A team of Scoopers led by director Garris and screenwriter Wenn poured a methodically castrated, then virtuoso raped version of King's eponymous novel Bag of Bones onto the big screen.
Bearing in mind the small number of successful adaptations of the books of the above-mentioned author, one should not have any illusions about the quality of the released product. However, the sophisticated technique of primitivization of the plot, which was used by the creators of the picture, was able to give the viewer a complete idea of the meaning of the word “fiasco”.
King’s narrative flows smoothly, like music, then beats the rhythm of the blacksmith sledgehammer, furiously forging from the trembling melted and prepared in this musical mountain of the reader’s imagination the key to the solution, which necessarily opens the door to the realm of cruel, denouncing all kinds of vices of truth. Here, almost from the first frames, we are thrown into the face of a grasped pigeon dropping with a previously screwed in exposing note that distorts the entire magic of the interaction between the director and the viewer. There is no trace of King’s Gothic mysticism. Instead of walking on a tightrope of strained nerves, we were slipped a sluggish shuffle on a terry carpet; instead of a person who has lost all interest in life, we get a superspy in retirement with a touch of phlegm on his face; instead of the interpenetration of the past and the present, we get incompetent flashbacks that do not reveal even half of the spirit of the American hinterland, full of blues “muddy water”, depravity and interracial conflicts, which together play, if not the key, then not the last role in the climax of the narrative; instead of the musical beauty of the King’s, without the inner beauty, we get, instead of a tragically, in front of the girl’s, instead of which we are given to us, instead of the musical magnetia, instead of the musical beauty, we have a natural magnetism, in front of the dark age. In the hungry spectator mouth put a bare sweet truth in the form of a piece of rubber without the ability to feel at least the taste of the veil of mystery.
It seems that the creators of the picture were focused on people whose level of development is no higher than the level of self-awareness of the swamp otter. And the point here is not at all in rather primitive special effects, because such a tasty piece of King's pie in terms of impact and skill level can be considered on a par with the "Pet Cemetery", which in 1989, despite the lack of technical base, could quite decently transfer to the screen. And it’s all about the atmosphere, the pain point of the novel, which should bleed in the film without false tears, in the heroes who should help the viewer feel the connection between the mystical and the real and carry it with him through all his fears and horrors of the subconscious, in the spirit of time, which should be transmitted through dusty records and old smoked voices on a rusty and cutting sound background, in the truthful transfer to the screen of the emotional core of the key scenes that make the movie real. I did not feel anything of this, did not feel anything, nothing in me shook and did not respond either to the cardboard suffering of Brosnan, or to the filmed footage of the nightmares tormented by the main character with some gentle childish romanticism, or even to the footage of violence.
Instead of soup with meatballs, we were fed ordinary boiling water without content and spices. I want to say, “No thanks, I’m not hungry.”
Films based on the work of Stephen King make up a special group. In one case, these are scrap films that serve as a more or less entertaining addition to the novel/narrative read ("Dreamcatcher"). In another case, these are independent works that will be understandable to the viewer without relying on material for reading. In this category falls “bag of bones”. In the center of the plot (as often happens) a prolific writer with his charming wife. By chance, his wife dies, and Mike goes to the house on the lake, where his wife spent the last time. This is where it all starts. Not only does the wife from the other world give her beloved signs, so half a dozen little girls led by the famous singer of the 20s convey their greetings through hallucinations, flashbacks and nightmares. Unravelling a tangle of strange events, the tireless writer in the person of Pierce Brosnan, step by step, makes his way through the thorns of years, learning along the way the unpleasant secrets of those living near the mysterious lake. As a result, Mike comes to the origins of a terrible story.
Frankly speaking, the film itself seems somewhat protracted, but the suspense, overtaken by history, forces you to watch The Bag to the end. The patient will be rewarded in full. All will be rewarded according to their merits, and justice will finally prevail.
The creative legacy of the great and terrible Stephen King truly has no boundaries. The prolific King of Terror has been pampering his fans for decades with various stories from the world of mysticism, describing all sorts of situations associated with the paranormal presence in the lives of ordinary, or not so, people. Filmmakers simply physically could not ignore the imagination of King, in connection with which every year based on his novels, novels, stories and notes published a dozen different projects shot for both large and small screens. However, the name Stephen King in the credits does not mean that the film adaptation can be successful. The situation develops in such a way that only a few films on the legacy of King are worthy of close attention, while all other films and TV series can be combined into one large pile of gray mass, defaming the name of the great author. Not an event and a two-part film called “bag with bones” in 2011. But unlike numerous faceless crafts, this creation is worthy of attention at least because of the remarkable cast and the enthusiasm of the creators to work on the project, so it boasts a number of positive points.
