Das Spiel

The first half Gerald’s Game plays out promisingly with just two well-matched actors and a dog (a similar setup as in The Mountain Between Us, which is currently in cinemas) in one room, an unpleasant situation and a few objects that could potentially resolve it. There are plenty of cuts and changes of perspective to hold our attention, the uncertainty of what is real and what is only imagined (in which the film is a more sophisticated variation on torture porn – it’s not just about physical pain, but also about holding on to one’s sanity). The presentation of the female protagonist’s train of thought is handled more elegantly than in, for example, 127 Hours with its affected flashbacks. I consider the flashbacks, which first appear after roughly fifty minutes, to be the film’s main stumbling block. The heretofore concentrated narrative, with its strictly limited number of ways to continue the game, loses traction and gets bogged down in pseudo-psychological explanations for Jessie’s difficulties with men. This is King’s favourite abusive cliché, with which he works in It, for example, and which is based on the rather questionable belief that in order for a woman to discover her inner strength, she must first suffer terribly. Cutting out the flashbacks and the very awkwardly appended emancipatory afterword could turn this into a brisk low-budget surprise that has no need to complicate a simple initial idea with lengthy explanations. At the same time, however, I understand that it is also a service to King’s fans, who will most likely appreciate this self-destructive fidelity to the source material. 65% (08.10.2017)

Das Spiel war inhaltlich ein sehr ehrgeiziger psychologischer Thriller, den ein durchschnittlicher Autor kaum bewältigen konnte. Unter Flanagans Leitung fängt er vielversprechend an. Der Großteil mit den "imaginativen Beratern“ ist aber unglücklich, er hat einen billigen TV-Anstrich und funktioniert überhaupt nicht. Die zweite, tiefere Linie mit dem Mörder und dem Kindertrauma wird bizarr hinausgezogen und im Finale hapert ihre Verbindung mit der vorherigen Handlung ein wenig. Der Stoff an sich – eine Frau in so einer prekären Situation – ist ausgezeichnet. Wenn man ihn schlau verarbeiten würde, wenn auch nur minimalistisch, könnte der Film zu einem Volltreffer werden (z. B. die erste Aufnahme, in der sie auf dem Bett gefesselt ist; warum sie sich dort befindet, erfährt man aus Flashbacks, parallel zu Rückblicken in ihre Kindheit). (30.10.2018)

Wäre ich Flanagan, ich würde ein paar Details ändern. Die langen Rückblenden würde ich beschränken, das Filmmaterial um zwanzig Minuten kürzen. Carla hätte ich komplett ausgezogen und mit ihr eine Hardcore-Pornoszene gedreht, damit richtig was zu sehen ist. Das mysteriöse Gespenst, den hungrigen Cuja und besonders die luxuriöse Gore-Szene möchte ich hervorheben, bei der mein Gesichtsausdruck vor Ekel ganz schief war stand. (60%) (07.10.2017)

It is paradoxical that once King is adapted faithfully once in a blue moon, it is made according to the original that would need one or even better, two rounds of uncompromising editorial commentary that would make it a lot better. In other words, what worked well in the original (basically all the passages in the bed, character study, loss of coherent thinking, reality versus hallucinations, a broken psyche controlling children's fears, coping with inner demons, the will to survive at all costs or vigilant "Cujo" on guard) it works well here either. But the same is true about the things that did not work (basically all the passages outside the bed, a completely appalling ending, continuous flashbacks, maybe just cut-ins/flashes à la The Wild would do it good, and on top of that the initial part has not enough space, i.e. “I´m not only fucked but I´m going crazy too"), so they don´t work were here either. And no matter how shorter it should have been (not only by the mentioned epilogue), thanks to the duo Carl / Bruce it is not such a big deal. In short, it´s a solid average movie with a few memorable moments and an excellent cast. PS: There are also some references to kingversum for king fanatics. (30.09.2017)

I was expecting much more from the Netflix/King/Flanagan combo than a made-for-TV, conversational bore that runs an unnecessarily long 103 minutes, as the premise would be more suited to a short film. On the horror side of things, there is nothing interesting, apart from one scene, otherwise absolutely no suspense or atmosphere and not even the seductive MILF in the lead role can save it. If the book is as boring as the film, I would burn it after 10 pages. Other viewers are satisfied according to the ratings on FilmBooster and IMDB, I had to make myself a double espresso to be able to make it to the end. One star for the lead actress, the other for the hand scene. Quite an ordeal. 40% (29.09.2017)

#metoo movie. Sojka told me wed be seeing these movies quite often now. So what the heck, worse things have happened, the story isn't so bad, after all, especially if you have no idea what you're getting into ("Jesus it's going to be all about him torturing her on the bed and her trying to escape." "Jesus, it's gonna be all about her trying to get herself out of bed." "Jesus, it’s gonna... yeah, that."), the atypical plot development pretty much keeps you in your seat. And yet the maudlin middle section, stretching seemingly endlessly, the unbalanced performances, and the fact that 80% of the film alternates between only about eight different shots doesn't justify the 103-minute running time. (05.01.2018)

I will now have higher expectations for Mike Flanagan's work (his series The Haunting of Hill House completely blew me away, so that’s where I’m coming from). I haven’t read King’s "Gerald’s Game", so I can’t compare it to the book. The film is particularly strong in terms of acting; Carla Gugino delivers a performance "par excellence," truly acting for her life in the most intense scenes—outstanding in every way. Bruce Greenwood appears mostly as a hallucination of the main character, but he also gives a solid performance. The claustrophobic atmosphere is effective, but I was expecting a more significant plot twist. Everything proceeds quite linearly; the film doesn’t have anything at its core to lift me out of my seat and make me say, “Wow, that was impressive.” Unfortunately, that effect didn’t materialize. It’s a film packed with atmospheric elements (with the dog and the bone collector as a prime example) and includes a particularly gruesome scene with the hand, but the story is sidelined, and I couldn’t fully immerse myself in it. For me, it’s 6/10. (09.11.2020)

A Stephen King dense psychological charade that is masterfully played out, but doesn't deliver a sufficiently full-blooded resolution at its paradoxically literal conclusion. Flanagan is at his strongest in the first 45 minutes, showing excellent work with mise-en-scene and suspense in a very limited space. The problem comes when psychological themes start to mix with mystery ones, because at times it really comes across like spilled tea. Not to mention the flashbacks, which certainly had a solid place in the plot but often felt unnecessarily lengthy. If there was anywhere that should have been cut more, it was with the flashbacks. Overall, though, a solid genre affair that will definitely have it’s day on Netflix. (21.01.2020)

I don't know the source material, but just because it's King's work, I was very cautious about this movie. Usually, films based on King's work don't turn out very well (except for IT). In the end, Gerald's Game is one of the better movies from Flanagan. I enjoyed the parts where Jessie tried to free herself from her trap and watching the execution of her attacks. The depiction of hallucinations was okay, although I would have preferred the dialogues to be somewhat shorter. The duration was unnecessarily extended due to annoying flashbacks, which are Flanagan's addition to almost every movie. However, I understand that he probably tried to explain the main character's past for unfamiliar viewers, although it could have been done differently. I have to praise about two unpleasant and scary moments. Unfortunately, the ending was confusing, unclear, and weird. (02.01.2018)