An Intriguing Plot with a Distressingly Unsatisfying Conclusion

Rating: 3/10 (27 December 2014)

First of all, I'm not one of those low-lifes who watches movies for the sadistic pleasure of finding the most minuscule plot hole, inconsistency, discontinuity, or incongruency. I can suspend my disbelief and let chaos theory and mystery preside, but only to a certain degree. This film's plot has gaps that a logical plot progression does not.
The necessary staging elements for the two individuals in question (i.e., Nick and Desi) ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The convincing "stage-job" she planned for Nick doesn't work for Desi too! It falls especially flat when her plan ends with her ALIVE as opposed to her committing suicide. You can't just change up your meticulous plan on the fly and transfer it to a completely different person and expect it to be even a fraction as convincing! Also, kind of in the same vein, is the complication of the diary. It's stupid for the Nick AND Desi stage scenario. If Nick killed her, why would he DRIVE TO HIS DAD'S HOUSE to burn it? Even if he did for some reason, he fails to finish the job, only singing the corners? What? If you're Amy, why fake-burn it at all? For all the cops know, Nick was unaware of the diary's existence. Just put it on a book shelf or something so the police find it once some of the other incriminating evidence she's planted provides the impetus for a search warrant. Last point about the diary: why in the name of God would Desi burn it? What's the motive? Besides the implausibility that he would drive to Nick's father-in-law's house (?) to do it, he would ultimately fail to do it successfully? How would he even know about the diary? Even if he did, why would he care? It incriminates Nick, not him. Once again, the two staging scenarios don't line up properly. Yet another flaw: the cameras. Lots o' people have mentioned this. If you're Desi, an apparently rich, smart, successful, affluent, etc, etc. person (Neil P. Harris fails to convince me), why in the world would you not completely disable the security cameras while you TIE UP AND RAPE your long-awaited stalking target? This is how the cops would see it, at least. Also mentioned by others: how's Amy gonna rig the tapes? What, is she just gonna delete everything over that THREE-WEEK SPAN, other than her twenty seconds of her I-just- got-raped screams and her slitting Desi's throat? Cause I know she's not gonna leave the foreplay in there; it was the definition of consensual. How is this sparse thirty-second footage going to look to the cops when compared to the TWENTY-FOUR DAYS she's been "gone" (ugh, that title). Then, of course, if she didn't delete the footage, there's plenty of TV watchin' and wine drinkin' and general doin-nothing-in' to shoot holes in her story. (sidenote: not only does she casually and expertly slit his throat; afterward, she FLIPS HIM OVER, HOLDS HIM DOWN, AND PULLS HIS HEAD BACK to finish the job! This is not normal behavior for a rape victim.) Tangentially, why on Earth would she completely change up her calculated, "brilliant" plan and decide to frame Desi instead and return to her now saintly (?) husband? She knows that Nick knows she framed him. Why would she think he wouldn't try to put on a good face for the media and avoid lethal injection? She's presented as being smarter than this; a manipulative, murderous, run-of-the-mill psychopath, yes, but smart nonetheless. Why would she assume that he'd stay with her if she returned? The baby? She wouldn't be the least bit wary of him finding a flaw in her now-spontaneous staging attempt? Or the cops for that matter? Remember, the culmination of this woman's original plan was her suicide, therein providing closure for her and the case, since the cops finally now have their body to add to the rest of the evidence "building up" against Nick (cue the explosion). Are we really supposed to believe that she became lovesick and altered her entire plan because she saw her hubby do a convincing acting job on television? Lastly, there is no plausible scenario in which Nick would stay with her. No way. You can't prove to me otherwise.
I'm fine with negative endings. I could have lived with Nick dying or being incriminated. The ending we are given is a cop-out, a pseudo-ending. As soon as Amy comes home, the movie falls flat. Everyone gives up, the cops, Nick, his sister, the lawyer, etc. The movie's over; deal with it. Pick up your stale popcorn and Butterfinger wrappers. The film provides no explanation for how or why she gets away with it. It feels as if the screenwriter, Flynn herself, has decided "she's just going to and you better accept it." The ending insults the audience and detracts from the characters' collective credibility. It's like Gillian started with the ending and only had enough track to lay ¾ of the story leading up to it. The audience is forced to believe that a runaway train will arrive at the prescribed ending in a neat and orderly fashion (surely tying together all loose ends in Flynn's mind). I don't believe it and you can't make me. And what was up with Nick at the very end? "I always think of her head. I picture cracking her lovely skull, unspooling her brains, trying to get answersthe primal questions of any marriage. What are you thinking? How are you feeling? What have we done to each other? What will we do?" His tone is incongruous. This is not a normal marriage! He's practically mesmerized by her, like he's been hypnotized into a trance. In reality, he'd be utterly freaking terrified of her!
I liked the score, cinematography, and Pike's performance, though. My main gripe was that I hated the final act of the plot.