User reviews

I read the other reviews which were very negative due to the fact this mini series apparently doesn't really follow the book's storyline properly, but honestly I haven't read the book yet (despite being a Stephen King's fan) and from my perspective this part was not bad at all.

I am sure that, as with every other movie that is inspired by a book (and in saying this I even include The Shining, which was considered a great movie yet still is incredibly inferior to the book), this is also a case in which things have been left out or poorly adapted. However, not being able to make that comparison, I can judge the mini series simply for what I see, and I am pleased. The acting is very good (especially for a mini series! If you have had the chance to watch Rose Red you know why this is not something I'd necessarily expect) and the storyline is intriguing. I didn't find this confusing, more like mysterious in an interesting way. It would be a let down if they ended up not explaining anything at the end either, though, that is for sure. However, if they are just not including all the book's details to be able to adapt it to the movie kind of media, I am not complaining, just as long as we get the whole story in the end.

I can say so far the first part was interesting and that I am waiting to watch what happens next. Hopefully it won't let us down!

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.

Adapting a Stephen King novel to the screen has proved to be a dicey proposition for writers/directors in the past. Either the film is a huge hit (like "Shawshank Redemption" or "Green Mile"), or it turns into a B-movie that doesn't nearly live up to the billing. In the case of "Bag of Bones", director Mick Garris does a remarkable job of translating the page to the screen.

For a basic plot summary, "Bag of Bones" sees writer Mike Noonan (Pierce Brosnan) struggling with severe writers block after the death of his wife Jo (Annabeth Gish). To try and break out of his funk, Mike heads to his summer retreat home on Dark Score lake, where Jo had frequented often. While there, Mike meets Mattie Devore (Melissa George) and her daughter Kyra (Caitlin Carmichael), who draw him into a haunting (literally!) mystery surrounding town baron Max Devore (William Schallert) & the unexplained death of 1930s jazz songstress Sara Tidwell (Anika Noni Rose).

What makes "Bag of Bones" really work is the fact that it doesn't stray too much from the original King subject matter. It had been awhile since I read the novel, so I can't nit-pick all that much, but the film seemed to do a good job of sticking to the script, so to speak, and not deviate from King's wonderfully compelling (and spooky) tale.

The acting, for the most part, is also quite fine. Brosnan is very capable as the lead, while only a couple of the key auxiliary roles are sub-par. Special credit needs to be given to little Ms. Carmichael, who really gives the show its emotional kick throughout.

About the only thing this film doesn't translate well from the book are the "villain" characters (you'll know who they are after you watch). In the book, I seem to remember much more character development about them, which was excised from this adaptation likely due to time. It shows a bit in the end, when the overall story gets a bit one-sided, but this is a relative nit to pick.

Overall, "Bag of Bones" is a solid show that should satisfy readers of the King novel (or anyone else who happens to stumble upon it). It may not be an all-time classic, but as far as King- related film projects go, it is up near the top.

As with other reviewers, I read the novel and enjoyed it thoroughly. I even recommended it to friends, even if they didn't like King. I felt that the novel didn't overly rely on its horrific themes, but did a wonderful job of evoking a time, place and mood.

I have no problem with movies that change events from the book, even when I have loved the book. To tell the truth, I read this novel so many years ago that I don't have firm recollections of a lot of the incidents in it.

So along comes Mick Garris who ignores all the interesting parts of the story and character development so that he can focus on the purely horror aspect. He trots out all the old, stale horror clichés: from the raccoon (instead of the usual cat) jumping out from a dark space to scare the hero; to the jittery camera jump cuts intended to provoke a fright; to the sudden loud music stings; and, of course, the climactic storm. The ringing bell quickly becomes repetitious and tiresome, as do the rearranging fridge magnets. As the writer, and occasional director, of the TV series Fear Itself and Masters of Horror, I suppose this focus was to be expected.

Pierce Brosnan gives it a game try but has too little to work with. The other characters are given far too little screen time to even try to create a characterization. Garris doesn't help matters by having most of them just glower or look ominous. Anika Noni Rose has a couple good moments, but is mostly relegated to vamping it up on stage as she sings. And Melissa George needed to be reined in with her hyperactive performance.

My advice is to stick with the Frank Darabont filmed adaptations of King and just read the novel Bag of Bones.

