Coventry I should probably begin my review by stating that – in my personal humble opinion - Stephen King is the most overrated & over-hyped individual on this planet. More than 30 years ago, the genre's best directors (De Palma, Kubrick, Carpenter, Hooper…) perhaps still managed to turn his best stories into good horror movies, but since then it only became unmistakably clear that his novels are lackluster and derivative of obscure and undiscovered gems. Then there's Mick Garris, who's simply the most pathetic and clueless fan-boy of the most overrated and over-hyped individual on this planet… The only half- decent thing Garris ever did was gather together a bunch of horror director far more talented than himself and persuaded them to collaborate in the "Masters of Horror" project, but his own movies – and then particularly his King adaptations – are poor, redundant and dumb. "Bag of Bones" is probably a new low in both their careers. It's not so much that this film/mini-series is unwatchable or even terrible; it's just unbelievable mundane and unoriginal! "Bag of Bones" is just an incredibly irritating, nearly three hours (!) lasting spitfire of dreadful clichés, predictable twists and unsurprising revelations that wouldn't even impress viewers who've never seen a horror movies before in their lives! I'm 300% convinced that the novel never would have been published (and the TV-adaptation never produced) if it didn't have King's name and undeserved reputation linked to it. Any other writer undoubtedly would have been impolitely rejected if he/she presented a tale about traumatized writers, small towns with dark secrets and ongoing family curses. But hey, Stephen King wrote it so people will love it; right? Disgusting… Okay, so let's look at the fascinating plot… A novelist loses his beloved wife in a car accident and seeks for confinement in their cabin next to a lake in a remote little town. Oh please! He finds out that his wife was pregnant when she died even though he thought they couldn't have children. Yawn! His dead wife seeks supernatural contact with him via letter magnets on the fridge. Are you kidding me? He meets a beautiful woman that is much too young for his and stumbles upon an unsolved local mystery about black blues singer who vanished. Oh, how exciting! He confronts a few evil people and discovers that half of the townsfolk drowned their own kids in the lake because of a curse dating back to the 1930s. Double yawn… If you think the plot is counterfeit, wait until you see Garris' miserable attempts to frighten you! Literally dozens of fake and wannabe "jump" moments, like ghostly appearances in the bathtub, moving furniture and even an electrifying tree. As much as I like Pierce Brosnan, he's ridiculously miscast as protagonist Tom Noonan. He was nearly sixty when the film was shot, so why must he depict a role that was clearly written for a thirty-something actor? Melissa George looks yummy, but she's literally not much more than a piece of scenery. The villainous characters seemingly come straight out of "Scooby Doo" cartoon: an evil old man dressed in black and driving around in an automated wheelchair, a crazy lady that looks like a retired version of Anjelica Houston's Grand High Witch and a legal guardian who actually looks more like a child molester. What an unbelievably retarded movie

Jane Rose I really wish they had stuck to some of the main(e) characteristics of the book. I don't particularly agree with the actors they chose to play the characters. Mike Noonan was a little younger-looking (not 60 looking), Johanna was an interesting red head and not so sentimental/old (when she tried to act like Jo, it didn't come out right), the whole house is off as it doesn't have the Maine style of early American decor. It was all too modernized (I suppose to appeal to all people, not just readers of the book). The actors of Mike and Jo didn't really have chemistry IMO like in the book. I also couldn't picture Pierce Brosnan thinking like Mike Noonan...all the quirky thoughts. A LOT of things were changed...A LOT. It's not like the book at all. Total hit and miss. For God's sake, Brosnan has a British accent. Should say "Inspired by Bag of Bones"...

Robert Bowling This is a garbage adaptation of an excellent book. In fact, I thought about throwing the book at my TV set as I watched it. Instead, I chose to vent my frustration in a review. Casting Pierce Brosnan as Mike Noonan was a big mistake. I felt no connection between him and the character in the book. His acting seemed forced and disingenuous. Sara laughs looks like a building built inside a studio surrounded by artificial foliage and set lighting. That pretty much sums the whole thing up, a big fake. Sara isn't laughing in this movie. Instead, she is crying at this dismal rendering of a good book. Whoever put this crap together should apologize to Mr.King and promise never to do it again.

david-497-331474 I started watching this as one of the few King adaptations I'd never seen and found it surprisingly good, especially Brosnan in a role I could not really imagine him taking on.Most of the Stephen King films I have seen have been pretty good; The Stand, Salem's Lot, It and my favourite, The Langoliers. I have never read the book Bag of Bones so cannot comment on its faithfulness. But it was intriguing and quite clever how the story unfolded and kept me watching to the end.As I said, there was some rather unnecessary gore involved and some really harrowing scenes which I thought were well executed. I found the relationship between Brosnan and the little girl touching and poignant.All in all, I would watch this again. Not THAT many contemporary films I can say that about!