The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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

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"...

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.

Being a fan of Pierce Brosnan, I tend to watch anything he's in. Therefore I was quite surprised that he appeared in a 'made-for-TV' movie (or two-part mini series to be precise). Granted it was based on a Stephen King book, but, in my opinion, I thought Brosnan was 'slumming it' a bit.Then again, about fifty per cent of King's work has managed to survive the transition from book to film, so I was hopeful. That was until I watched it.Unfortunately, 'Bag of Bones' comes in the half of King's work which is - most likely (and I have to confess to not reading the book) - better in print than on film. It's simply too slow. Yes, being a two part TV series, it's allowed a little more screen time than a normal ninety minutes film would probably be given and it uses this time for 'character building' purposes. Sadly, I think I speak on behalf of most of the viewers when I say we'd rather have scares and horror than yet another conversation about something pretty mundane.Like I say, I am a fan of Pierce Brosnan, but I felt his heart didn't seem into this. He plays a writer who loses his wife and goes to retreat to their country house to get away from things and write his next book. It's hardly an original plot on its own and, as you've probably guessed, spooky things start to happen. Only they're not particularly spooky and nothing much happens until the end. There's nothing very unexpected about the film. You can see most things coming and even some of the 'scares' at then end are almost comical in how they're presented (there's a scene with a 'killer tree' that reminds me of something out of the comedy/horror 'Evil Dead' starring Bruce Campbell).I keep watching Pierce Brosnan's films and I'll also keep watching Stephen King's big screen work. However, I can see why this was made for TV and never made it to a theatrical release.