So, the plot of the film introduces us to the popular writer Mike Noonan (Pierce Brosnan), who recently finished writing another novel that returned him to the height of fame. While on a promotional tour of the book, Mike and his wife and part-time muse Joe (Annabeth Gish) visited a bookstore with an autograph session. Only now enjoy the success of the writer failed: right in the middle of the event, his wife leaves the building and falls under the wheels of the bus. The discouraged hero completely falls out of life unable to accept reality. Having gone into depression for a long time, Mike is nevertheless not ready to finally say goodbye to the work of life and accepts the offer to write a new novel that will be dedicated to the bright memory of Joe. And in order to again try to catch inspiration, the writer goes to live in the family house by the lake, located far from the noisy metropolis. But instead of diving into the creation of a new story, Mike is forced into a fight for the guardianship of hell as a little girl between her mother Matty (Melissa George) and greedy millionaire grandfather Max Devor (William Schallert). And this is only part of the trouble that broke into the life of the hero. Mike realizes that he becomes the object of the attention of a ghostly force, clearly demanding something from him. There are certain hints that the untimely departed Joe comes into contact with him. However, the wife of the hero is not the only otherworldly guest interested in Mr. Noonan.
The problem with many television films based on books by King and other writers is that they are often too long. It is critically important for the creators to extend the timekeeping to several series in order to fill the air with their own product. Not escaped this fate and “bag with bones”. An intriguing narrative could fit into a standard hour and a half of screen time, so that the presented story would add to the dynamics. Instead, director Mick Garris does not hesitate to exploit the dramatic talent of Pierce Brosnan, speculating on the soulful drama of his character even in those moments when it is completely unnecessary. The development of history takes place slowly. We are in no hurry to impress with any discoveries, excessively diluting the plot with unnecessary household elements, which quickly begins to bother. There is no development in the image of Brosnan. He froze in one psychological state and does not come out of it almost until the very end. monotonous repetition of memories from the life of the writer and his wife, confused dreams and long walks in nature make up most of the tape, while really worthwhile episodes fit into twenty minutes of viewing. If desired, from “Bag with Bones” it would be possible to make a quite tolerable full-length film for a possible movie rental, and so we have a good, but clearly squandering potential two-part TV project, slightly deceiving expectations.
To the credit of the film, it is worth saying that the book original authorship of Stephen King still makes itself felt at the most necessary moments. “Bag with Bones” boasts several storylines at once, which for the time being seem superfluous, but at the right moment they are combined into a single whole, thanks to which the narrative acquires meaning, and intrigue rises from nothingness. Traveling from the present to the past and back, the protagonist at first confuses not only himself, but also the viewer. Scenes representing 1939 seem to be something artificially woven into the plot, although their technical quality is perfect for television. Towards the end, the logic of events does put all the elements back into place, but it is still worth noting once again that the filmmakers hid the really worthwhile aspects of the story too far behind the veil of unnecessary scenes. And when they get to the screen, the impression on them is not as sharp as it could be.
The main attention when watching “Bag with Bones” attracts, of course, Pierce Brosnan. The once leading actor of the Dream Factory continues to experiment with images. This time he had to get used to the image of a man who is unable to cope with the loss of his wife. And Brosnan looks organic in his role. It is likely that he invested in Mike Noonan his own experiences associated with the loss of his first wife. The main thing is that you believe in the torment of the actor without any questions, and everything else no longer matters. Disappointing in the situation with Brosnan only that on his background absolutely lost his famous colleagues – Melissa George (“30 days of the night”) and Matt Freuer (“Psy factor”). They had to play quite significant characters, but the director and screenwriters felt that it was necessary to allocate much more time to the suffering of the hero Brosnan, which went to the disadvantage of the hypothetical intriguing characters who exactly had to tell.
