Stephen Kings Bag of Bones

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.