As for the movie. I'm floored! I think Brosnan (although not an obvious choice for Mike) was excellent. In fact, the whole cast was great! I think it may come close to being the best thing Garris has done in years, if not ever. I'm drooling to see part 2!
I'm on the record as definitely NOT being a fan of Mick Garris's work, but I thought Part 1 of "Bag of Bones" was decent. Not great, by any means, but not bad. Probably the best work I've seen from Garris so far.
I can already tell, though, that so much of the novel has been left out that the movie overall has zero chance of being a truly good adaptation. On its own, though, it looks like -- provided Part 2 is as good as Part 1 -- it's not too shabby.
I already saw part 2, and thought it was great. I was hopeful you would gain a greater respect for Garris' work ! Come on over to the Garris side, bryant. come on. . . join the dark side. . .
That said ... like ALL right-thinking people, I am more of a "Star Trek" fan than a "Star Wars" fan.
Therefore, logic dictates that I am unlikely to enjoy a film by the director of "Sleepwalkers," "The Stand," the television version of "The Shining," "Riding the Bullet," and "Desperation." Logic also dictates that while enjoying such a film may be statistically unlikely, it is, nevertheless, possible.
Like I said, I do think -- based purely on Part 1 -- that "Bag of Bones" might be the best work Garris has done so far. I usually find his work to be thoroughly shrill and overbearing, and here, he's at least restrained a lot of those impulses.
I really enjoyed B of B can hardly wait for part 2. Jotey Black
ReplyDeleteI love this site.
ReplyDeleteAs for the movie. I'm floored! I think Brosnan (although not an obvious choice for Mike) was excellent. In fact, the whole cast was great! I think it may come close to being the best thing Garris has done in years, if not ever. I'm drooling to see part 2!
Great sound and I love love love the pacing.
I'm on the record as definitely NOT being a fan of Mick Garris's work, but I thought Part 1 of "Bag of Bones" was decent. Not great, by any means, but not bad. Probably the best work I've seen from Garris so far.
ReplyDeleteI can already tell, though, that so much of the novel has been left out that the movie overall has zero chance of being a truly good adaptation. On its own, though, it looks like -- provided Part 2 is as good as Part 1 -- it's not too shabby.
I already saw part 2, and thought it was great. I was hopeful you would gain a greater respect for Garris' work ! Come on over to the Garris side, bryant. come on. . . join the dark side. . .
ReplyDeletedavid
Sadly, it's an involuntary-response type thing. Therefore, nothing I can do about it one way or another.
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoyed it, though! I've certainly seen WAY worse.
involuntary response ? A Jedi is not controlled by such things!
ReplyDeletedavid
AWAY put your weapon! I mean you no harm!
ReplyDeleteThat said ... like ALL right-thinking people, I am more of a "Star Trek" fan than a "Star Wars" fan.
Therefore, logic dictates that I am unlikely to enjoy a film by the director of "Sleepwalkers," "The Stand," the television version of "The Shining," "Riding the Bullet," and "Desperation." Logic also dictates that while enjoying such a film may be statistically unlikely, it is, nevertheless, possible.
Like I said, I do think -- based purely on Part 1 -- that "Bag of Bones" might be the best work Garris has done so far. I usually find his work to be thoroughly shrill and overbearing, and here, he's at least restrained a lot of those impulses.