BOOK VS MOVIE: Gone Girl

If there's one thing that's never completely perfect, it's marriage. Sure, the early years might seem perfect, but it's never that way as time wears on. Because after all, who are you really married to?

That's a theme that's been in countless works of fiction, the most recent entry being Gone Girl. It's easily one of the acidic depictions of marriage ever captured. Seriously, you thought George and Martha form Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? had a toxic union.

Gillian Flynn's novel is just dripping with hatred and contempt. Usually that's a trait for perhaps either a lone scene or even a character. But for a whole novel? That is a daring move. (A Jane Austen quote comes to mind: "I hate to hear you talk about all women as if they were fine ladies instead of rational creatures. None of us want to be in calm waters all our lives.")

Apart from a few tweaks here and there (some scenes/minor characters removed, minor details altered), Flynn keeps the viciousness very much alive in David Fincher's adaptation. And as expected from any Fincher film, the cast is sublime. Everything about the film is so deliciously wicked, but nothing can top Flynn's script. (Oh, and Rosamund Pike's performance.)

But which of the two reigns supreme? The novel is very good (even though some might think otherwise) though Flynn manages to improve it for the film. But both are fine works in their own right, so choosing is a bit hard. (Thankfully, not too hard.)

What's worth checking out?: The movie.

BOOK VS MOVIE: Fight Club

It takes a lot for anyone to depict the complete mayhem within a society. Sometimes it doesn't even take too much imagination  since such mayhem happens every day in real life at every waking moment. (It's true. Just pay attention to the news.)

Also look at Fight Club. The mayhem throughout the whole story is insane on every level yet it seems sane when in comparison to anything that happens in real life. (Believe me, I know life is weird.)

Chuck Palahniuk's writing style is sporadic, manic and completely off the wall. And I love it. Usually manic writing styles put me off, but Palahniuk somehow drew me in. Maybe it was just the story he told, but who knows? (Not me, that's for sure.)

I think had I not read Palahniuk's novel, I wouldn't have understood David Fincher's film in the slightest. (Then again, I might have been able to if I tried hard enough.) But Fincher, Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham Carter know how to make Palahniuk's outlandish story come to life.

Both Palahniuk's novel and Fincher's film both depict the very dark side of anarchy and nihilism. But Fincher's film makes understanding the story Palahniuk originated more easier. (Palahniuk himself said that Fincher improved his novel.) Also, is it weird that I think Fincher's film could make for an interesting double feature with Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master?

What's worth checking out?: The movie.

The Game

Is there a weird requirement that directors names David have to make at least one film that fits into the fucked-up category? Hey, that theory has been proven by the likes of Lynch and Cronenberg.

Another David that tests the theory is David Fincher. His entry is The Game, made between Se7en and Fight Club. In all honesty, I was shouting "What the FUCK?" a lot when I was watching it. Mind you, that's a good thing.

I'm tempted not to say anything about the plot since I'm still trying to piece together the whole thing. However, I will part with some knowledge of it. What The Game focuses on is a conspicuous corporation. There, that's all I'm saying.

There are so many factors to The Game that practically make it Fincher's tribute to both Hitchcock and Frankenheimer. Along with Fincher's meticulous direction, there's also Howard Shore's eerie music. Also, the immense lack of light, natural or otherwise, amps up the creepiness of it all.

Holy crap, The Game is messed up. It drags on a bit in the middle, but it's really effective. If you want to make your brain work a mile a minute, then David Fincher's The Game is your best bet.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Social Network

I gotta admit, David Fincher sure knows how to direct a good movie. Whether it's scaring the hell out of you (Se7en), bringing back a piece of the past (Zodiac) or giving us a shot of testosterone (Fight Club), he knows how to get audiences.

In the fall of 2003, Harvard undergrad Mark Zukerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) comes up with an idea for a new form of communication, now known as Facebook. It's a success after only a few years, but grievances between co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), and between himself and Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer) lead to numerous complications.

Eisenberg and Garfield continue to show great promise for their careers. I found it ironic that Timberlake was cast as the founder of Napster, but he pulled it off. Hammer is also equally impressive in a dual role. Aaron Sorkin's writing is wickedly funny and sharp (pay attention to the scene where Eduardo is accused of animal cruelty). The only other movies by Fincher I've seen are Se7en and Zodiac, so it was almost a relief that I didn't get scared. Trent Reznor's score managed to fit the mood. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that The Social Network will be mentioned a lot come awards season.

My Rating: *****

Se7en

I have seen several horror movies and numerous Alfred Hitchcock movies, all of which only scared me a little bit. But the one movie that truly scared the hell out of me was Se7en.

Days from his retirement, veteran detective William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is teamed up with his replacement David Mills (Brad Pitt) to solve a series of murders based on the seven deadly sins. Will they find the killer before his demented plan is complete?

As I was watching this, I felt parts of my back go numb. At first, I thought it was nothing. Then I realized what it was: I was literally paralyzed with fear.

This is definitely not a movie to toy with. The opening credits along prove that. The Howard Shore music just make every scene creepier. The murder scenes are unsettling and the suspense almost puts Hitchcock to shame. Kevin Spacey, in my opinion, was practically primed to play a villian, mainly because his supposedly calming voice is actually really unnerving in this. If you're looking for a movie that's guranteed to scare the fuck out of you, your search is over.

My Rating: *****

Zodiac

I've stated before I'm interested in criminology. The type of crimes I'm the most interested in are the unsolved ones.

Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a cartoonist who works for the San Francisco Chronicle. His quirky ways irritate Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.), a reporter whose drinking gets in the way of doing his job. The two become friends thanks to a shared interest: the Zodiac killer. Graysmith steadily becomes obsessed with the case, as Avery's life spirals into drunken oblivion. Graysmith's amateur sleuthing puts him onto the path of David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), a police inspector who has thus far failed to catch his man. Graysmith's job, wife and children all become unimportant next to the one thing that really matters: catching the Zodiac.

Although I very much admired Se7en, I think David Fincher tried too hard to make Zodiac like it. But I still like it. Gyllenhaal, Downey and Ruffalo give good performances. I probably would've liked it more if it was just a little shorter. If you're interested in criminology like I am, I recommend Zodiac to you.

My Rating: ****1/2