La Maison sur le lac

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.

I am used to movies/series about books but this is an another case. If I did not read the book I think I do not understand the storyline at all. Because all the necessary and crucial relationships are missing in this mini series. This series could be longer than a 2 episode series. Because 2 episodes did not provide the background of the story as it should. I know book based products are different and should be than the books itself but this is an exception. If you really want to understand wats going on you should read the book. After you read that it is enjoyable to watch and criticize the series.

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.

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Novelist Mike Noonan (Pierce Brosnan) suffers terrible writer's block following the death of his wife and finds himself drawn by terrible dreams in the aftermath to Dark Score Lake, the serene little area where he and his wife own a summer house. He runs into Mattie (Melissa George) a young mother who's locked in a bitter custody battle with local millionaire Max Devore (William Schallert) who has the place in his grip. But Kyra (Caitlin Carmichael) the young girl at the centre of the battle, Devore himself and the tale of Sara Tidwell (Anika Noni Rose) a local blues singer from the 1930s, and the memory of his dead wife are all drawn together in one devastating revelation.

Having very recently finished reading Bag of Bones, I was very eager to see this film adaptation of it, despite Stephen King novels having a poor history of translating in to films, with a handful of exceptions. The warning lights sort of felt on with this one from the off set, but I was willing to give it a chance. While staying pretty faithful to the source material, director Mick Garris has taken some creative licence with some of the material here, which anyone who has read the book will notice. This is just to be expected, though, and fundamentally the film (the first part, anyway) does nothing wrong, with a fairly decent lead performance from Brosnan and a more than willing supporting cast.

The troubles become more clear in the second part, where the translation difficulties become more apparent and the script fails to hold up to the book, from which memorable events appear on screen without half their dramatic impact, which just leaves an impression of lameness. There's also the TV movie constraints, in the shape of some laughable special effects.

It's a shame that the bad stuff lets it down, because a worthy go has been had here and the film is capable of some intense, dramatic writing and style. It's simply a case that, as ever with King, reading the book will be so much better. **

I love Stephen King novels, and I love the miniseries productions of his work (particularly SALEM'S LOT and IT). BAG OF BONES is the latest addition to the list, a 2011 production which sees Pierce Brosnan playing a thinly-veiled version of the author himself uncovering ghosts and sinister secrets in a rural town.

So far so Stephen King, you might think, and this is very much par for the course when it comes to this type of stuff. Director Mick Garris tries to jazz things up with snappy editing and cross-cutting, but when it comes to the 'horror' it's the same old scare tactics: loud noises, sudden movement, a creepy pair of villains. The usual stuff.

The production isn't all bad, and I did find that the three hours zipped past as I watched; I wasn't bored, that's for sure. Brosnan gives one of his dependable everyman type performances (and seems to be wearing that same old blue shirt from DANTE'S PEAK) although Melissa George is slightly wasted in a small role. Really, this is the Brosnan show, with him going all Bruce Campbell as he's haunted in his lakeside cabin.

There are a few gory flourishes here and there to keep things moving, and I liked the eventual unravelling of the back story which was highly effective. But for every point BAG OF BONES scores it loses one by doing something silly - such as the excruciatingly twee final scene involving some friendly spirits.