LastingAware The greatest movie ever!
Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.
Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.
bowmanblue Being a fan of Pierce Brosnan, I tend to watch anything he's in. Therefore I was quite surprised that he appeared in a 'made-for-TV' movie (or two-part mini series to be precise). Granted it was based on a Stephen King book, but, in my opinion, I thought Brosnan was 'slumming it' a bit.Then again, about fifty per cent of King's work has managed to survive the transition from book to film, so I was hopeful. That was until I watched it.Unfortunately, 'Bag of Bones' comes in the half of King's work which is - most likely (and I have to confess to not reading the book) - better in print than on film. It's simply too slow. Yes, being a two part TV series, it's allowed a little more screen time than a normal ninety minutes film would probably be given and it uses this time for 'character building' purposes. Sadly, I think I speak on behalf of most of the viewers when I say we'd rather have scares and horror than yet another conversation about something pretty mundane.Like I say, I am a fan of Pierce Brosnan, but I felt his heart didn't seem into this. He plays a writer who loses his wife and goes to retreat to their country house to get away from things and write his next book. It's hardly an original plot on its own and, as you've probably guessed, spooky things start to happen. Only they're not particularly spooky and nothing much happens until the end. There's nothing very unexpected about the film. You can see most things coming and even some of the 'scares' at then end are almost comical in how they're presented (there's a scene with a 'killer tree' that reminds me of something out of the comedy/horror 'Evil Dead' starring Bruce Campbell).I keep watching Pierce Brosnan's films and I'll also keep watching Stephen King's big screen work. However, I can see why this was made for TV and never made it to a theatrical release.
thwok This review may contain spoilers.Pierce Brosnan is not an actor that I've paid close attention to in the past. I've seen bits of some of his 007 movies, and it was amusing to see him singing in Mamma Mia! So, his performance here as bestselling author Mike Noonan came as a pleasant surprise.Noonan plays a writer whose wife, played by Annabeth Gish, is killed at the beginning of the story. Noonan experiences a severe case of writer's block and calls on his wife's spirit to help him. Brosnan does a good job of portraying the grief of a man who suddenly loses the wife who loves ionately. Noonan's antagonist is a wealthy old man, Max Devore, and his wife; their performances are totally over-the-top in the short time that they appear on the screen. The deposition scene in the movie demonstrates that Brosnan's experience as James Bond portraying masculine unflappability have paid off.Brosnan's not quite as convincing portraying fear. However, it's not the essential part of playing Noonan. I have not read this particular King book; however the story is as much about losing the person you love as it is about the horror elements. Bag of Bones reminds us again of King's greatest strength and probably the reason for his phenomenal success. He creates characters that are believable and places them in situations to which the audience can relate.This shared quality connects this fine adaptation with one of the greatest ghost stories ever written: Daphne Du Maurier's Rebecca. The very beginning of the movie demonstrates that King was inspired by Du Maurier's classic. I wouldn't call this adaptation terrifying, but it is generally very well done.
theresataylor-404-574175 I haven't read the book, but i know Stephen King is a brilliant writer so I watched the film. I wasn't disappointed. I have to say, Melissa Georges character was extremely annoying! She was all over Pierce like a bad rash, that was the worse bit of the film. The plot, well, its a movie not real life! There were some jumpy bits, but overall not too scary. Its hard to believe that Pierces character would get away with certain deeds in the film, but obviously its not real life, so he does. I thought the little girl was a great actress. A very good performance by her. Pierce was very good too. I did find the rape scene very uncomfortable, but then i always find those sort of scenes terrible.
Neil Welch Writer Mike Noonan, trying to overcome writer's block following the accidental death of his wife, falls in with some oddnesses on going to the old family lake house.I read Bag Of Bones on publication (the first novel after Stephen King's near-fatal accident, it was touted untruthfully as his final novel - this turned out to be inspired press in tieing the predicament of the main character to the personal circumstances of the author. I thoroughly enjoyed it: time constraints have prevented me from re-reading, so much of the detail of the novel has slipped from my memory. This miniseries therefore arrives fairly fresh and I shan't be comparing it to the book.It's OK. There is nothing exceptionally good about it, nor anything exceptionally bad - it is simply a generic ghost story, mildly horrific, but with most of the scares coming from sudden shock moments. I can't warn viewers away from it: neither can I recommend it.Director Mick Garris has had a lot of stabs at directing Stephen King stories - at least 7 by my count - and at best they have been adequate. Would that he could take a leaf out of Frank Darabont's book, with a success rate of 3 out of 3 so far.
