User Reviews

This is one of Stephen King's lesser known works. I've read the book and while it's difficult for a film to be as good as a book, this one comes close. Missing are all the little things that make print better than film...intimate thoughts, background character development and the like. This entire film takes place over only several hours, so character development is slightly less important than in many other films. However, in order to know why a particular actor behaves like he or she does is a "book" thing. This is a sci-fi film for sure and deals with time travel. However, it's also a good action thriller, albeit without the usual guns, etc. There is sufficient psychological pressure put on all the characters to bring out the best and worst in all of them. This wasn't particularly well done, and it's obvious that the budget wasn't very high, but the actors do a great job keeping the viewers interested. Look for an especially great performance from David Morse, who seems to shine in Stephen King's stories. I liked it!

This is an adaptation of a King novella, which should tell you all you need to know about the quality control that went into it.

However it is, without a doubt, the worst TV movie I have ever seen. There was nothing even bearable about it. The most fantastic thing was that everyone said exactly what you'd expect them to, if they had only ever seen movies, and learned how to speak from that source alone. The people were badly drawn stereotypes, and who would couple with who was glaringly obvious from the first scenes. The special effects, when they finally arrived, looked as if they'd been produced on a sinclair spectrum. The way the story resolved itself was stupid in the extreme, but the most fantastically stupid thing about the film was one of the leads. He was a smooth cockney who had to say the worst dialogue since Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins. The highlight occurs about 10 mins from the end (and I tell you that in case you don't have the strength to watch it all) when he is telling his bird to seek out his father; 'Ask for the gaffer, you might have to ask a few people, but they all know him as the gaffer. Tell him about the daisies.'

Priceless.

And if they trimmed it to a sensible pacing it would magically disappear from 3 hours to a bearable 100 mins.

Fantastic stuff, so poor it reduced me to swearing blindly at the screen as they uttered another line of inane drivel, had some stupid plot device, or mentioned the gaffer.

I am currently reading "Four Past Midnight", the book of four Stephen King novellas which opens with "The Langoliers". I have just finished reading this story and immediately checked out the movie version. I wasn't disappointed.

Something about this story, like many of King's, really touches a nerve. The quality is mainly in the basic concept rather than the sometimes-clunky dialogue. I like the idea of the past still existing physically, until it eventually becomes swallowed up by the Langoliers, the so-called Housekeepers of Eternity who hoover up the past to make way for the present. Incidentally, while reading the book I assumed the emphasis in the word was on the "o" - langOliers, to rhyme with magnolias. But no, the emphasis is on the "i" - langol-Iers, to rhyme with chandeliers. Either way, it's a strange word used to describe a very strange (but somehow not totally unfeasible) type of creature.

Like all good "Twilight Zone" episodes, which this reminds me of, such a great underlying premise leaves a really strong, unnerving impression. As such, it doesn't matter so much that the acting and special effects aren't amazing. The atmosphere and plot are totally faithful to the original book. In a way, the slightly wooden, stilted acting suits the wooden, stilted world in which the characters find themselves. An airless, stuffy, oppressive world where you can barely light a match, where the wind either doesn't blow (according to the book), or else blows on the ground level but doesn't move the clouds (according to the movie, because they couldn't stop the wind blowing on location!). A world lying in the dumpster, slowly atrophying, thrown on the scrapheap by the constant forward motion of time's winged chariot.

Always good to see Dean Stockwell, a man who is no stranger to travelling through time! Not his greatest ever performance here, but he certainly brings enigma to the part of writer Bob Jenkins. Bronson Pinchot brought just the right amount of creepy-but-sympathetic insanity to Craig Toomey, the dictionary definition of a loser in life, and a stark warning to what can happen to children later in life if they are belittled by their over-demanding parents. By comparison, David Morse as Captain Brian Engel was low-key and understated, but that was the exact impression I got of him from the book. If you were flying in an airplane through a rip in the space-time continuum, you would certainly want your pilot to be calm and unflappable!

Unlike some posters here, I actually thought Mark Lindsay Chapman's Anglo-American accent was spot on. And I say this as a Brit who has spent considerable time in America. Out of necessity for being understood clearly and not sounding too "plum in mouth", Brits in the States have to slip in a few American sounding inflections here and there. So kudos to Chapman for a great, convincing performance as Americanised British secret agent Nick Popewell. I'd go so far as to say that his English accent was better than Harry Shearer's immortal Derek Smalls character (Spinal Tap). As for the ladies - well thumbs up for both Patricia Wettig and Kimber Riddle for certainly being very watchable, if not the most three-dimensional performances I have ever seen. And unlike many people here, I had no issues with Kate Maberly as blind Dinah.

