Bag of Bones

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.

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 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.

As with all King adaptations, the book is so much better. The nightmares Mike has in the book are just not thoroughly expressed and as scary in this. However, I think it's worth the couple hours it takes to watch it.

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.