Rating: 
Summary: Good adaptation of great story
Review: This film is a mixed bag, but in the end the good elements outweigh the bad ones. Let's start with the bad ones.The story has to be significantly reduced to fit into six hours. This is only a minor gripe, though, as it is impossible to make any book into a movie without losing at least a little bit, and it was King himself who wrote the teleplay, so we can rest assured that the story is represented as best as it could possibly be. One thing that makes me cringe about the film is the special effects. They are simply bad. They look like they're from a saturday morning kids show, like Power Rangers or something. One thing that kinda bothers me is that the movie was broadcast on ABC, so they were very limited in the way of language, violence etc. this doesn't really take away from the film, as the filmmakers did an excellent job with what they were able to do, but it does make me wonder what the film could have been like with an R rating. it is, after all, Stephen King. I think my major gripe, the thing that makes me cringe the most when i watch it, is some of the casting. the casting in some places is absolutely wonderful (Gary Sinise), but then in other places is absolutely terrible. Harold's character could have been cast much better. Laura San Giacomo, while she did a good job, just didn't seem right for the role of Nadine... she just didn't LOOK anything like the character is described in the book. and, of course, the most monumental bit of miscasting, Molly Ringwald as Fran. When i found out Frannie was being played by her i shuddered and laughed at the same time. Not only does she not fit the part at all, but she's just plain a bad actress. admittely i've only seen her in one other film, so i could be wrong, but based on the two i've seen her in... yikes. Well, that's it for the bad stuff, now on to the good. I was just talking about casting, so i'll continue with that. When you talk about the casting in this movie (the good casting anyway) it's ALL about ONE man: Gary Sinise. After seeing his portrayal of Stu, i simply can't imagine ANYONE else in that role. This is an example of sheer casting brilliance. he is simply a great (and very underrated) actor. Another cringing moment came when i found out that the part of Nick was played by... *gulp*... Rob Lowe. But as it turned out, he did an excellent job. In the book, Nick was one of the strongest and most likable characters, and Lowe really captures that. Granted, playing a deaf mute he didn't have to learn any lines, but he was really able to convey a great deal with his actions and facial expressions. The guy (sorry, can't remember his name)who played Tom Cullen, was another example of great casting. The fact that Stephen King wrote the teleplay and was executive producer was a big boost too. i cringe (once again) at the thought of someone else making the necessary cuts to the story, because there simply isn't anyone else who could have done it better than the writer himself. The film's pacing is good, and the filmmakers do a good job of weaving the characters' stories throughout the first two parts without confusion. Makeup was good(it is entirely possible to watch the whole thing without knowing that the actress plaing Mother Abigail isn't really old) but i think they went a little overboard with Flagg. His character, i think, would have been much more chilling without the use of the "devil" masks. All in all, i'd give it a solid 4 stars. it's certainly not without its flaws, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and you'll forget that the movie you're watching is made-for-tv.
Rating: 
Summary: This Is The Stephen King Movie To See
Review: Of All the Stephen King adaptations for the screen, this is the best. The horror of it all. A Nail Biter.
And It could happen at any time. Spooks!
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, but could have been better
Review: First Off the Book is my favorite work of fiction. The movie itself is entertaining but had several things about it that I didn't like. If you liked the book and have never seen the movie don't get your hopes up too much. To condense a book that's over 1100 pages long into a 6 hour series required them to strip away all elements of the story except those that were absolutely necessary to keep the story intact. The original story IS there, and the basic idea of the film is carried out enough so that the good vs evil story is presented and carried to it's conclusion. However many plot elements that gave the book such a broad range of story are not in the film. Sure what isn't there doesn't really take away from the story but in the book it added a huge depth to it. Things like Harold Lauder painting directions on the tops of barn roofs to tell travelers where he and Frannie are, Larry Underwood's lonely trip through New England, student riots in campuses, free zone committee meetings, Trashcan man's trip to Las Vegas and his encounter with the psychotic Kid. Things like that, that add a huge sense of character to the people in the book are not there. Now as a stand alone film it's great to watch and is enjoyable. The actor performances are great, especially at the film's climax. But Stephen King's works have always had a huge sense of story. This is in the film somewhat but not the way it is in the book. By itself it's a good film but not one that does the book justice. What would have been better was if it had been an HBO mini series. Perhaps that would have been better.
