MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
I've read that this was only ever supposed to be an indie film - hard to believe considering it has at least 3 household names starring in it, but reading this thread about how low-key the release was and how few cinemas ran it, maybe there is something to it.
The book it's based on predates Gone Girl and supposedly the movie rights were bought and it was in pre-production before Gone Girl started to happen. Unfortunately for this project, by the time it was ready for distribution, the movie adaption of Gone Girl was out, which had a much bigger theatrical release and was made by a more accomplished director.
So instead of just being an independent, dark film based on an even darker novel, the timing of its release meant that the movie now had to suffer in comparison to Gone Girl. It was just really unfortunate timing on the movie's part.
Then, just for good measure, Gillian Flynn's earlier novel, Sharp Objects, was later made in to a star studded, heavily promoted and highly acclaimed TV series.
So even though it was the first of Flynn's stories to be translated to film and, to reiterate, was just supposed to be a niche alternative movie, it now just looks like the poor relation to Flynn's other 2 screen adaptions.
Ironically, it's about the same luck as the Day family having to killers visit in the same night.
if i've worked this out right, the above comment was written in 2015 - I think Gone Girl was already out, or at least it was known that Rosmund Pike would be in that. But it's 3 or 4 years before Amy Adams was cast as the lead in the TV adaption of Gillian Flynn's other novel! That's quite spooky
I'd be more concerned by this casting had I not watched Young Adult, in which she plays a mentally unstable and damaged 30-something, and does so superbly. I suppose the difference is that in YA, the fact that she's a beautiful woman is part of her character and to an extent the story, and just makes it all the more tragic.
As others have pointed out, Libby's limp, missing fingers (that are impossible to hide and would attract attention and, for those who know, instantly mark her as Libby) and short stature are a huge factor.
After typing my first paragraph, I'm thinking Charlize would have made a great adult Krissi Cates (although Adrianna also seems perfect for the role)
apparently he sold the rights to his back catalogue in the late 1990s so wouldn't get any royalties for his songs being used now (this only came to light after the much more high profile use of his music in Joker!)
I think it was Calvin who dictated when and how it would happen. His all-too-short chapter in the book explains that he'd encountered Runner in the bar earlier that night and taken such a dislike to him that he wanted to frame him for it. He must have heard - either from Runner's loose lips in the bar, or from Patty herself when they met, that there'd been a loud and heated argument at the house earlier that evening, witnessed by her kids and I think her sister too, and therefore doing it that night - just a few hours later - would make everyone point to Runner all the more.
Also it was hammered home to her, both by Calvin and the guy who set them up (Len?) that Ben would need the life insurance money immediately for the mess he was in, and so the sooner it happened the better. As someone's stated, it was still Christmas break from school, they possibly weren't back in until the following Monday, nearly a week later, and it couldn't wait that long to have it happen in the daytime.
I'd have to read this again - I didn't realise the plan was for the "murder" to take place at the front door, I thought he was supposed to come into the house and stab her when she entered the living room (which was risky if one of the children got up for a drink at that time!).
The front door would make more sense because Calvin mentions that he wanted to frame Runner for it, or at least make his life difficult for a while as he'd be the prime suspect.
It begs the question then as to how and why did Calvin go into the house?? If Patty didn't come to the front door at the agreed time, would he not just figure the plan was off?
knowing that she had a way out and that she'd be leaving soon filled her with so much relief that for the first time in forever she relaxed and that's why she fell asleep.
Explained easily in the book but impossible to portray in the movie, one of many reasons it apparently didn't work and was so poorly received
they didn't keep the secret for 20 years - after the murders (which only happened around 12 hours after the lies about Ben blew up), the girls all got so scared that they'd summoned something supernatural that they all told the truth.
Krissi's parents never trusted her after this though, the family moved away but soon broke up, Krissi's descent in to her adult life as a stripper had begun, and so, on the rare times she was asked about it, adult Krissi would blame Ben for ruining her life and once again exaggerate the stories. Not sure what happened to the other girls.
There's a lot more circumstantial evidence about this in the book too, which doesn't seem to be fully explored in the film - when Ben put the "provocative" note in Krissi's ("cubbyhole" sounds wrong here!), a teacher saw him, and saw that he had a boner while doing so (which he had because he was thinking about sex with Diondra at the time), and he then lied that he was there to leave something or get something for his sister., which only made him seem more guilty.
They found animal....parts....in his locker (which Diondra had put there), all of which pointed to him being a depraved Satan worshipper who wanted to sacrifice children.
Worst of all, the detective told Patty that the accusing girls had said he'd kept their underwear as souvenirs - unbeknownst to Patty, Ben had recently brought a bag full of second hand small girl's clothing for his & Diondra's baby. So when Patty found this in his room, she feared the worst and had to believe that he really was going to go to jail as a child molester.
The molestation rumours were kept out of the trial - in the book, Lyle explicitly states this when talking to Libby - says the only good thing Ben's defence lawyers did was successfully argue that the 2 were unrelated. And by then it didn't matter because he's going down for life for triple murder anyway.
Of all the tragedies in the book, that Patty died believing her son really was a child molester is possibly the worst of them.
in the book Libby's a clepto (something that's apparently not in the movie at all) and steals a lipstick from the bathroom, and this is later used to match Diondra's DNA to the blood on the bedsheet or maybe to Michelle's bedclothes or whatever.
