Gone Baby Gone (2007)

[Morbid]

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8442/514p7wkca0lss5002894e98lh6.jpg
(http://www.amazon.com/Gone-Baby-Casey-Affleck/dp/B0010ZR160/dreamindemon-20)
Gone Baby Gone


From Wikiwikiwiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Baby_Gone)
Gone Baby Gone is a critically acclaimed crime drama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drama) directed by Ben Affleck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Affleck), and adapted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_adaptation) by Affleck and Aaron Stockard (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Stockard&action=editredlink). The movie is set in Boston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston), and based on the novel of the same name by Dennis Lehane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Lehane). It stars Casey Affleck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Affleck) and Michelle Monaghan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Monaghan), as Patrick Kenzie and Angela Gennaro, two private investigators hunting for an abducted four-year-old girl in the Boston neighborhood of Dorchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorchester%2C_Massachusetts). Amy Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Ryan) has been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Supporting_Actress) Academy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award) for her performance as Helene McCready in the film.

I finally watched this last night, and believe the reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gone_baby_gone/), it is good. If you are on this site because of the stories, then I definitly would ask that you take the time to watch this, as it touches upon a LOT of what we post on, and discuss. It poses some great discussion topics on what is right and what is wrong on areas that are very, very gray. It is a morally-challenged, neo-noir film, and probably one of the best.

Oh, EVERYONE delivers an exceptional performance, and yes, Ed Harris is the shit.

IMDBAmazon | Wiki

YouTube - Gone Baby Gone

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Really, really liked it actually.

[Morbid]

Really, really liked it actually.

I didn't have any doubts that I would like the film, only because the majority of reviewers whose tastes lign with mine seemed to really like it.

What got me was just how close it hit in regards to all of the stories we post on on the front page. A lot of Rowan Ford stuff came to mind. Hopefully Ben will spend the rest of his time in the "business" behind the camera. He is much, much better there. Casey was surprising, and Amy Ryan deserves every bit of the accolades she is getting. 100 percent believable.

[Hippiepoet]

Oh thank you, Morbid for posting this. Now I want to watch this movie really bad Last night at the movie store, twas' all rented out.
Sounds like a great film.

[Hippiepoet]

I saw this flick last night and loved it. Goddammit it was an emotional roller coaster for me. I love how Ben directed this picture, it was done very well. It felt really "real" and "raw", if that makes any sense at all. I was very touched in parts and there was one certain scene where I just fucking lost it, I think Mr. Hip had a tear in his eye as well.
I absolutely loved Casey Affleck in this film, his character was strong and again, very real. I would watch this again, although it does have some disturbing material with the pedophile incident. It did remind me a lot of what we read here every fucking day, and knowing that, it just brings a profound sadness. I was pretty much speechless after the movie....almost stunned.
I give it a strong 8.5/10.

[Athena]

You know, I watched this movie recently and said to my company that evening, "This movie is practically tailored to the folks on D'D." Nice to see that others thought the same. :)

I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I just assume that, going forward, Ben directs and Casey acts. They're best suited for those respective roles, if I do say so myself.

[TheLittleFriend]

This movie really opened my eyes. The only thing I hate so much is the
disturbing material with the pedophile incident....it made me cry. It was too real for me.

[Dr. Salvador]

great flick. ben should stay behind that camera.

[lisaznola]

I had not heard ANYTHING about this movie before my friend lent it to me to watch.
It was great!
It is the kind of movie that gets into your head and stays with you.
I agree about Ben.

[celtic friend]

I had not heard ANYTHING about this movie before my friend lent it to me to watch.
It was great!
It is the kind of movie that gets into your head and stays with you.
I agree about Ben.
I agree with ya.
I watched We Own the Night, last night was pretty good. Something was constantly happening, kept me interested.

[Mandella]

Watched this the night before I watched that "Family" movie I just posted about.....Very fitting combo, and I had no idea when I picked them up at the video store.

I LOVED this movie, and it upset me to no end.

I seriously think if Casey's character (can't remember his name) hadn't shot the pedo in the head, he would have let Sam Jackson keep the kid at the end. He just couldn't bend twice. Which is stupid. He should bend every single time if it benefits a kid. IMHO.

Made me really understand why his girl left him at the end; I couldn't have stayed either. What a dumbass.

Great fucking movie, though!!!!!!

[swivel]

I seriously think if Casey's character (can't remember his name) hadn't shot the pedo in the head, he would have let Sam Jackson keep the kid at the end. He just couldn't bend twice. Which is stupid. He should bend every single time if it benefits a kid. IMHO.