In the end, I want to say that “Bag of Bones” for all its imperfection can be considered one of the most interesting films based on the works of Stephen King. Despite a considerable number of protracted moments and sagging scenes, the story captures the imagination and awakens detectives in the audience. Pierce Brosnan is here in great creative form, although in some places he manages to overplay. Many disadvantages overlap with a fascinating visual range. A pleasant-looking forest house, a calm lake, an attractive autumn forest - all this at the right time distracts from scenario and staged shortcomings. And the intrigue built by Stephen King himself traditionally meets all expectations. And this suggests that the “bag with bones” is still worth assessing yourself.
In some strange way, this film at one time bypassed me, I had to catch up. Successful adaptations of Stephen King are not as much as we would like, so that especially high hopes were not pinned. Basically, Mick Garris’ Bag of Bones wasn’t the worst movie I’ve seen, but it didn’t make me happy either.
Almost three hours of screen time – it would seem that here you can definitely put everything in the smallest details and semitones, but ... there is no harmony in the world, and, let’s say, it did not work out to make exactly the “bag with bones” that is in the novel. Everything is superficial, despite the apparent stretching of some scenes, there is no depth. It's a simplified program.
That’s probably my whole claim to the film, because there are things that were definitely done right.
I have a good selection of actors. The main characters are completely successful, there is no fault.
Another plus is the moments where the dreams of the protagonist are shown. Very colorful, very good atmosphere. Anyway, look and be happy.
I don’t want to scold the movie, but I don’t want to praise much.
Stephen King's novels, mostly disperse among filmmakers, like hot cakes. But there are exceptions. One of these is “Bag with Bones”, which for more than 10 years lay on the shelf in anticipation of its adaptation, for which, as a result, took the main filmmaker of King’s books (short sentence straight) Mick Harris (for whom this is the seventh adaptation of the works of the “king of horrors”). What happened? Let's have a look.
Plot. Michael Noonen is a well-known writer who gives out a bestseller for a bestseller on the mountain... and so it was until his wife was killed by a bus. He can't write without her, every thing in their house reminds him of her... and he decides to move to a small town near Dark Trail Lake where they had a small house. But even here he is haunted by the ghosts of the past, which very persistently push Michael to some terrible secret of this very lake.
Once strolling around the city, Michael meets Matty Divor, the daughter-in-law of a local millionaire who wants to take her daughter away for custody of her, not too shy about the means and methods. Mike, trying to confront the millionaire (and, in fact, the whole city), begins to realize that everyone in the city is connected by the very secret ... and if Michael wants not only to stay in the city, but to survive, his only chance is to solve it.
The first series begins very actively, and, despite some discrepancies with the plot of the book, it looks easy and interesting, but barely crossing the line in half an hour, the events seem to freeze, and the pace drops almost to zero. The film, as if reluctantly, squeezes out new and new scenes, and this continues even before the beginning of the second series. Of course, it is difficult to fit a book into the film format, the thickness of an average brick, but with the allowed simplifications of the plot - two and a half hours, specially adapted for the teleformat, turned out to be a noticeable burden for the writer, who muzzled the plot as much as he could. And at this very moment, King’s fans, who have read, and may have loved, the book, will ask a perfectly understandable and logical question—why shorten the story? However, if to paraphrase the words of Thomas Hardy, which are the leitmotif of the novel, that “the most thoughtful character is only a bag of bones”, then the most thoughtful film adaptation is at best a bag of bones from this very bag of bones. And with this you have to live a fan of a book that has undergone reincarnation in a movie format.
But the biggest omission of the creators, who tried, of course, as best they could, was not the absence, but rather the loss in the process of making the film, the same, adored by millions, “King” atmosphere. Events in the first half hour of the film, as it were tried (with relative success) to escalate, but then, such episodes became less and less, and the events, rather, occurred for the sake of events, or simply because it was written in the book ... and even the ending, which was almost verbatim transferred to the screen did not save. However, not everything in the film is so bad - it is well shot from a visual point of view (it is worth noting the operator Barry Donlevy), not bad, as for a TV movie, special effects, the film has a very high-quality soundtrack from Nicolas Pike (staff composer Harris), and, in a good way, there are few frankly annoying factors and stupidities, especially for those who King did not read.
The creator of the film is a person who will probably be able to argue for the title of the main filmmaker-kingoman only with Craig R. Buxley or Frank Darabont. Mick Harris, who directed almost all the most criticized film adaptations of King, including the six-hour “Confrontation”, who stubbornly tried to repeat the book page by page, and then did not depart from their habits, only the writer for a novel of this level (however, King has almost all novels of this level), Matt Venn, clearly not a little serious in the film industry.
