"Gone", Rated "PG-13" for Adult Situations, Strong Language, Some Violence, Some Disturbing Imagery. Running Time: 1hr.&34mns.
*1/2 (Out of ****)
Amanda Seyfried seems likable enough. She's a talented young actress who's been in supporting roles and is now crossing over into headlining territory. She's got the smarts, acting chops and the good looks to be an engaging actress in the years to come. In my opinion, to a degree, she resembles a young Michelle Pfeiffer.
Having noted these things, I'm still trying to understand what Seyfried was doing in "Gone." No doubt, this film was designed as a vehicle for Ms. Seyfried. I'm sure there will be other roles for her to shine in, but in "Gone" she is wallowing in the mire.
The film opens with the lovely Jill Conway scouring a forest outside of Portland, Oregon. She alleges she was abducted a year earlier by a lunatic who brought her to the woods and placed her in a hole in the ground with human remains: dead women, to be exact. After all this time, she believes this woman-killer is still on the loose. Her deepest fear is he will come looking for her to finish the job he started with her. Jill's sister Molly (Emily Wickersham, "I am Number Four") has moved into Jill's house to keep an eye on Jill. Their relationship is a symbiotic one. Jill has a mounting paranoia about a supposed loony on the prowl and Molly is a recovered alcoholic. Together, they keep each other in check.
After waitressing late one night, Jill returns home to discover her sister has vanished. Molly's disappearance does not jive as she was studying for a test and all her clothes are accounted for except for the night-time garments she was wearing when Jill last saw her. Frantic, Jill searches for her sister. In Jill's mind, there is only one possibility for what happened to Molly: the man who kidnapped Jill a year earlier has returned. Jill believes he kidnapped Molly with the intent of killing her as revenge for Jill escaping from him. Now, I realize the movies are generally tall tales to begin with, but for the lunatic to plan over a year to get back at Jill, the one girl to have gotten away, seems an overly ludicrous conclusion for Jill to arrive at. But I digress.
There are the obvious questions about this film's set-up. Why wasn't the killer ever brought in? Why wasn't the hole in the woods with the human remains ever discovered? Why haven't the police found anything to support Jill's claims? What is Jill's next move? The partial answer to these questions is somewhat "Hitchcockian": Jill previously spent some time in a psyche ward. Oh. This hinders Jill's credibility as the victim of a mad-man. The police doubt he was real at all. What about the hole in ground? What hole in the ground? The police were never able to find it. Oh.
"Gone" works on the premise that all cops are stupid, unbelieving and inept to do their jobs. We are introduced to three of them: Lt. Bozeman (Michael Pare, "Leverage") who is authoritative and easily agitated (sounds like my high school study hall teacher) ; Detective Lonsdale (Katherine Moenning, "The L Word") who looks about as bored as this movie's audience (at least she looks sharp in her leather coat and messy straw-like hair) ; and the sympathetic Detective Peter Hood (Wes Bentley, "The Hunger Games") who looks like he belongs in a "creepy guy" edition of GQ. Given Jill's past, the police all believe she is crazy. Jill came in on a Friday with her complaint, but as far as they are concerned it can keep until Monday. Feeling that nobody can be trusted, Jill sets out to find her sister and confront the crazed stalker for once and for all. Hmmm
If it wasn't for Amanda Seyfried's charm and good looks, I could not imagine how anybody could make it through this movie. The dialog is horrendous, the situation is preposterous and there are a lot of wasted opportunities with the story. Here's an example of a wasted opportunity: We know why the police don't believe Jill's story. Wouldn't it have been interesting if Jill herself had doubt on her own story? What if she questioned if the events of the previous year had happened at all or if the events only took place in her head? The filmmakers don't even go there. Here is a chance to keep the audience guessing if the threat is even real or imagined. This is just one of many ideas totally blown.
If you're concerned about spoilers, read no further . . .
How about the killer? I couldn't help but wonder about this guy. What motivates him to do what he does? Why didn't the police ever find any physical evidence on this guy? Didn't anyone else in Portland think it was just a little weird that all these women disappeared? Was anybody looking for them? Surely you can't have a pile of decaying women in a hole in the woods without someone asking questions about their whereabouts. I also found it hard to believe the killer would be a homeless guy who did his handiwork out in the woodland. How could he have had any income to buy materials for his crimes and rent vehicles? The movie doesn't tell you. This guy has no other purpose than to drive the story. There is absolutely no depth to him and there is no real sense of danger either. Heck, just to have said he was the boogeyman would have been at least something.
"Gone" is completely devoid of any real emotion, plausibility and suspense which are the keystones to any effective thriller. If you were to fall asleep at the movies and miss a movie completely, this would be the one to sleep through.