Then there is a precedent set. Now, someone can come take your kid away from you because they have a lifestyle that will be "better" for the kid in their subjective view.

It is a slippery slope. Casey's character did the right thing, and should do that every single time. Only if the kid is being abused, in an illegal manner, should it be taken away. Otherwise we have complete anarchy, and you had better be ready for someone who knows better to come and take away your children and your pets.

[Mandella]

That "precedence" setting logic only works if you adhere to Kant's categorical imperative, which I do not.

I believe ethics are a little trickier than "do unto others as you would have others do given the same situation," especially when everyone's perception of what is good and right are completely different.

The "Slippery Slope" logic is a common logical fallacy and doesn't hold much water with me either.

I think ethics should be more case-by-case. So, even though I'm against the death penalty overall, I can still say that I think those who (without a doubt) have molested, abused, or murdered children should be killed.

In this case, Casey Affleck's character came in on a situation where a bad mother had her child taken away. Granted, it wasn't state authorized or legal, but it was already done. The girl was adjusting to her new home, and was obviously flourishing. The family was happy to replace a daughter that they had lost. Morgan Freeman's character didn't initiate the exchange, the girl's own family did. He was more than happy to take her, though...given the situation. And I don't blame him.

So, rather than let the girl stay in what was obviously a superior home, Casey Affleck's character took her back to a mother who hardly gave two shits about her. He had Morgan Freeman and his wife arrested and imprisoned.

I don't believe that this situation is often replicated.....how often has it worked out that a retired police officer "aquires" a daughter in a weird twisted kidnapping situation gone wrong? Even if this case were setting precedence, I'd prefer that the girl be kept in the better of the two homes.

I'm not down with just anybody being able to judge any parent and take away just anybody's kids. That's not the case.

But given this exact instance, I think the right action would have been to leave the girl in the safe and healthy home that Morgan Freeman's character was providing.


AND if you're a drugbag mom, and you're negligent and useless, then fuck yeah! you deserve judgement and your kids deserve better.

AND If I were such a piece of shit that my own brother would adopt my kid out for me, then I probably would deserve that.

[swivel]

That's cool. We have a few anarchists on the site that would agree with you.

I prefer a system where we have laws that make sense, and we apply them consistently. The logical flaw in your position is that you pretend that you would apply capital punishment selectively, then list the objective qualifications that you would use (molested, abused, murdered children). So, the law would be that we put to death those that murder their children.

We already have laws where we can take kids away from abusive parents. Now you want a law where we can take kids away from all addicts? And give them to people that have lost their own kids, and will love them a whole bunch? That is anarchy. Laws applied subjectively. You would be on the wrong side of someone else's wishes, I promise you.

Your criticisms of my argument are invalid. You dismiss the "slippery slope" with no reasoning, just the wave of a hand. You invoke Kant, when he has nothing to do with my argument. A categorical imperative is a morally necessary action, required in any circumstance. I am arguing AGAINST an action that you would apply to any circumstance. You are on the wrong side of what you are pretending to believe.

And I never invoked the golden rule, either, so I really have no idea what you are going on about. You are completely wrong in this case, and so is anyone who thinks that Casey's character did the wrong thing.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Awesome. A MOVIE is getting this talked about. How cool is that?

For the record, Casey's character, on the surface, absolutely did the right thing. Freeman's decision led to the deaths of good men. They broke the law. In that respect, Casey was right. However, IF this were real, and that child wound up back with a mother who put this child's life in danger on multiple occasions, then in the end, the decision was NOT right. There are different circumstances for everything, and the child was in a better place with Morgan Freeman's character (not Sam Jackson's, :D). The mother was a slime bucket, not fit to raise a child, and law of no law, the right thing to do for that little girl would be whatever is in her best interest. It was not in her best interest to be back with slimeball mother. Period.

In the end? Casey's decision was a morally right one, but wrong for the child. He satisfied his own moral selfishness at the expense of the child's welfare.

[Mandella]

That's cool. We have a few anarchists on the site that would agree with you.

I prefer a system where we have laws that make sense, and we apply them consistently. The logical flaw in your position is that you pretend that you would apply capital punishment selectively, then list the objective qualifications that you would use (molested, abused, murdered children). So, the law would be that we put to death those that murder their children.