Actors. Here, at first glance, everything seems to be fine, but even without reading the book, it seems that Pierce Brosnan (perhaps due to the not very successful makeup, well, or not very successful age for this role) is much older than his hero. Of course, there are no ex-James Bonds, but to watch Brosnan flirt with a girl who suits him not only in his daughter, but in his granddaughter, was at least ridiculous. Actually, the “girl”, she is also a nominee for the “Golden Globe” Melissa George, clearly left all her talents on the set of “Patients”, and nothing, except for a beautiful face, did not remember, and her superficially transferred to the screen heroine, who appeared even at the end of the first series, sometimes just annoyed, and, unlike other characters, did not cause an ounce of sympathy or sympathy. Another surprise was the two-second appearance in the film Jason Priestley. He is quite and by age, and by description, would be suitable for the main role, and so two or three episodes and that's all, but a good actor was ...
If we talk about those who liked, then of course it is William Schallert, who, despite the almost ninety (!!) age, looked more cheerful than many young people (despite the fact that he sat in a wheelchair throughout the film) and played exactly the Max Divuor that he should have. The same can be said about Deborah Grover and her Rogetta.
The main praises for the acting go to the incomparable Anika Noni Rose, who just perfectly fell into the image of Sarah Tidwell. The actress, about whom few people have heard, just phenomenally conveyed the spirit, and most importantly emotions – the anger and hatred of her character.
If you look at the film (and not abandon it in the first half of the first series) to compare it with the novel, we can say that the creators, losing in the process of a lot of social aspects, such as the mania of power and total control over everyone and everything, or the relationship between parents and children (yes, in the film it was, but it was not put a single emphasis), all the same more or less cleverly transferred to the screen the main idea of the book, namely, that for everything you have to pay, and that sometimes for the sins of parents, children must answer.
Result. "Bag with bones" is not as good as it could be , due to the simplified plot, drawn timekeeping and not quite suitable actor for the main role, but not as bad as they say . Those who have actually read (felt?) the book (and not those who only talk about it), understand perfectly well that even the best adaptation of the most thoughtful book is nothing more than a bag of bones pulled from a bag of bones.
I read the book a long time ago, I got to the series just yesterday, and I can’t give an analysis of the bad / good correspondence of the film to the content of the novel. A friend who did not take such a long break between reading and watching said that the film adaptation was unsuccessful and the actors were poorly selected. Judging by the number of negative reviews, I think it was not far from the truth.
Well, if you digress from the basics and consider the Bag as an independent film by Mick Harris, it fully meets all the laws of the mystical thriller. The writer, shocked by the death of his wife, comes to his house on the Black Track Lake, where he soon realizes that the whole town, and the cottage itself, are hiding some terrible secret. Ghosts? Please. Suspicious residents? In bulk. Shadows, sounds, restless dreams, conversations from the other world – nothing to complain about. So I liked the movie on its own. I will not evaluate the acting game, but I will probably notice that James Bond still overplays a little.
7 out of 10
The film is based on the original novel by Stephen King, released in 1998. And I will say right away: the film turned out to be disgusting.
The plot for the film looks like too voluminous and sometimes it seems that something in the movie did not fit. But in general, you can watch. That's just watching almost three hours of sluggish storytelling was very boring, and the main actor Pierce Brosnan himself is not impressive to me. Somehow you don’t really look at his game, you don’t believe him in tears, and the way he switches between the real world and the ghost world, where he goes a little crazy... I don’t know where the game is. Either that's what the script says: Go and pretend you care about it, or don't do anything. Anyway, Pierce didn't do the role. This is the main disadvantage of the whole film: an unsuccessful cast.
What was definitely nice to watch in the film was the sleep scenes, especially the coffin in the woods looks simply chic, but this is still due to the director and the illuminators, rather than the actors or screenwriters. And only on these scenes, the film cannot be drawn. Although there was still a raccoon, he was sitting in the attic and waited for his exit to effectively scare the main character and jump out, knocking everything down. Nice.
I don't know what else to write here. I barely got through the film, sometimes just laughing with the ravings of the narrative or the stupid play of Pierce, there was really a couple of good music, but all this quickly fell to naught when I saw the ending of the film, which did not impress me. I wouldn’t recommend watching this, but stick to the original. Stephen King is always more interesting to read than to watch.
