shannen-l-c I haven't read Stephen King's novel of the same title which this movie is based on, but can only assume it's the primary material that is responsible for this movie being such a huge dull dud. It starts with a lot of promise and I was very engaged, watching this picture perfect couple with their 'good marriage' and wondering what was going to happen to shatter their world. Unfortunately, it just didn't really seem to go anywhere and I found myself questioning every single decision that was being made and wondering what logical person would react this way. Upon Darcy's discovery that her husband is in fact a serial killer, she reacts like anyone would in the same position - with confusion, shock, disbelief, reversion and panic. However, from that point onwards I couldn't understand any of the bizarre decisions Darcy made. Why would you stay in the house? Even if her husband was away, I'd be out of that house and as far away as I could get. When her husband asked if they could forget what had happened and move on (which is perhaps one of the most disturbing and shocking scenes, I've witnesses, and a strong point of the movie), why didn't she lull him into a false sense of security and when he was out of not paying attention leave and go straight to the police? Instead, she continued to play house with a man that was clearly psychotic and had violently raped and killed multiple women, and then randomly attacked him days (or maybe weeks later). I can't understand how or why she came to the decision that killing her husband was the best resolution and I can't imagine that any sane person would immediately jump to that conclusion. At first, I wondered if we were supposed to question Darcy's morality and that King was playing with us, and actually, she was the evil one, but as the movie progressed that clearly wasn't true. Darcy was painted as being an innocent victim of her husband's crimes that did what she did because she wanted to protect her children from being tarnished by her father's crimes. It's a poor excuse and does little to justify her actions, in my opinion. Of course finding out the truth about their father's crimes would harm them for a short while, but eventually the world would forget and they'd all be able to return to normal. Resorting to murder seems too extreme and I can't wrap my mind around that. Unfortunately, the fact that I can't understand or justify Darcy's actions, means the whole movie fell flat for me. It felt unrealistic and as though it was overreaching. Having said this, the strongest part of the movie was definitely Joan Allen's performance as Darcy, which I can't fault. She carried the movie and if it wasn't for her engaging performance, I probably wouldn't have managed to watch until the end.Other than that, I'm afraid this movie did fall flat for me. I was constantly waiting for something more to happen, for a reasonable explanation as to what was happening and why, but it was never delivered. We don't even get a proper explanation as to why her husband has killed people (except for his explanation of it being a friend inside his head that takes over) and there's little insight into Darcy's thought processes. When she suddenly attacks her husband I was shocked because it felt like it came out of nowhere. It also seemed uncharacteristically sinister and evil for a woman that was supposedly 'normal'. And the one final question that plagued me is how did the police not discover that her husband's death wasn't an accident? How would he have managed to fall over the banister the way he did? They'd tell just from his position and the way he landed that he was pushed, because it would be impossible to fall that way. Furthermore, they would surely be able to tell that the cause of death was suffocation which wouldn't make sense based on the injuries he received from that fall. Overall, this movie lacks logic or reasoning. I think it had the potential to be really good, but more thought needed to be put into it, and I'm not sure if the lack of consideration is due to the directors/producers or from the original material by King. Regardless, this is a sub-par movie that I certainly wouldn't recommend to friends.

Páiric O'Corráin A Good Marriage: Based on a Stephen King story with a screenplay by King. A thriller rather than Horror but not too many thrills so best to concentrate on the Serial Killer angle. Joan Allen is married to Anthony LaPaglia for 25 years and suddenly finds evidence which suggests that he's a Serial Killer and a really brutal one at that. He admits to it and they enter a pact where she will remain silent and he promises to quit his nefarious activities. After all their daughter is getting married the next week and the scandal would ruin the reception.Will he hold to his promise? Is Allen at risk? Who is the mysterious character keeping watch on their house? On Netflix. 6/10.

marshallfg I'll start off by saying I'm a huge Stephen King fan - always have been; always will be. But I haven't rushed to see "A Good Marriage" because the reviews haven't been great. But it was the sheer ordinariness of this movie that sent chills up my spine. It made me think of Hannah Arendt's coverage of the Eichmann trials and musings on the banality of evil. Most of us aren't shocked when a criminal is rounded up who looks like Charles Manson and has a troubled past. But what do we make of the criminal who has no criminal past, looks like the classic "boy/girl next door", and was class valedictorian? The Ted Bundys of the world? Okay, so the beginning was a bit of a snooze fest. I kept thinking to myself, "Normal, hard-working people, happy family, solid marriage - I get it already." I honestly wasn't expecting a lot from this movie. I love Stephen King, but I had heard that A "Good Marriage" lacked the requisite Stephen King signature staples, like rotting, talking corpses, telepathic powers, killer cars, etc. And though the main theme was an interesting idea, it didn't break any new ground. I mean, a woman discovers her husband isn't what she thought he was...been there, done that. Story of my life. At best, a sure contender for the Lifetime Channel. But it was the sheer mundane-ness of this movie that made it so intriguing and ultimately disturbing.I could emotionally relate to Darcy as she discovered that her husband was the infamous Beadie, but what intrigued me even more was her response.Darcy's final conversation with a guy obsessed with tracking down Beadie was poignant. Here, he's spent a huge chunk of his life chasing down a serial killer only to be forced to reexamine his own life and learn that things aren't always so cut-and-dried or black-and-white as they initially seem.In the final analysis, "A Good Marriage" may have been too real and down-to-earth for Stephen King loyalists and people accustomed to high drama, but if you can appreciate an intimate, subtle, slow burning character study I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

raisleygordon Yesterday, I watched the Keanu Reeves film "Knock, Knock", and while I liked its second act a lot more, the same can't be said of "A Good Marriage". Is this supposed to be some psychological drama? Intentional or not, I'd say it is psychological, because this film only explains (albeit briefly) the guy is a serial killer, and never shows him actually committing such horrific acts. The only time Bob gets violent is in Darcy's imagination. And Darcy does manage to throw him down the stairs. Sorry, but unfortunately that's all the violence we're treated to. If this film had resembled anything like an actual movie about a Serial Killer, then the fact that it doesn't feel like Stephen King might not matter so much.**1/2 out of ****