This movie was bad.
The concept was great, but the execution was horrible. The last thing you need to give bad actors is a bad script and bad directing. SK should've said no to this. I'm sure the book was decent, but someone should've been smart enough to put this on the screen correctly.
What a waste of time.
I haven't seen this but I have read the book.
As a massive King fan from his earliest books, this short story was the first thing I read by him that sucked. I could not believe that he wrote it. The characters were so 1 dimensional it was laughable.
I believe there was a period when his wife wrote some books under his name. I fear this was the start of that.
I believe there was a period when his wife wrote some books under his name.Tabitha has never written any of his books. If she did, the works wouldn't have nearly the amount fat.
I think Brian , Nick & (dean stockwell) were pretty damn good. You work with what you are given. Scripts can either make you or break you. It's not their method that's wrong.
Watch David Morse (Brian) in some other 90's movies. he's pretty great.
I think the story needed more to be honest, a break away from Stephen King's method and put more of a creative spin on things. The locations are all wrong too. Need to change the location. Have the characters visit a city, have some suspense, give them more than 1 day to figure it all out. etc
Have a parallel universe (Split) two planes (with the passengers who went missing) being found at the end. Two split timelines etc.
Stephen king always has the same formula. A writer, a psychic, a teacher, a crazy person , and mix it all together with a monster
It gets tired.
The pilot and Nick were the only two who could actually act lol. Mr Jenkins too to an extent and Mr Toomey has been good in other movies but not so much this one. The worst actors were Albert and Bethany lol my God were they bad, especially Albert but it just made it funny.
I would love to see this movie remade with proper actors, script, effects etc etc. It could be done so much better but I still enjoy this movie a lot.
#TheBull
by michellian » Fri May 22 2015 05:01:20 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2005
Stephen king always has the same formula. A writer, a psychic, a teacher, a crazy person , and mix it all together with a monster
It gets tired.
I NEVER thought of it that way, but you're right! When you see Rose Red it's nothing more than another adaptation of The Haunting from the 60's, or The Legend of Hell House.
And don't forget the little kid(s) with magical powers! Never fails.
shareI agree, but I still like it. The problem with this movie is that it's got a really low budget, but also it's almost a word-for-word translation of the novel. Which is admirable, but words on paper spoken aloud often come off wooden or cheesy. Which is why actors need to be allowed to improvise/alter dialogue so it sounds more natural.
Another film series where this is obvious is the Star Wars prequels; it's not so much that all the acting is bad, but the dialogue is bad and George Lucas wouldn't let the actors ad-lib at all. They had to recite exactly what he had written.
Though hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's impossible to win an argument with an idiot
I'm sure he was quite upset over his % of the gross.
share[deleted]
I thought the movie was poor as well, I had issues with IT and The Stand as TV movies. Your better off giving the material to HBO or some network that would throw extra money at it to do it right.
Now that there is serious talks about bringing The Gunslinger into a movie, I will probably have issues with that as well. That series of books is my favorite from King.
I have been watching 11-22-63 and so far love it, but I haven't read that book, which I will be doing before I finish watching the show.
Your better off giving the material to HBO or some network that would throw extra money at it to do it right.This. share
It's safe to say Stephen King probably fully endorsed this interpretation of his work.
His appearance in it says that. Believe me, he would not have appeared had he not agreed with the presentation, direction and screenplay. I find that whenever Mr. King is directly involved in producing his written works, it really stinks! Some writers are capable of pulling this off. Stephen King cannot. I usually watch his movie or miniseries adaptations just to see how the actors handle his ridiculous pap. I have a great admiration for any actor that get through a "based on Stephen King" work with a straight face or degree of professionalism that I generally see exhibited in such ensembles. Bravo to this cast, containing some actors that I admire and appreciate, for lending their talents to such infantile and tedious material and making it a pleasant watch!
SK is the first to say that he does horrible screen adaptations of his novels. So he probably liked it. He is probably the best author that has ever lived (numbers don't lie) but he couldn't make a good movie if his life depended on it. Cases in point, The Shining and COTC. He remade these to remain "true to the source" and they were miles behind the originals.
share