4 out of 10
“Compared to the dumbest man who really walked on the ground and cast his shadow on it, any character in the novel, however perfectly written, is nothing more than a bag of bones.”
The percussion phrase of the film worked out its content for a hundred. Well, is it possible to call a full-blooded character (well, not a novel, but still a film) a pale resemblance to the grief of a murdered writer, whom Brosnan is trying to portray here? I don't know what he's doing in the house on Dark Trail Lake. He is working on the book somehow sluggishly, his wife’s lonely pastime is interested only insofar as, according to the script, he seems to have to ask about something like this, he grasps and indulges in memorized phrases. By the second series, our finally bored hero completely relaxes and does not bother to even let a tear over the dying Matty Diovur. In the same way, his efforts to beat the wrong cop with a meat hammer look ridiculous. And about how unnaturally Mike asks for forgiveness from the furious spirit of Sarah, generally silent – from this moment you can start watching this film as a black comedy, where the absurdity of the script is inspired by the play of the characters.
Matty. A single mother, a murderer of her own spouse and just a careless blonde. It was just in her garden that Max said, "Guardianship is a big responsibility," because to call Matty an impeccable mother would be to lie in the face of God and the working-age population of Maine. At the beginning of the film, Kira is almost hit by a car in the absence of her mother, and in the second series, Matty quietly chirps with Mike on the phone, while her girl jumps from stone to stone through a seething stream.
Rodgett Whitmore Personal assistant of the old man, eighty-year-old witch, one right throwing healthy men from the mountain ledges. At the same time, we are not shown in the film where this divine dandelion has such supernatural power. Absurd in its improbability scene with the attack, and fear Rodgett the viewer will not make even casually addressed Brosnan words that “he will squeal like a bitch”. Neither individuality, nor villainous plan, nor chilling horror I saw in this film.
The film is like raw student material, the refinement of plots and images of which the creators had neither time nor, apparently, desire.
3 out of 10
- for playing Kathleen Carmichael and the glorious name of Stephen King.
“Bag of Bones” is another film that was shot on the creepy and dark novels of the great and talented writer Stephen King. In his books, horror, death and an unusual, gloomy atmosphere always reign, which must be transferred to the filmmakers, or the movie will not work. I like almost all of King’s novels, and Bag of Bones is no exception. This movie turned out to be long, sometimes long and sometimes cruel and gloomy. I think the movie turned out and you can watch it. I read this novel by Stephen King and believe that the creators of the movie managed to create all the nuances and trifles that were in the book.
We see a writer who lost his wife and moved into a country house. He has the feeling that her spirit has not died and is haunting him, and in addition to this, he learns a terrible and shocking secret with which he is directly connected, and he has to go through a really terrible story that is covered with a long-standing deep secret, and solving it will save many lives of young girls.
Pierce Brosnan plays in this mystical thriller quite convincingly. I like this actor. He always approaches his roles with great responsibility and plays without falsehood. Melissa George is for me the queen of real, quality horror movies. This actress always plays in very scary and creepy movies, and so in this movie I was not surprised to see her.
The movie was good, but not a masterpiece. The film is a bit long, but there are also moments that are shocking and dark. I think Stephen King should like this movie, because it was strictly based on his novel. “Bag with Bones” is a creepy film that will not be to everyone’s taste, but lovers of horror films and Stephen King, this film should attract attention and intrigue.
7 out of 10
For me, as a fan of King, this series was a welcome one. Skepticism was present: what if the director did not fall into the phenomenal-individual mood of King, which he had when he wrote the book? As it turned out, suspicions were justified.
Something in the movie reminded me of 1997’s The Shining. To me, make-up artists and decorators seemed to try to repeat, albeit a small, but the success of another re-shot of King’s novella: the same bathroom, the same corpses in the bathroom, isn’t it laughter? Well, come on, old Stephen is a lover of baths and corpses in them, and, justifying decorators and makeup artists, we will refer to repetitions in the work of the writer. But! What do we see next? And then on the screens unfolds a completely crumpled version of "Bag with bones" in binding. King, as a master of his craft, tried to invest in the characters of the heroes something more than a bottle of whiskey of the main character, plump lips of a simple blonde and stupid facial expressions of villain guys. The issue of interracial hatred, which in the book is a key thread to understanding cruelty, the director decided to skip altogether. Really, well, why load the viewer with an extra idea. It is better to sum up everything simply to an excess of hormones in young people. By the way, young people are very inconclusive. The scene of violence is absurd, crumpled, unwritten. No brutality, no inhumanity, no ferocity, no lust. Absolutely nothing. As for Sarah the Laugher... I was hoping she would pull the story. But no. And then there's the failure. The image of the female demon, killed by the grief of the avenger, the one who is subject to the elements when her anger is unstoppable, in the film is reduced to a silk dress and red lipstick.
