La maldición de Dark Lake

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.

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.

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.