Reviews

Its post apolitical world and I can except clean faces, shining white teeth and a few of the usual nonsense "suspensions of disbelief" issues (i.e. they are all wearing animal skins but you don't see very many animals...they are all well fed but no one is ever hunting and there is no agriculture ...etc).

OK, I get it, the story is not about strictly about brute force survival, but, if you are selling me on the idea that everyone is blind, you can not expect me to watch actors run over hilly, rough, wooded, rocky ground and not even trip. You can't have someone through a lasso and hit the target every time if they are blind. For pity sake, it was episode 4 before I saw anyone stumble and fall down...in a world where everyone is blind they move like deer through the woods? Pa-lease!

And don't start on me about the surprising abilities of blind people...they can't almost run on a riverbed they have never seen before an not trip over massive rocks as big as a small watermelon...it is distracting and it is BS. Most people 20/20 can't do that!

Once you get past THAT and the usual predictable "good vs far too insanely evil queen" its not as predictable and corny as I was fearing at the start. What is so very VERY disappointing is that this is a fantastically original idea with a solid usually unpredictable plot that, with a very few simple tweaks, could have been a 9.

Instead you get distracted by incredulous behaviors of a world of people who are suppose to be blind and the occasional overly dramatic conversations (that sometimes feels like sloppy lazy network TV).

Jason Momoa (sp?) is a surprisingly good actor (given that he was probably the most wooden actor in GOT) and you can't help but pull for his character...he may actually be the saving grace of this series for me.

At the end of the day, It could have been another Game of Thrones or Walking dead (and it is clearly attempting to steal that audience) but it falls disappointingly (but not utterly or horribly) short.

If you are a King fan you will (no doubt) be aware that most of his works have been poorly re-produced in film and/or TV. This production is an outstanding exception. It is very faithful to the book in context and spirit ... well acted and directed.

As an aside from the movie…this story is, in my opinion, a major changing point in King's career. This story is more (or maybe as much) science fiction or fantasy than his more familiar horror style.

I am no fan of Molly Ringwald and this is her best performance of date (that I have seen). Rob Lowe (who I was also no great fan of) is brilliant and Gary Sinise as Stu was consistent and well cast.

Ruby Lee's part (probably one that would make or break the whole production) as Mother Abigail Freemantle was probably not given enough screen time but this is a HUGE book so you can't cover every moment.

Larua San Giacomo as Nadine Cross and Adam Stork as Larry Underwood were good overall but had moments of over acting….moments out of hours is not a big deal I guess! The only real disappointment was Corin Nemec as Harold Lauder. His performance was not that bad.. That was not the issue. The issue is he was all WRONG for the part. I can't think there are not fat ugly teenagers in Hollywood who could not have played this part. His "added on" acne and horn-rimmed glasses were WHOLY unconvincing. The pretty boy underneath the make up was glaringly obvious. Cast this part better and we move into 9+ ground.

This series is LONG … seeing it in one sitting (unless you are a mad-for-King fan) is probably not realistic. But if you get snowed in one weekend you will be glad you had this film on hand. The only fiction series of length I have seen that is better than this is Lonesome Dove….and that is a cast I would not want to battle for second!

I am a "King" fan. I think this was one of the better adaptations of his books. Having said that…most are not good. This was 7 out of 10 for me. So...not as good as say "The Stand" but better than most of them.

Unlike some reviewers I think the story did follow the book REASONABLY closely … but some very important changes to Father Callahan's character break the "link" to the Callahan character in the Dark Tower Series. That is a shame for King fans. I hope to one day see the Dark Tower Series (hours and hours long!) that could have produce flashbacks to this production without that error.

Rob Lowe appeared in the Stand of course but this time he got a speaking part (tongue in cheek) and did a fine job. Andre Braugher played a "less than macho" English teacher (unlike his familiar role in Homicide) and proved himself as a versatile actor in my eyes.

Donald Southerland stole the show as Richard Straker and was actually MORE INTERESTING than the character in the book…It's a shame that he did not play Barlow! He was playful and charming…and convincingly evil of course!

Samantha Mathis was "ok" (saved from Oblivian by her "undead" performances) but Daniel Byrd (as Mark Petrie) and Rutger Hauer were little better than average. I think the movie needed to be 30 min longer with the character development dedicated to Petrie and Barlow who were main characters of the book and more minor roles in the film. Hauer's part as Barlow was uninspired I thought….almost a "Cameo" as Barlow. He just sort of "showed up" as the bad guy with very little build up (which may be a directing or screenplay problem as much as an acting problem). It may be just as well. I think Hauer has lost most of his edge as an actor lately (judging from his role in the new batman movie which I also rate highly as a movie but less than average on Hauer).

But…given all the criticisms…the pace of the film was reasonable, slicker than many made for TV movies, and the story/plot they started with was interesting (if a bit dated and familiar … it is one of Kings older works).

So: If you are a King fan…watch it hoping for a better treatment than usual …else…it's a slightly better than average Vampire movie.

Good - Not great - 7. A movie not a film.

The whole movie has the feel of a very good book made into a movie (which I find after making this comment it is).

As an example, you sense that Detective Sandra Cassidy chasing the crime from "the other side" of the story must have had (or at least should have) a larger part in the story. I suppose that in a 120 min production there is no time to expand on this character and her motivations (or, it was just poorly done).

I also found the idea that Cassidy would be working Thanksgiving to id a "Jane Doe" a farce (without more insight into WHY it would be so important to do so). Cassidy would just "pop up", and then vanish after an insufficient impact to the story. I knew she would be important to the ending only because her reason for "being" would be a bit pointless otherwise.

Most of the other "minor" characters suffered similar fates and therefore the ending lacked much of its potential impact. I felt the story, pace, and plot was GREAT but the less than fluid character development moves it from a 8.5 down to a 7 (a 6 if you are not a Mike Douglas fan and a 5 if you also don't like suspense).

If you have read the book you will probably be let down. But for me the movie on its own stands up well despite its flaws.

This is the kind of film/movie Hollywood can't make. Its original and unpredictable. Just when you think you know what will happen SOMETHING else happens and you think...that was both unpredictable and realistic.

One of the best movies I have seen in years. You can take your mom or your beer drinking friends. And Hugh Grant can play a different role!