Nothing to say about Brosnan. Even in the book, I did not get into the hero, so in the film he did not cause special emotions.
I recommend the film to those who are not looking for meaning, but just want to be afraid. You'll find some scary moments.
I read the book a long time ago, and certainly did not turn its pages. I wanted to know how much the film can refresh in me those pleasant impressions of what I read.
If I had not read the book, I would have no desire to fill this gap in literary education. But to re-read to return, destroyed by the film, emotions from the read, I wanted.
Mick Harris made this film in the style of his own “Masters of Horror”. Screensaver for tense music, with credits against the background of images and main scenes. But I liked that, for example, the name of the writer was indicated against the background of the typewriter, and the composer – against the background of the old recording of the singer Sarah Tudell, the heroine of the book.
The film has two episodes. The first stretched just to tediousness: it consists almost of walking Mike around the house. And the dark hallways and beech magnets were telling me that no, no, this time the whole story is going to explode and wrap. Usually, such “acquaintance of heroes with a new place” in films does not take much time.
Kaira's girl. I didn't fall in love with this child at first, as it was in the book: there wasn't her Piviet or live children's dialogue. However, in the second episode, when Mike put her to bed, she still became the same King’s Kaira. And the sad events with Sarah Tudell were not distorted by unnecessary storylines. They were even simplified. I remembered with pleasure and saw what kind of curse gave rise to the long-term story presented in the novel and its adaptation.
The film is back in the book, but superficially. It's like he just showed me a bag of bones outside, but he didn't let me see what was going on inside.
If you do not read the book before watching this movie, it will seem quite good. The script. But not by acting.
No matter how good an actor/James Bond was Brosnan, the grief-stricken writer never came out. Although it may have come out, but not the one needed in this film to create an atmosphere.
As they say, I am not Stanislavsky, but I do not believe.
I do not believe that he loved his wife, I do not believe that after her death he suffers, I do not believe that in the end he fell in love with this little girl and can replace her father and mother. I don’t even believe he’s a writer.
Well, Brosnan didn't get to feel the emotions of the main character. Maybe he didn’t read the book, just the script. In that case, yes, I can still understand why everything looks so superficial and unreliable.
Tom Hanks would have been suitable for this role. I believe in him and him. And in the film adaptations of King, he always manages to create the right atmosphere. Some barely noticeable gestures, looks... I think he would have done a great job in that role.
Anika Noni Rose is perhaps the only one who played back, giving everything. Every movement, every look, conveys what needs to be conveyed. She sings while performing, and with her body and eyes she tells a completely different story - she tells Mike Noonen who exactly is to blame for what happened many years ago.
I want to pay special attention to the tree. It's really weird. No, seriously. Not only does its trunk resemble a female body, and the crown has grown exactly in the form of “hair”, so it also fights.
But that's not enough. It has a face. Female. Sarah. Why only the face – for me, it will probably remain a mystery.
No, I understand perfectly well that this was an attempt to show that Sarah's spirit had invaded the tree, so it decided to slap Noonan. I understand that it was necessary to somehow visually show that Mike still coped with the curse. I understand that if the tree had fought harder, James Bond would have woken up in Brosnan and then everyone in the area would have been... um... not much fun. But it reminds me of very old horror stories. When the most terrible was a rubber skeleton, appearing suddenly from around the corner.
Obviously, the wrong tree was chosen as the tree. Seriously...
In general, the impression of the film is a little crumpled. As it has been said, “However, despite all the disappointment, the film is well made.” I agree.
If it wasn’t for the movie, I’d rate it at 8. And that's it.
6 out of 10
For Stephen King connoisseurs, I recommend this film only and exclusively for familiarization (but not for evaluation) with the film adaptations of the novels of the great and terrible.
I have a very, very mixed opinion about this film. So, I propose to consider it from two points of view – as a film adaptation of a good (but not the best) novel by Stephen King and as a separate film.
