Bag of Bones on A&E

DiskuteraKing's Dear Constant Readers

Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

Bag of Bones on A&E

Denna diskussion är för närvarande "vilande"—det sista inlägget är mer än 90 dagar gammalt. Du kan återstarta det genom att svara på inlägget.

dec 13, 2011, 6:52am

A&E made a two part mini-series of Bag of Bones starring Pierce Bronson. Watching a bit on DVR and thinking it's very odd and deviates from the book in unusual ways, first of which, using a British man to play a new englander. As this is one of my favorites from King, I am interested to see if it's decent at all. Anyone else watching this?

dec 13, 2011, 11:28am

I loved this book but am not enjoying the mini series. As you said MADCOW299 it deviates from the book - so much seems to be left out. I will watch the second half tonight but do not have high expectations. :(

dec 13, 2011, 12:39pm

I have it recorded on my DVR, but haven't watched it yet.

dec 13, 2011, 1:15pm

I watched the first half and it isn't bad. For a King TV movie, below The Stand's quality, but certainly above something like the Langoliers or the more recent version of the Shining. They captured the creepiness of the story and house well. Max Devore looks like the evil SOB he is. I like Sarah and the music. But the richness of the story seems to be left out and some of the changes they made were just weird and unnecessary. I think a 6-hour mini-series instead of 4-hour might have helped. And dear God can someone teach Pierce Bronson how to run and not look like a schmuck. He was James Bond for Pete's sake. Overall though, worth watching.

dec 13, 2011, 3:54pm

Madcow299 I agree.. and how to laugh.... what the heck is that he is doing? lol.

dec 13, 2011, 9:41pm

I have it recorded but am looking forward to watching it. I haven't read the book in years so maybe the variations won't bother me to much. I know when I do reread the book I will be very annoyed!

dec 13, 2011, 10:21pm

I just read it this summer and the yeah that probably hurt my opinion. Although I think the second half was better than the first. Definitely worth watching.

dec 13, 2011, 11:21pm

I watched it as well, but can't remember the story at all other than the magnets on the refrigerator, I don't remember loving the book. Another one that needs a re-read to see if it gets better.

dec 14, 2011, 4:08am

I'm waiting for the group reread here. I have several King books just waiting for their turn.

dec 17, 2011, 5:54pm

I watched it when it was on last night and was disappointed. One of the things that bothered me was Pierce Brosnan age, he couldn't pass for anywhere near 40, but Devore was good.

dec 18, 2011, 12:11am

Bag of Bones was one that I loved, and I know that's unusual among King fans. I have now watched the whole thing consecutively (thank you, DVR), and the changes were just wrong--they undermined the meaning and intention of the book. Unlike everyone else, I liked Pierce Brosnan in the part (and Mike Noonan IS kind of a dork, so I think that was intentional). I thought the first half was better than the second. The characterization material was good, but the climax and resolution all came in about half an hour and "the shooting" (no spoiler there, so please nobody clarify that for folks who haven't seen it) was so abrupt as to be corny. I think they might have wanted to make a longer film and got squeezed. I really wanted this one to be good because it's very "do-able" as a mini-series, and I was really disappointed.

dec 20, 2011, 3:42pm

Very disappointed. I love Pierce Brosnan usually but he fell flat in this story. I also think that he was too old. His grandfather was raised in New England, his brother (who also looked pretty old) didn't have an accent at all and Noonan had a British accent and I don't think that Brosnan is anything close to being booky or nerdy enough to be Noonan.

You do have to love a good tree whipping though, I got a chuckle out of that.

dec 20, 2011, 4:57pm

a most excellent tree

dec 21, 2011, 11:18am

We watched this over the past couple of days. I was not thrilled. I didn't remember a whole lot of the story since I read it so long ago, but it just didn't feel right to me. Overall, I was happy with the casting and acting, but the storyline just didn't flow and I found myself pretty bored. I KNOW that didn't happen when I read the book. Anyway, I was pretty disappointed and it left me wondering why King is so difficult to successfully translate into film. (There are some exceptional films made from King material, but there are some exceptional turds as well!)

dec 22, 2011, 11:49pm

Thank you, StefanY. That's a good description: "the storyline just didn't flow." I can get past accents--especially if you have a few actors who can "set the scene" with really good ones (I think of Becky Ann Baker in "Storm of the Century" for instance), and a New England accent is particularly difficult. I think King is really dependent on internal monologue and characterization--most especially in his "haunting" books and that makes them REALLY HARD to film. And I have to agree with the assessment of the tree whipping. I loves me a good tree whipping--a la The Wizard of Oz or Harry Potter--and that was chuckle-worthy....

jan 3, 2012, 8:30am

Ents! don't forget Ents! they kick ass