Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Animenter There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Michael Ledo Pierce Bronson plays Michael Noonan, a New England author, in a continuing of Stephen King's write about things you are series. When is wife, who he truly loved, dies, he is drawn to their lake home. Noonan has nightmares about his wife in the final scene of "Quarantine". At the lake home he inadvertently gets involved in a local drama and discovers some small town secrets that frankly would make a good novel, which BTW he has to write.I enjoyed the simple ghostly images and hauntings. Noonan takes the paranormal in stride as he tries to uncover more about the illness known as Dark Score Crazy which causes people to drown their daughters. What is unfortunate is any Stephen King fan can watch the film and see where the master has done this before. For instance when we see the computer screen with the same line written over and over, one can not help think about "The Shining." The question begs: Does King want us to think about "The Shining" and give us a clue that Noonan is crazy or is it a deliberate misdirection? Or maybe King is starting to recycle old trunk novels as does the writer in the story. Outside of Noonan, the characters were poorly developed, especially considering the length of the film.While I enjoyed the film, I have come to expect more from Stephen King.Made for TV. Includes a rape scene.

lathe-of-heaven To be honest, I'm not a HUGE fan of Stephen King, although I do favour a lot of his earlier stuff (right now I'm currently re-reading 'The Talisman' :) But, when the film makers get it right, or mostly right, I really do enjoy some of the movie adaptations of his stories. They don't necessarily have to be masterpieces like 'THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION' or 'THE SHINING', but I even really like some of the super cheeeeeezier ones like 'THE MANGLER' (I know... I Know...) and I also really thought that 'NIGHT SHIFT' was a lot of fun.So, without giving too much away, this movie here is basically just an old fashioned, good ol' Ghost Story. So, first and foremost, if you DON'T really like Ghost Stories in general, then there is no particular reason that you would like this one either. BUT... if you DO enjoy Ghost Stories and you don't mind ones that follow a rather older, Classic style, then in my lowly and wretched opinion, I felt that this one was done rather well.Of course, if you already like Pierce Brosnan (isn't that just THE greatest name ever for a guy...?) he does a very good job with his role. A LOT of Horror stories are based on the premise of a man who has just gone through a serious loss, so unfortunately since we are talking about a deeply traumatic experience in their life, a LOT of times the acting just doesn't come across as very real, or usually it is just flat out overdone. But, not in his case. So, since that is a big part of the story, it is a pretty dang good start that the guy here is Pierce Brosnan.Actually, that is one of THE main things about a number of Stephen King adaptations that I usually don't like at all. Many times the acting, particularly the 'Bad' guys just come across as ultra-clichéd, plastic stereotypes. But, not in the case of this film. Most everyone truly does a good job in all their roles. EXCEPT... maybe it was just me, but I really did NOT care for the mother of the little girl at all... talk about 'overdone'... But, other than that, the acting was decent. I must say that the little girl did an amazing job (she is gonna be a SUPER cutie when she gets older, mark my creepy words...)Mick Garris, who has directed a number of King adaptations does a decent job here as well. YES, as another reviewer mentioned (and this was also repeated on the Horror review site 'moria.co.nz', but I don't always agree with him - he is a very good reviewer, but if he doesn't happen to like a director, he hates ALL their films) the movie is indeed filled with jump-scares, but, I think in the context of it being a Ghost Story that that is to be expected and although he did use that a lot, I thought he did it well and it enhanced the enjoyment of the film.Some have said that they felt that since it is a 2 part Mini-Series, that it came across as REALLY padded out timewise, but I honestly did not think so. The running time of each half excluding the intro and end credits was only about an hour & 15 minutes, so it really wasn't that long. I felt that being an old fashioned Ghost Story and with where the story was set, it was kind of nice that it took the time to set the tone and location, mood, and background of the story, which again, I felt really added to the atmosphere.So, since the reviews here are SO polarized for this movie, it is REALLY going to depend on whether you genuinely like old fashioned, Classically structured Ghost Stories, and if you can kind of 'get lost' in them, easily suspending disbelief where you can just sit back and enjoy this kind of story. If so, then I think that there is a good chance that you might like it...

Coventry I should probably begin my review by stating that – in my personal humble opinion - Stephen King is the most overrated & over-hyped individual on this planet. More than 30 years ago, the genre's best directors (De Palma, Kubrick, Carpenter, Hooper…) perhaps still managed to turn his best stories into good horror movies, but since then it only became unmistakably clear that his novels are lackluster and derivative of obscure and undiscovered gems. Then there's Mick Garris, who's simply the most pathetic and clueless fan-boy of the most overrated and over-hyped individual on this planet… The only half- decent thing Garris ever did was gather together a bunch of horror director far more talented than himself and persuaded them to collaborate in the "Masters of Horror" project, but his own movies – and then particularly his King adaptations – are poor, redundant and dumb. "Bag of Bones" is probably a new low in both their careers. It's not so much that this film/mini-series is unwatchable or even terrible; it's just unbelievable mundane and unoriginal! "Bag of Bones" is just an incredibly irritating, nearly three hours (!) lasting spitfire of dreadful clichés, predictable twists and unsurprising revelations that wouldn't even impress viewers who've never seen a horror movies before in their lives! I'm 300% convinced that the novel never would have been published (and the TV-adaptation never produced) if it didn't have King's name and undeserved reputation linked to it. Any other writer undoubtedly would have been impolitely rejected if he/she presented a tale about traumatized writers, small towns with dark secrets and ongoing family curses. But hey, Stephen King wrote it so people will love it; right? Disgusting… Okay, so let's look at the fascinating plot… A novelist loses his beloved wife in a car accident and seeks for confinement in their cabin next to a lake in a remote little town. Oh please! He finds out that his wife was pregnant when she died even though he thought they couldn't have children. Yawn! His dead wife seeks supernatural contact with him via letter magnets on the fridge. Are you kidding me? He meets a beautiful woman that is much too young for his and stumbles upon an unsolved local mystery about black blues singer who vanished. Oh, how exciting! He confronts a few evil people and discovers that half of the townsfolk drowned their own kids in the lake because of a curse dating back to the 1930s. Double yawn… If you think the plot is counterfeit, wait until you see Garris' miserable attempts to frighten you! Literally dozens of fake and wannabe "jump" moments, like ghostly appearances in the bathtub, moving furniture and even an electrifying tree. As much as I like Pierce Brosnan, he's ridiculously miscast as protagonist Tom Noonan. He was nearly sixty when the film was shot, so why must he depict a role that was clearly written for a thirty-something actor? Melissa George looks yummy, but she's literally not much more than a piece of scenery. The villainous characters seemingly come straight out of "Scooby Doo" cartoon: an evil old man dressed in black and driving around in an automated wheelchair, a crazy lady that looks like a retired version of Anjelica Houston's Grand High Witch and a legal guardian who actually looks more like a child molester. What an unbelievably retarded movie

Tommy Nicholls I dislike Pierce Brosnan as an actor, for me he just always seems so wooden, and this miniseries is the perfect example of just how wooden he can get. This isn't helped by the damn awful script/directing/whatever that made this so boring. The plot scrambles around like a someone trying to find a needle in a haystack, haphazardly going in whichever direction it chooses and not really explaining anything to the author. After the story finally decided what direction it wanted to take, the ending seemed rushed and forced. I must say though, Anika Noni Rose was actually really great in this and maybe if they got to her part of the story an hour earlier and had more of her in this then it would have been a half decent mini-series. To be honest, Stephen King fan or not, this is most certainly not worth your time.