So, if you consider this film as a film adaptation, it is a complete failure. Horrible. The atmosphere is not conveyed, the actors are completely unsuitable. How can Mike Noonen play the former James Bond?? Well, that's not the worst part. Probably inspired by some protractedness at the beginning of the novel, they decided to take and stretch this King’s “brick” for a whole miniseries. Therefore, if we consider this film as another adaptation of Stephen King, then this film can be assessed satisfactorily. With a minus.
However, if we decide to treat this as a separate film, if we forget that this is a film adaptation of a novel by a terrific writer, then overall the film came out quite well. Of course, it'll be unbelievably long. In my opinion, they could limit themselves to 2 hours and fit the whole story there, rather than stretching the scenes.
Besides, with all the talent of Pierce Brosnan (and I really think he is a talented actor), he is not suitable for the role of a heartbroken writer. Just not in any way. Other actors also look very confusing and confused. Sometimes there is a feeling that they have just changed clothes, went to the court and immediately try to play something. The only one I really liked was Sarah, the actress who played Sarah. She's amazing. And very pretty.
I won’t call this movie scary, although there were times when I twitched. More like surprise. But if you haven’t read the novel, it will be quite interesting to watch the movie because of the storyline. Those who already know everything – alas, a second time will not review.
So, if we regard this film as a separate movie, if we abstract from the fact that this is a film adaptation of a writer very much loved by many, and the film adaptation is far from the best, then the film deserves the assessment that I gave him.
7 out of 10
It is common for anyone to be wrong. No matter how serious or gross the mistake was. The main thing is to remember that all our actions have consequences that can occur immediately, or manifest themselves in months or even years. Therefore, sometimes it is worth living with an eye on the future and thinking before making a decision. So, "The Bag of Bones."
Screening of works of "great and terrible" Stephen King is a difficult business and must be approached with great care. Therefore, the directors have already become accustomed not to limit themselves to one and a half-hour paintings, but to shoot mini-series lasting from three to six hours. "It", "Langoliers", "Confrontation", "The Red Rose Mansion" and others. Now they add a "bag with bones". And the point is not that a mandatory condition is the adaptation word for word or producers save on editing. The works created by King are entire worlds, thought out to the smallest detail. And one missing detail can cost the film an atmosphere, if not a fragmented storyline. And the sophisticated viewer wants the pleasure to last as long as possible (subject to successful film adaptation, of course).
Two characteristic and therefore the most important features inherent in almost every work of Stephen King is the isolation of the space in which events unfold, and the pain of losing one (or several) of the heroes of close, family or friends. These two factors create the most important thing in any story: the atmosphere. Having an excellent text base, doubting which makes no sense, could the creators capture the idea, the atmosphere that is present in the original source?
The loss of a loved one is always a terrible tragedy for any person. At the peak of his career, writer Mike Nunnen could not have imagined that the day of his triumph would be the most nightmarish of his life. It is hard and painful to lose a wife, but it is even harder to lose a wife carrying a child under his heart. Joe was everything to him - wife, friend, muse, life itself. After such a loss, you want only one thing - to leave, lie down, retire on the outskirts of the world, where no one will interfere and climb into the soul. And small secrets from Joe’s past of those times when she spent a lot of time in a small town near the lake “Dark trail” did not give Mike peace. The choice is made - "Dark trail" is waiting for its new resident. He only wanted an answer to one question. However, the dark past of the town presented him with many. And finding answers to them becomes a matter of life and death, and not just for him. What is the "Dark Trail Curse"? Why is he not known to anyone outside of town? What happened many years ago and what does his wife have to do with it?
The total length of the tape is just over two and a half hours. Was it possible to do without splitting it into two episodes? Probably not, and it was originally intended. Bypassing cinemas, "Bag of Bones" was immediately to be shown on TV and the rights to its screening was bought by A&E channel. And the picture of such duration did not fit the format of the channel, and the successful separation into two parts contributed to a more adequate perception of history.
In the first episode, the viewer gets acquainted with the characters, the setting of the story, storylines and weaves are formed. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg - the integrity of the narrative looks hazy, some moments seem deadlocked. The first episode formulates questions and sets the tone for the story. It is here that it is necessary to convey the atmosphere as accurately as possible, preserving all the important details of the source. A task that the creators, in general, coped with. The enclosed area here is the town of "Dark Trail" and its surroundings. The place that won’t let Mike go, and the ghosts that haunt him, show him the way to investigate. Oblique glances of residents, a house on the edge of the lake, with a beautifully designed interior, picturesque landscapes that open to the viewer while Mike makes morning jogs. The famous phrase is “a beautiful place to die.”
