Good story, Not enough for a whole film

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

I'm giving this a 9 just because one reviewer exclaimed "I can't believe this got a 9!" Actually, I would probably rate it 7-8. I'm not a big Pierce Brosnan fan, but he does quite a good job here. Brosnan is nicely understated in his acting, which is a real treat compared to over the top renderings by the likes of Jack Nicholson. The tension builds nicely and the villains are appropriately creepy (I'm primarily thinking of old Bill Schallert and his uber creepy female consort). Despite many reviewer jibes at Mick Garris, I think he also does a creditable job. To the reviewer who asks why Garris continues to be allowed to "hatchet" King stories, maybe King likes the guy's work? Ever think of that?

I watched this in its movie version, having not read the book but love the horror genre, and it just doesn't work. Lots of plot holes, too many characters, its just all a bit too confused. I should have known from the beginning. When Mike's wife goes to get lunch (and buy a pregnancy test, of course) he's doing a book signing and hears sirens. He then gets up, walks past the queue (none of them seem to mind) and outside to his wife, whom he just 'knew' was there. While she is taking her last breaths, the ambulance crew is in the background with a stretcher. No attempts to resusitate or ascertain the extent of her injuries, they just watch. Hence the 'oh dear' from which I didn't feel the film redeemed itself.