We already have laws where we can take kids away from abusive parents. Now you want a law where we can take kids away from all addicts? And give them to people that have lost their own kids, and will love them a whole bunch? That is anarchy. Laws applied subjectively. You would be on the wrong side of someone else's wishes, I promise you.

Your criticisms of my argument are invalid. You dismiss the "slippery slope" with no reasoning, just the wave of a hand. You invoke Kant, when he has nothing to do with my argument. A categorical imperative is a morally necessary action, required in any circumstance. I am arguing AGAINST an action that you would apply to any circumstance. You are on the wrong side of what you are pretending to believe.

And I never invoked the golden rule, either, so I really have no idea what you are going on about. You are completely wrong in this case, and so is anyone who thinks that Casey's character did the wrong thing.

I didn't say that I wanted a law. Not everything is accomplished through legislation. Actually, in my experience, very little is actually accomplished through legislation. I like the idea of vigilante justice as an option for families of children who have been assaulted.....And that wasn't actually my argument, just an example of the moral dualism within my own logic.

Again, I don't want a law where we can take kids away from addicts and give them to parents that lost kids. Nowhere do I mention establishing a "law" or "precedence." I said I prefer a case-by-case basis. In this case, the right thing would have been to keep the girl in a safe happy healthy home (not back to shithead Mom).

The "slippery slope" argument dismisses itself, I didn't see the need for more than a wave of the hand. Sorry. ;-) As far as Kant, he does have to do with your argument. Not that I even want to keep arguing about a movie at this point, but what the hell, I'm bored at my day job. Hehe. Anyway, when you talk about setting "precedence" on a moral decision, imho, you're talking about Kant's categorical imperitave - that you make decisions....and only those decisions that you would have become a universal law. To me, that's this idea of "precedence" that you're talking about. I'm saying that I don't believe in that line of thinking, that because you've done 'X' that you will consistenly always have to do 'X'. So, just because I believe that Casey's character should have left the girl this time doesn't mean that in another case,I'd find that to be the right thing. I'd evaluate that case by itself as well. No precedence.

I didn't mention the golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", I was talking still about Kant's imperative, but rather than talk about Universal Law, I compared it to the golden rule "do unto others as you would have others do given the same situation." Sorry if that was misleading or confusing.

I absolutely love arguing with anyone and everyone. You're super smart and I appreciate your opionion. But I appreciate it as just that, an opinion. You're no more right than I am. But then again, I embrace dualities and I'm an anarchist, obviously. ;-)

[CPL CHUD]

I really dug this flick. It was kind of tough to follow at parts. Maybe it was the thick Boston accent and slang, but that's really a minor complaint in an otherwise excellent film

I think Casey did the right thing at the end even though the film seemed to invoke feelings otherwise. Morally he was right, legally he was right, but was it for the betterment of the child? I guess the movie wants us to think elsewise, but the precedent they were setting was one that the main character wasn't comfortable with; moral crusade be damned. And the quest to pass judgement certainly caused a lot of grief for the characters in the end, perhaps undo. It complicated things and sped out of control and Casey saw the danger in that. He was also being eaten by the remorse of going vigilante on the pedophile. He simply couldn't bend again, even at great personal cost to himself. There are legal procedures the police force could of went through had they seen the danger the child was in. They went above to law to forefill their own selfish desires. Especially Morgan Freeman. He did something to placate himself at the cost of the child's welfare, the child's family, and his own career as being a police officer.

[Ash Williams]

I really dug this flick. It was kind of tough to follow at parts. Maybe it was the thick Boston accent and slang, but that's really a minor complaint in an otherwise excellent film

I think Casey did the right thing at the end even though the film seemed to invoke feelings otherwise. Morally he was right, legally he was right, but was it for the betterment of the child? I guess the movie wants us to think elsewise, but the precedent they were setting was one that the main character wasn't comfortable with; moral crusade be damned. And the quest to pass judgement certainly caused a lot of grief for the characters in the end, perhaps undo. It complicated things and sped out of control and Casey saw the danger in that. He was also being eaten by the remorse of going vigilante on the pedophile. He simply couldn't bend again, even at great personal cost to himself. There are legal procedures the police force could of went through had they seen the danger the child was in. They went above to law to forefill their own selfish desires. Especially Morgan Freeman. He did something to placate himself at the cost of the child's welfare, the child's family, and his own career as being a police officer.

Couldn't agree more...Ben should stay behind the camera and keep his bro in front of it!

[DarkPrincess]

I was pissed off at the main character by the end. I kind of wanted to beat him to death with my shoe.