Gerald's Game

aberry89aberry89 California
edited October 3 in Movies
What did you guys think of Netflix's first serving of King movies?

I still can't decide if I like that ending....if it would be scarier if the Moonlightman was real or not. Either way, those visuals of him in the house and at the end of the bed are gonna give me nightmares. 

Altough I like King, for the most part, his symbolism can be a bit on the nose - especially when the characters flat out, tell the audience (the dog is your father, he is just doing what dogs do, etc)- maybe in the book it's not so blattent?  I havent read it.

Thought the editing and performances were fantastic though.

Comments

  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    I haven't got around to the movie yet. But I remember the ending being a bit of fast left turn in the book. I still am unsure what I think of that ending, because it seemed so out of place, but also so terrifying. It seems like they decided to keep that ending, so I am curious to see how it plays out. 
  • I saw the trailer the other day and found it intriguing, so will def check it out -  so many King adaptations all around lately! Haven't even heard about this being made into a movie before.
  • I LOVE STEPHEN KING, but I think a decent amount of his book endings dont get enough criticism. 

    cough* The Stand *cough

    weeniegirl
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    gguenot said:

    I LOVE STEPHEN KING, but I think a decent amount of his book endings dont get enough criticism. 


    cough* The Stand *cough

    Yeah, his endings are definitely a weak point. Not always, of course, but just not as awesome as what tends to precede it. He also does much better when his editor really holds his feet to the fire and doesn't let him run the show entirely. 
  • That’s good insight. I’ve hadn’t heard about their working relationship
  • CecilyCecily Cincinnati
    I loved this and I think Carla Gugino is criminally underused in movies. It looked beautiful and the moonlight man was really creepy from a distance. The ending was just shy of a PowerPoint literally outlining what we've all learned here today!
    mjmullady
  • Re: @A_Ron_Hubbard wondering on the podcast why the Moonlight Man had to be real... do you mean why did he have to be real-real (as in, not a hallucination) or why did he have to be just a regular human? Would it have worked better for you if it's an actual Death-type monster and not a person?
    I mean, your question really got me thinking and I can't recall even one King book (admittedly I haven't read all of them) where the 'monster' wasn't real. Some adaptations change this, most famously Kubrick's The Shining, but in the books, as far as I know, the monsters and whatever shady stuff there is, they are always real. Physically real. Why he does that, I have no idea though.
    Can anyone remember a King book where this doesn't apply?
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    Yeah, now that I'm thinking about it...he really does make all his monsters real. They are never imagined. They may change form like in IT but, all real. The novella "Secret Window" maybe comes close. In that he, the protagonist is the killer, and he imagines his different personas as imagined individuals - but in the end, the twist is revealed and he is clearly recoginzed as doing all of it.

    I guess that is what creeps him out the most, rather than your mind tricking you...

  • @aberry89 Yeah, I still consider Secret Window "monster" to be real. I just got to thinking about it because I remembered when in college I had an adaptation class and the professor went on about how one of the reasons King hates Kubrick's Shining so much is because he decided to make the monsters imaginary.
  • Loved it
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Reni said:

    Re: @A_Ron_Hubbard wondering on the podcast why the Moonlight Man had to be real... do you mean why did he have to be real-real (as in, not a hallucination) or why did he have to be just a regular human? Would it have worked better for you if it's an actual Death-type monster and not a person?
    I mean, your question really got me thinking and I can't recall even one King book (admittedly I haven't read all of them) where the 'monster' wasn't real. Some adaptations change this, most famously Kubrick's The Shining, but in the books, as far as I know, the monsters and whatever shady stuff there is, they are always real. Physically real. Why he does that, I have no idea though.
    Can anyone remember a King book where this doesn't apply?

    It bothered me that he was just a regular guy. If he was an actual monster, whatever, but I guess I'd prefer it to be ambiguous.  I think you're right about King, the supernatural always turns out to be "real", either in the Scooby Doo sense or "actual C'thulu" sense.
    Reni
Sign In or Register to comment.