I wish I hadnt wasted my money on this. I enjoyed the book somewhat but the movie was just tedious.

Thought the book and the movie were both good and both similar. Neither were outstanding and I did like Gone Girl better. I thought that Emily Blunt was a much more likable Rachel in the movie than the Rachel in the book.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it better than the book? I hated the book.

Me too. I bought the book because the movie trailer looked so interesting, and I love mysteries. By the end, I would have been perfectly happy if every single character ended up dead. What a boring, annoying group of people.

I don't have high standards, either. I know a lot of people disliked Gone Girl, but I enjoyed the heck out of that book.

Hi, you are me! Read this weekend and could have posted this word for word

Anonymous wrote:Laura Prepon's eyebrows were distracting.

I think the movie closely resembled the book. I agree with pp about the therapist- I had forgotten about that too. It was an ok movie. I wasn't in love with the book either so it's about what I expected. Glad I didn't go to the more expensive theater to see it.

Yes! She was not my favorite as Cathy.
I thought they did a really good job revealing that what Rachel was told about her blackouts (since she obviously couldn't remember) and actually having those as scenes in the movie, versus what actually happened (and having those as scenes in the movie to counter the fake ones!).

We saw it last night. It was entertaining. I would have loved it to take another direction. Maybe Anna is still in love with the psycho and pins everything on Rachel during interrogation. And then we see the aftermath. I wanted more of Megan's story. And more character development for Anna.

Laura Prepon's eyebrows were distracting.

I think the movie closely resembled the book. I agree with pp about the therapist- I had forgotten about that too. It was an ok movie. I wasn't in love with the book either so it's about what I expected. Glad I didn't go to the more expensive theater to see it.

I think it might be confusing to you if you haven't read the book. All the stuff about Meghan's backstory and then her bizarre seduction of the therapist. I forgot that was part of the plot. And then also the revelation about Tom seemingly comes out of nowhere in the movie. Is that handled better in the book? I can't remember.

One thing that was better in the book: the revelation that Rachel is an alcoholic who has blackouts and that she is therefore an unreliable narrator. In the movie, you know that from the start. I remember that being a genuine surprise about a 1/3 of the way through in the book.

I do want to see this because the book was such a good read.

Hated the book.

For people who thought it was awful - why? I mean it wasn't a classic film, but I found it suspensful and entertaining enough.

I just heard from the friends that the movie was pretty awful! (they didn't read the book, so were going in blind....)

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the book but saw the movie this week. I likened it to a big budget lifetime movie.

Enjoyable yes. Amazing no.

Exactly. It was entertaining but no wow factor. Not worth the $12 ticket price.

I'm planning to see it tonight. Despite the mixed reviews I figured I'd give it a try.

I just saw it and really enjoyed it! I loved that it was a sort of maternal thriller. It engaged me in a way that male-centric thrillers could not. Of course it ends up stretching believability with the secretly evil character, but that's probably inevitable. I wonder what this movie would have been like directed by a woman.

I haven't read the book but saw the movie this week. I likened it to a big budget lifetime movie.

Enjoyable yes. Amazing no.