MariaDeluca is right about the reveal in the book but i think the movie covers it differently.
while that was ridiculous enough, I found it beyond farfetched that both murderers would be "caught" at the same time, 25 years later, through completely separate investigations
she does gasp and starts to scream as the guy stabs her, which does come across that she's surprised - however, that may just be instinct/reflexes on her part
....Therefore, in the book the fact that he'd never appealed his conviction - it wasn't just about protecting Diondra and the baby, it was also his guilt from failing to do anything about all 3 murders that happened that night. He feels like he deserves to be in prison for his inaction.
Not sure how much Ben's trial is covered in the movie, but in the book, he does plead innocent, and while his convinction is largely because he denies being home that night at all (in order to protect Diondra), even though he'd earlier testified a partial truth that a man broke into the house that night and did it, another factor behind his conviction is that, still being the insecure teen, he wants to come across as a "badass" and so struts like being on a murder charge is no big deal, like the deaths of his family haven't bothered him, brags in court about satan worship and generally behaves un-co-operatively with the court. He later explains to Libby that he knew he hadn't done it and was therefore convinced that he'd be acuitted because he was genuinely innocent.
Maybe someone can correct me, but in the movie, it sounds like it's implied that he's actively taken the rap for it all purely to protect Diondra.
I'm coming here having read the book but not seen the movie, other than the trailers and a couple of clips.
It's sounds like, in some ways, Ben's made more sympathetic in the movie (like the fact that he does succeed initially in stopping Diondra's attack on Michelle), in some ways he isn't - from the info I have at this time, he seems less abused and manipulated by Diondra, plus it sounds as though Tre's only with them for a short time in the movie whereas in the book he's with them all afternoon/evening, constantly belittling Ben throughout.
I have seen the massacre scene online and it does play out a little differently - in the book, Ben cowers in the sister's bedroom until the commotion in the hallway has stopped (and this goes on for a lot longer because Calvin chases Debbie with an axe while Patty tries to stop him!), and as others have pointed out, in the book Ben merely stands with his hands on Diondra's shoulders while she strangles Michelle (it's worth noting though that, when he comes back to the room, he says "is she OK" to which Diondra has to tell him "no, she's dead", so at this point I don't think Ben's thinking straight and doesn't realise the enormity of what Diondra's doing) - in the movie, Ben rushes into the hallway when they hear the shots but by then it's too late - the damage is already done and Calvin's got away. And it's only while Ben's out of the room because of this that Diondra is able to murder Michelle......
if we're going to mention this, think we've also got to mention Barzini's stunt double when he gets shot. Goes tumbling down those stairs like an acrobat, after a couple of rolls the hat comes off and you can see the longer hair flopping around.
Could easily have been avoided if he'd just dropped dead on the top step, but I suppose it looks better and more dramatic to see him rolling down the stairs
it might be one of the many scenes in the movie that becomes a lot clearer by reading the book, which I haven't. My best guess, though, is that the question caught him off-guard and so answering it that way shut down any further questions about the Tattaglia's involvement, and also assured them that whatever the Tattaglias did make, it wouldn't affect the Corelone's share or profit.
If we want to go deeper, there was something to hide because we learn much later on that "it was Barzini all along" and that Tattaglia was merely the front for this - however, it's unclear how much, if anything, Solozzo knows about this - he could have been getting played too
completely agree, and don't understand the consensus that 2 is better.
Maybe at the time, in the early 1970s, sequels were usually just cheap spin-offs rushed out to cash in on the success of the original, so for a sequel to still be of such high quality and as good as pt2 was, was a pleasant surprise to the critics and viewing public and maybe that's where it's come from.
In fact, maybe it showed that, when done well, sequels can form part of a series and make the original not such a standalone as the only movie of that franchise worth seeing, and maybe this paved the way for the Star Wars trilogy as the decade ended.
For me, though, it doesn't even compare to 1. I'd be typing forever explaining why I feel that way.
I've never thought about that, maybe because they don't explicitly state the the Tattaglias will also get at least 30%. Vito is being offered such a high share because he's fronting the start-up money and providing police and political protection. I just assumed the Tattaglias were being paid a set amount/fee for whatever they were doing for him. In fact, if the Tattaglias were better off than the Corleones, surely Solozzo would be asking them for the million and just asking Vito to use his political influence.
don't forget the "Aussie" surfers too
Death on a stick out there mate
yeah! It would transition so smoothly from the rain when Utah's doing his FBI training to the rain at the fake Bells Beach.
I wonder how it would play if they cut from the end of the first chase (with Utah screaming and firing his gun into the air) to the Australia finale. We're already about 80 minutes in at this point, and after this, the movie, for me, loses momentum and drags, all the soap opera with Tyler, even the scene where they force him to accompany them on the robbery just doesn't work for me and it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't like that Bodhi suddenly got greedy and went for the safe. Plus, as I've stated on other threads, I struggle to believe that Utah would carry on living in the same place and carry on seeing Tyler now after his cover was blown.
To pad the running time out a bit more, they could maybe have shown more of Utah surveiling Bodhi's gang and observing them staking out the bank. Maybe they catch him watching them and the sky-diving scene could happen after this but before the robbery - all the tension for how it plays out in the final cut would still be there - both know but they have to act like they don't.
As it is, it just goes from Utah suddenly suspecting them based on the fact that he sees one of them mooning to the big chase scene in the space of a couple of minutes - a quick discussion with Papas for exposition, and the comic-book-reading stakeout, and then bang, robbery is happening. Maybe that's the point though, that it happens suddenly.
Another problem with my way is that we'd have missed out on Bodhi's gang and Papas being killed, which obviously ups the stakes for the finale - although maybe that could happen during the first chase, leaving Bodhi as the only survivor, getting away on foot after the car exploded with his people still in it (and Papas could have been shot during this too). Either way, Bodhi still had to go down. People trusted him and they died.