The second series marks the beginning of the main action. The narrative adds dynamism, the plot, already vague at first, twists into an even denser tangle of mysteries and secrets. And then – RAZ! – with one stroke of the axe is cut with just one scene, after which the dynamics reach their climax, and the story approaches its conclusion. And every detail, every detail occupies its niche in the overall design, leaving no room for omissions and ambiguous interpretations.
It is worth noting a strong enough cast for the series, which has become one of the keys to success. Although, in my opinion, Melissa George was pretty overplaying in some places. And visually the picture left a pleasant impression (although the concept of history as a series, still left a noticeable mark), the benefit of hard and frightening scenes here was in abundance.
And above all, like a veil covering the face of the girl, the idea of the work floats, vital, and therefore relevant. Just as the flapping of a butterfly’s wings at one end of the world can trigger a hurricane at the other end, so our actions will always have consequences in the future. And a lot can depend on that. Sometimes I want to live one day without thinking about anything. However, the consequences may not be long in coming. So the idea that we need to live with an eye on both the past and the future has not lost its relevance.
“Bag of Bones” seems to be King’s most unfortunate adaptation. I don't know if the novel is that bad, but the movie is bad. Bad, bad.
Why is it bad?
1. Pierce Brosnan. I think Brosnan overdid it a little. At some point, his play caused tears of despair in his eyes. I will not lie, I never liked him as an actor, but, I must admit, he still has (or already had) some kind of spark, a crown look. Some unhealthy and misplaced desperation runs through his whole game. In addition, Pierce seems tired.
2. Who said it was a horror movie? It's easy to scare me, but I never flinched.
3. Movies are boring. Action scenes are sometimes very funny. When something significant happens, the eye cannot catch it: attention dissipates - everything is so sluggish.
4. The dialogues are just shuddering, they are so bad. It is true that someone here wrote that it feels like a child wrote them.
5. And Melissa George has not looked so gone and out of place for a long time.
Only Anika Noni Rose is gorgeous here. And when he sings.
Unusual secrets of a small town fall on the head of an unsuspecting writer who, moreover, is grieving for his dead wife.
What can you say, the film adaptation of Stephen King is again in its repertoire! And there's nothing good about it! How superficial is it to understand the super-psychological source so straightforwardly? Mick Garris (The Highway, Riding a Bullet) is a director who personally ruined the maximum number of works by the King of Horrors when transferred to the screen. For fans of the work of the brilliant writer, he became the same as Uwe Ball (Bladrain, Post) for avid gamers.
Pierce Brosnan ("Dante Peak", "The Thomas Crown Scam"), apparently, completely adapted to the film. Otherwise, how else to explain the fact that, in the opinion of many, the best James Bond played so clumsy?! However, if you abstract from the book, you can watch the film, but with difficulty. Because even in this case, clearly prolonged timekeeping will scare away many. In the picture completely killed intrigue and absolutely no atmosphere of horror. It is better not to remember the sluggishness of the narrative.
In general, this work can be recommended only to fans of the literary master, and even then, for the purpose of general acquaintance with the next spoiled creation of the idol. The rest of the viewing is not recommended.
Honestly ruined the viewing of himself and his soulmate by reading a book before the film and shouting throughout it - "What is this?", "For what they are so with King?!" and ...
Outside the context of the book, the film came out like a good, and the cast is nothing, but all “bypass the box office”. The things that King is pressing, the things that he is trying to get into the minds of readers — all the dirt that we see, all those feelings — are simplified, if not completely forgotten. In connection with political correctness, one of the main problems is completely removed - why, in fact, everything happened (which allowed the gangs of loggers to do what they did) - the question of attitude to "niggers" during the turn of the century (which in the film unobtrusively replaced by the middle, thereby removing the question of generations). Forgot about family ties, for some reason inserted a ridiculous “curse”, as if helping the viewer to understand what is what – in general, simply – forgot about the book, which, like, shot the film.
As a result: a spoiled book and a lack of depth is what happens too often with the transfer of Stephen to the screen.
Watch only before reading, or after the book is well forgotten!