Rating: 
Summary: not at all like the book
Review: I truly didnt enjoy the movie compared to the book. So much is out of proportion compared to the book. Alot of the characters are not the way I imagined them at all. Its a movie worth watching, but if you want to experience the stand, read the book. Trust me
Rating:
Summary: Another Disappointing Film Adaptation of Stephen King
Review: Okay, maybe I'm being too hard here. I had high hopes for the film when I first heard it was coming out, because I had read the book as a kid and it was one of those three or four novels that you look back on as having etched themselves onto your imagination forever, like Vonnegut, Tolkien, or Hemingway. "The Stand" is not just a pulp horror novel, it's a real masterpiece of contemporary fiction. I would rank it up there with "Gravity's Rainbow." This film version is actually quite watchable and entertaining, and the acting is reasonably good. Maybe it's the talented Gary Sinise who saves this thing from being a total failure. But what is it about Stephen King's novels that makes them so hard to adapt to the screen satisfyingly? Well, for one thing, the sheer length of the text makes it impossible to include everything, so it seems like huge chunks of the narrative have been cut out to the detriment of the story. But aside from that, there's just something missing here--the real magic of King's wonderfully rich apocalyptic novel just doesn't get translated into celluloid. Something gets lost in the proces. For those of you who have seen the movie without having read the novel and think the movie is good, you need to read the book. It will knock you out of your shoes.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent epic from master storyteller King...
Review: "The Stand" is a great way to waste a day. Clocking in at just over six hours, it's a fun movie to just sit back and watch on a sick day or a Saturday with nothing going on. With an all-star cast, it tells the story of the end of the world, King style. When the majority of the Earth is wiped out by a mysterious plague, the remaining survivors form two factions: one led by a kind old woman, the other led by some strange demon. What ensues is the final battle of good and evil done with tact, and very exciting. This is one of the best King adaptations.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely my favorite movie!
Review: I just can't say enough how much I love this movie. I could watch it everyday(that's no joke). I love all the characters espacially Stu Redmon, Tom Cullen(M-O-O-N, that spells Tom Cullen), and Nick Adros. Everyone played their part so well except for Stephen King himself of course(as usual! Stephen, stick to writing-you're the best at that!)
Rating:
Summary: One Of The Greatest Movies Ever.
Review: Plain and simple. Undeniable. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It's in my top ten favorite films, and it was made for TV! Usually, when you tell a person a movie was made for TV, they never watch it, because they think it'll be cheap and cheesy. Not thiso ne, my friend! Nearly everything about this movie is perfect. It has oscar worthy performances by almost everyone involved. It has expert directing, dynamite writing (from King himself!), and usually great special effects. There are some problems. The morphins in Part 4, "The Stand" was overdone and silly, and Stephen king should stop making "cameos" in his movies. He's horrible. Still, the movie is worthy of a buy, preferably on DVD. I got it on DVD in a 5-pack. I'm glad i did. My video was about to die, and the picture was fuzzy, but here, it was perfect! The sound was great, too. The features were pretty good, but I still have to listen to the commentary by those people. My favorite parts: In order The Plague The Betrayal The Dreams The Stand Buy this now!
Rating:
Summary: Great adaptation of Stephen King's novel
Review: This is a fantastic rendition of Stephen King's novel The Stand, really brings the characters to life in a way that keeps you glued to the screen.
Rating:
Summary: The BEST novel turned to a movie
Review: The Stand was an excellent movie with an excellent cast and an excellent plot. Gary Sinise played Stu Redman very very very very very very well, and this also goes to everyone else. The novel was better, but at least Stephen King didn't try to make it a two hour movie! Some scenes are disgusting, all the dead people rotting away, for example.
Unlike other Stephen King novels, The Stand isn't really made to frighten you. It does make you think about how the world would be if a disease broke loose and killed us all.
This is a great movie, despite the fact it is 6 hours long. Rent this movie, you WILL NOT regret it.
|
