --the writer, Diana G, likes to use rape to forward characters and plot threads. [According to one Amazon reviewer - DG has every single major character and some of the supporting ones raped at least once in the books, to the point that the reviewer found it to be unrealistic and overkill. I mean come on - every major protagonist? That was enough to make me give up on books right there. So don't need that in pleasure reading, thank you very much. Not sure I'm going to be able to stick with the television series for the same reason.] It's lazy writing in my opinion and a common plot device in romance novels - because let's face it, sex doesn't tend to move the action forward unless it's dramatic or a fight scene. It slows it down. So a lot of romance novelists think --" oh, I know, I'll do a rape scene -- that not only pushes forward the action, it sets up huge obstacles between the couple, causes all sorts of romantic tension, and plus character development. I mean, if one of the character's is raped they won't be able to have sex with the other character for a bit...and so I can build up the sexual tension until they finally heal each other through it."
It's been so overused by the genre, it's become a cliche. I keep wanting to tell them -- find another way to push the action forward. This is lazy.
Felt the same way about various soap operas and *cough*Whedon*cough*.
If you can't figure out how to move the action forward with a sex scene, don't write sex scenes. But don't decide to use rape to do it.
That said, I'm apparently in the minority on this point -- since the Outlander series is a huge Best-Seller, and has millions of fans. The one's who are bothered by the continuous use of rape as a plot point --- obviously aren't that bothered by it.
People bewilder me.
no subject
Date: 2015-06-23 03:06 am (UTC)2) I'm not a great judge of the book. I really hated it. But Amy was far more energetic in the book, and she had a much different voice in my head. The thing is I found the presentation of the diary flashbacks weird in the movie. The point was that she sounded positive and (supposedly) sympathetic in the diary entries (even chipper) it seemed 'off' that the flashbacks and diary entries were so monotone and flat. They weren't coming across the way that she would have intended. (The only thing I found interesting was how those 'sympathetic' entries seethed with passive aggressive rage, and that was totally lost in the movie and it was the only part of the book that was worth a damnable because the 'twist' was obvious from the beginning. The book had energy. The movie didn't. But I didn't enjoy either. (If anything it is more obvious in the book that shes framing him)