Finally, the effects of the Langoliers themselves. No problem! Once again, my image of them from reading the book was as funny sort of bouncing balls with teeth, which is more or less how they turned out on screen. These are not hi-tech computer generated monsters full of whizzbang explosions, they are like parasitic insects that feed off the scraps of the past. I don't see how they could have been better represented to be honest.

So what we have here is a TV movie that transcends the limitations of its slightly second-rate format, by dint of the strength of the basic source material and the fact that they adhered to all the elements of the book. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm sorry that not everyone enjoyed the movie, and I appreciate the negative comments it has received from some. For me it boils down to the concept of the Langoliers being something that really intrigued me, in a scary way, and I can't get enough of reading about them or watching them. For that reason, the movie gave me exactly what I was looking for.

First of all, I don't understand why so many viewers "trashed" this novella-turned-TV movie.....I read "Four Past Midnight", and once I heard that it was being made into a TV movie, I couldn't wait to see it. Let me tell you, I was NOT disappointed, and felt that it followed the story very well. While it's true that the special effects for "The Langoliers" themselves weren't the greatest, the actors (ESPECIALLY Bronson Pinchot as the psychotic, paper-shredding "Craig Toomey") made up for this glitch 100%! Dean Stockwell as "Bob Jenkins" was exceptionally good, as he & Bronson were the 2 best characters in the movie & DEFINITELY kept things interesting!

Bronson Pinchot made a GREAT career decision taking on the role of "Craig Toomey", as he's the complete opposite of "Balki" from "Perfect Strangers"; he was BRILLIANT, and sent a definite chill down my spine!

This novel & movie REALLY makes you wonder what it would be like if humans could travel back in time, even as little as 15 minutes, and what exactly would happen to us.....I give this a 9 out of 10 rating (9 due to the poor special effects of the time-chomping Langoliers), and DEFINITELY recommend it to any sci-fi fan!

***MIGHT CONTAIN SPOILERS***

In my opinion, this is one of the best adaptations for any of King's work (made for television), this being based on a short story.

THE ACTORS/THE ACTING: Some very excellent choices were made. David Morse (as captain Engle) and Bronson Pinchot (as Craig Toomy) stands out. The only actor who I think was miscast was Patricia Wettig (as Laurel Stevenson). At times she was very unconvincing and annoying. The rest of the cast was good. And, of course, it's always fun to see Stephen King making a cameo.

THE STORY: The story stayed very true to its original and was handled very well. The ending was of course a bit tamer than the original, but that is understandable (in the short story, Toomy gets his legs bitten off by the Langoliers, but tries to flee running on his stumps).

THE EFFECTS: Not that much of F/X. I've seen many people bashing the CG works near the ending, but I do not have any problems with that. I mean, it is made for television, not the big screen so what would you expect from 1995? It works for me.

I give "The Langoliers" ****½ out of *****

Oh my gosh. How bad can one movie be? I realize that most of the problems with this movies have to be based in Stephen King's book, but I happen to enjoy his books and find them creepy and intelligent. I've never read this one, though. I guess it did not translate well.

It also felt like two different movies, divided at the one-hour mark. Was this a made-for-TV-movie that was designed to be played over two nights? Since it's impossible to find a starting place, let me just list off some very bad features of this movie:

1. It's really hard to picture 'Balky' as a crazed schizophrenic. It's just not believable. 2. There were too many of those predictable "Let's separate into groups so we can get killed easier" moments. 3. The little blind girl didn't tug at my heart strings. More like pulling nails across a chalk board. What explanation do we have for why she could communicate with Balky, who seemed to be having honestly crazy hallucinations? And why, after she coughed up blood, did it stay cherry red and moist on her lips and not dry up like real blood does? 4. The Langoliers were a disappointment. Not sure what I was expecting, but certainly not Pac-Man on steroids. 5. The animation of the Langoliers, the plane, and the time warp are just so bad in comparison to today's special effects. It's hard to believe that such poor graphics were in use just seven years ago. 6. The lead couple looks like a failed attempt to get Sarah Jessica Parker and Alec Baldwin. 7. The acting is BAD. Awful. Wooden, unbelievable.

Rent this movie for a good torture-fest.