*1/2 (Out of ****)
Amanda Seyfried seems likable enough. She's a talented young actress who's been in supporting roles and is now crossing over into headlining territory. She's got the smarts, acting chops and the good looks to be an engaging actress in the years to come. In my opinion, to a degree, she resembles a young Michelle Pfeiffer.
Having noted these things, I'm still trying to understand what Seyfried was doing in "Gone." No doubt, this film was designed as a vehicle for Ms. Seyfried. I'm sure there will be other roles for her to shine in, but in "Gone" she is wallowing in the mire.
The film opens with the lovely Jill Conway scouring a forest outside of Portland, Oregon. She alleges she was abducted a year earlier by a lunatic who brought her to the woods and placed her in a hole in the ground with human remains: dead women, to be exact. After all this time, she believes this woman-killer is still on the loose. Her deepest fear is he will come looking for her to finish the job he started with her. Jill's sister Molly (Emily Wickersham, "I am Number Four") has moved into Jill's house to keep an eye on Jill. Their relationship is a symbiotic one. Jill has a mounting paranoia about a supposed loony on the prowl and Molly is a recovered alcoholic. Together, they keep each other in check.
After waitressing late one night, Jill returns home to discover her sister has vanished. Molly's disappearance does not jive as she was studying for a test and all her clothes are accounted for except for the night-time garments she was wearing when Jill last saw her. Frantic, Jill searches for her sister. In Jill's mind, there is only one possibility for what happened to Molly: the man who kidnapped Jill a year earlier has returned. Jill believes he kidnapped Molly with the intent of killing her as revenge for Jill escaping from him. Now, I realize the movies are generally tall tales to begin with, but for the lunatic to plan over a year to get back at Jill, the one girl to have gotten away, seems an overly ludicrous conclusion for Jill to arrive at. But I digress.
There are the obvious questions about this film's set-up. Why wasn't the killer ever brought in? Why wasn't the hole in the woods with the human remains ever discovered? Why haven't the police found anything to support Jill's claims? What is Jill's next move? The partial answer to these questions is somewhat "Hitchcockian": Jill previously spent some time in a psyche ward. Oh. This hinders Jill's credibility as the victim of a mad-man. The police doubt he was real at all. What about the hole in ground? What hole in the ground? The police were never able to find it. Oh.
"Gone" works on the premise that all cops are stupid, unbelieving and inept to do their jobs. We are introduced to three of them: Lt. Bozeman (Michael Pare, "Leverage") who is authoritative and easily agitated (sounds like my high school study hall teacher) ; Detective Lonsdale (Katherine Moenning, "The L Word") who looks about as bored as this movie's audience (at least she looks sharp in her leather coat and messy straw-like hair) ; and the sympathetic Detective Peter Hood (Wes Bentley, "The Hunger Games") who looks like he belongs in a "creepy guy" edition of GQ. Given Jill's past, the police all believe she is crazy. Jill came in on a Friday with her complaint, but as far as they are concerned it can keep until Monday. Feeling that nobody can be trusted, Jill sets out to find her sister and confront the crazed stalker for once and for all. Hmmm
If it wasn't for Amanda Seyfried's charm and good looks, I could not imagine how anybody could make it through this movie. The dialog is horrendous, the situation is preposterous and there are a lot of wasted opportunities with the story. Here's an example of a wasted opportunity: We know why the police don't believe Jill's story. Wouldn't it have been interesting if Jill herself had doubt on her own story? What if she questioned if the events of the previous year had happened at all or if the events only took place in her head? The filmmakers don't even go there. Here is a chance to keep the audience guessing if the threat is even real or imagined. This is just one of many ideas totally blown.
If you're concerned about spoilers, read no further . . .
How about the killer? I couldn't help but wonder about this guy. What motivates him to do what he does? Why didn't the police ever find any physical evidence on this guy? Didn't anyone else in Portland think it was just a little weird that all these women disappeared? Was anybody looking for them? Surely you can't have a pile of decaying women in a hole in the woods without someone asking questions about their whereabouts. I also found it hard to believe the killer would be a homeless guy who did his handiwork out in the woodland. How could he have had any income to buy materials for his crimes and rent vehicles? The movie doesn't tell you. This guy has no other purpose than to drive the story. There is absolutely no depth to him and there is no real sense of danger either. Heck, just to have said he was the boogeyman would have been at least something.
"Gone" is completely devoid of any real emotion, plausibility and suspense which are the keystones to any effective thriller. If you were to fall asleep at the movies and miss a movie completely, this would be the one to sleep through.