As with all King adaptations, the book is so much better. The nightmares Mike has in the book are just not thoroughly expressed and as scary in this. However, I think it's worth the couple hours it takes to watch it.

Some reviewers have attributed the failure of this miniseries to weak source material. I adored the novel Bag of Bones. The title comes from a Thomas Hardy quote that when authors try to breathe life into their characters, at their best, they're only a bag of bones. I felt that King animated these characters to be far more than that. I got very involved with Mike Noonan (the main character) and those whose life he touched.

Writer/director Mick Garris took this diaphanous weave of character and plot, cored it out, and threw in every bad horror movie cliché in its place. The result is an empty bag of pixels stretched out over four hours.

My heartfelt advice: take that four hours and invest it in reading the very good book or listening to King's reading in the audio book. It's far more satisfying.

I am an avid King fan. I have read a majority of his novels, and I have always loved his TV and Screen adaptations, even the cheesy older ones. King himself has always had a tongue-and-cheek view of many his screen plays, and I have always approached them the same way. After all, the horror genre is suppose to be fun. So, I think critics of this, and his other TV mini series have lost a lot of the fun of the thing. I myself thought A&E's version of Bag of Bones was well done and entertaining. It follows the book pretty closely, though as usual, some changes has been made. I enjoyed Pierce Brosnon as Noonan, and He was believable as the widowed writer. Overall it was a positive watching experience. The only thing I didn't enjoy were all the commercial interruptions, so If you can T-vo it, or if the eventually release it on DVD, catch it that way.

I am a Stephen King fan, but have not read this particular book. I will say that I prefer King's earlier works and I have not been overly pleased with the movie adaptations of his books. I am a huge Pierce Brosnan fan, which is why I watched, but this has got to be one of the worst things he has ever done, but that could have been due to poor directing. There were so many pieces of the story that were missing, the story line was very choppy. It made me wonder if it had been heavily edited. I read a bit about the book on Wikipedia. I don't understand why the story was changed, the book seemed so much more interesting. The book ending was much more dramatic than the movie. The 1st night was not very good, but since I had already invested 2 hours, I thought I would go ahead and finish it. I would rather have watched reruns of Dog the Bounty Hunter. I say read the book, skip the mini series.

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...

It seems to me the director, Mick Garris, was not in the "spirit" of Stephen King when he made this film. The movie is alright but it really had a great potential to be much better than what it is. It lacked that Stephen King feeling or "spirit".

The actors are good in the film - I'm not knocking them. They only acted out what was given to them to work with. Special effects are fine, cinematography is fine... for me this film just lacked that "King horror feeling".

If you like Stephen King and horror or ghost stories in general then I will say give this film a go if you can't find something else better to watch.

6/10.

I cannot believe that this drivel has received a 9 rating! The acting is the only horrific aspect of this film. It is proof positive that Stephen King novels do not translate well within the confines of a sanitized TV film. Mick Garris continues to prove that he just does not "get" King, yet is given opportunity after opportunity to butcher the master of horrors work. Bag of Bones, while not his best work, is still a novel that deserves so much better than this waste of time. Perhaps the hype was just too great, and it just could not possibly live up to the expectations. It is literally 4 hours of my life I will never get back and probably the worst film I have seen all year, and that's saying a lot because I saw Jack and Jill 2 weeks ago, and that was almost as excruciating.

Traveling to a lake-front mansion to get over his wife's death, a distraught writer finds that her ghost is using him to help a local woman battle an evil land-owner who's evil secret goes back to the town's infamous haunting involving numerous disappearances to cover up the original tragedy.

Taking the new miniseries as a whole, this one definitely feels just like every other Stephen King story: an isolated Maine town, elders having a deadly secret who the locals are afraid of, lots of melodrama instead of horror with only brief forays into the style to trick us into thinking that's what it really is, and far too many scenes outside the style that just eats up so much time that this could very easily be paired down by well over an hour without taking away anything of any importance in the storyline. The scares are pedestrian and seem to consist of the same thing, a wrinkly ghost-like woman appearing out of nowhere, which gets old very quickly and really hampers this one overall. It's still typical King so it's just mediocre and not unwatchable.

Rated Unrated/PG-13: Violence, Language and children-in-jeopardy.