Why was this movie praised? It was paced like a television series

>>82578934
bump

>>82578934

Women liked it. It was all right.

File: 1488161117631.jpg (71KB, 692x390px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 692x390px

>>82578934
OP you make me laugh

Did you post the wrong image by mistake OP?

>make shitty boring thread
>nobody cares
>wait half of a literal hour
.bump it

this is absolutely pitiful anon, this is really pathetic

I mean it must have been on page 10, right, after that long on /tv/? You sat there for half an hour, watching your thread sink deeper through the pages, nobody wanting to engage with you, and then right at the last minute you saved it, and brought it back to page one. Why? You could have made a new, better thread. But ou stuck to this one, despite it being abundantly clear that nobody was interested.

This whole debacle has made me very sad

>>82578934
Changing directors? This movie has all the details that only Fincher use.

Because it's awesome. Perfect writing, great directing, great character development, "first shot tells you everything", great acting, great supporting characters (subplot character at its best)

Can you be more specific on why didn't you like it?

>>82578934
That movie can easily enter in a tp 5 movies of the decade so far

>>82578934 ((you))

It's a well executed thriller with some entertaining twists and turns, what's not to like

>>82578934
10/10 movie

>>82578934
>Thematically it was a mess.

How?