darkavenger77 ...chases the screaming wife around the house.That's an actual line of dialog from this. I think had it followed that Lifetime-ish plot it would have been a more entertaining movie. Even though it aired on LMN, I can't call it a Lifetime movie.I saw some familiar actors here and decided to give it a watch. I liked Anthony Lapgalia in Without a Trace, and Joan Allen is Pamela Lundy from the Jason Bourne movies.This was a good movie until about 20 minutes in. Wife Allen finds out that hubby and father of their two kids Lapaglia is the notorious serial killer Beadie.Contacting the police is out of the question, and in a mix of actual and fantasy she just soldiers on for the status quo of her family. Other reviews I read called it boring and I agree. I'll add implausible as well. OK honey, so you've ganked several women. Just promise not to do it again and we'll put it behind us.Then with 36 minutes on the clock (with commercials) she ganks him out of the blue. Or did she? He comes back around and in the most exciting scene she goes Jason Bourne on him to finish the job.The remainder is anticlimactic with Stephen Lang showing up as a retired investigator at death's door who has somehow figured out who Beadie is. Why did he even talk to her? I almost fell asleep in the ending bit in the hospital room.

gavin6942 After 25 years of a good marriage, what will Darcy Anderson (Joan Allen) do once she discovers her husband's sinister secret? This film is often listed as Stephen King's "A Good Marriage". Whether his name is a bonus or not is really up to the viewer, because at this point there have been just as many duds made off of his work as successes, so there is no real guarantee. That note aside, however, this is actually a fairly decent one.Unlike King's usual horror themes of childhood or the supernatural, this really touches on what could be a real situation: what if a wife finds out her husband is a killer? The right thing to do is turn him in, of course, but is it worth all the trouble that would follow for the family?

statuskuo If it were not for Joan Allen's commitment to her role, I would say an absolute zero. This movie isn't suspenseful. In fact, it comes off as darkly humorous which may be the point. But, it's such a fine line that you can't but feel what this movie could've been.This movie is about talking in rooms. And the mundane life of marriage. Then they add in a twist, and the twist, had it been 1980's would've been groundbreaking. Now, because of our "48 Hours Mysteries" or "American Crime" shows, the shock value falls flat. And that's unfortunate for the material, because it does have nice moments. But it never comes together to feel like a completely movie. There are throwaway scenes, characters popping in and out, who are superfluous (which I'm sure in the book made more sense). And overall, the relationship between Allen and Anthony LaPaglia (who plays the husband) never felt right. No matter how often they professed their love of each other. The other frustrating thing about this movie is it never establishes a person we can identify with. I suppose Stephen Lang's character who comes in way too late. So it's strange it never fully taps the moments that could've uplifted it into something darker. LaPaglia's character (Bob) would've been better suited for someone more midwestern normal like Terry O'Quinn. Man, that guy is scary just being normal. Or Dylan Baker.Finally, the look of the movie. It's flat and dull. Every King movie up to this point is lens'd like a movie. This looks like a Lifetime special. Which I can't blame them, since it's digital and looks digital.There's suppose to be grit to movies. This looks like a student shot it. Awful. It actually took me completely away from the content of the movie. It had a phony sense to it. Done to extreme, say...a Douglas Sirk view, it would add a style to the material. This just seemed lost to what it wanted (or survival of coverage, just to get it shot). Either way, it's not a disaster of a movie. But it leaves you disappointed that King would slap his name on this.

Wizard-8 I was attracted to this movie after finding out not only was it based on a Stephen King story, but that Stephen King himself adapted the screenplay. It has a very interesting premise, and some of the promise of the premise is delivered. For one thing, the characters are somewhat smarter than you usually get in a movie like this... but also act somewhat realistically. Some have criticized the Joan Allen character for not acting right away after finding out her husband's secret, but I think most people in her situation would at first find it hard to do ANYTHING. It's interesting to watch this character (and her husband), because it's not telegraphed what any of them will do. Kudos also to the filmmakers for making the movie look pretty good on what was a pretty low budget. However, I will admit that the movie has one significant flaw. As I said in my summary line, the movie is VERY slow at times and is definitely drawn out to near the breaking point. I can understand why some viewers would dislike the movie for those reasons, and I would also admit that if the movie had been cut down by fifteen to twenty minutes, it would run a lot smoother. But I was in a patient mood when I sat down to watch the movie, so I was able to tolerate those slow moments. While the movie IS flawed, I think that those who have seen a wide range and amount of movies (like myself) will see that despite what some IMDb users are saying, the movie is far from the worst movie ever made... and far from the worst Stephen King adaptation ever made. Give it a chance on a slow night.