Rating: 
Summary: Long movie , but worth it.
Review: I really loved this movie!!! This movie keeps you watching, good thing it's 6 hrs. long. A lot of actors in this one and they all fit the movie. Another great one from Steven King.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Representation But Read The Book For More
Review: I was a bit skeptical about watching The Stand after having just finished the book. While I was disappointed that certain parts were left out, I was mostly pleased with what was there. I think that the characters chosen were great, although Molly Ringwald just does not pull off the part of Fran.I loved the commentary that King gives on this DVD. He talks about characters, motivations for writing the book, and general views about scenes. I would recommend it for King fans, but be aware that it is not the same as the book.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie rom A Great Novel
Review: This has to be the masterpiece of any Stephen King TV-Movie. The cast is wonderful. The sets and lighting, impeccable. Gary Sinise does some of his best work in this film. Ruby Dee as 'Mother Abigail', Jamey Sheridan as 'Randall Flagg', Corin Nemic, Ray Walston, Rob Lowe, Molly Ringwald, Ossie Davis, .... The list is too long. Let's just say that this is the best King movie EVER. There is no topping this crowning achievement.
Rating: 
Summary: Big YAWN!!! I want the six hours of my life back...
Review: [wow], what a bore. A cheesy, poorly acted, annoying, laughable bore. I think I've learned my lesson about Stephen King movies based on books. Most of them [stink]. I don't know why they almost always happen to be so bad, but they just do. The only one I thought was great was Pet Sematary, which the thought of still manages to scare me to this day. The movie isn't that scary anymore, but I still wouldn't watch it by myself. The idea behind it just creeps me out. It's probably because I'm an animal lover. I can't even stand any scary stories dealing with animals, well, it depends on what happens with the animals. Evil animals usually just scare me. Anyway, I also remember liking The Langoliers and Storm Of The Century. I haven't seen those for so long though that I have no idea how I'd feel about them now... Also, am I the only one who felt like a chunk of this movie was missing in between part 2 and part 3? I could have swore I missed something, but I double checked, and I hadn't missed a thing. Since that's really how the movie went and I didn't miss anything, I really think the connection of the two parts was poorly put together. It just felt like something was missing, and I still can't get over it. It seemed like so many things happened between these two parts, and we aren't really explained anything. I had always wanted to see this movie, but if I would have known how [bad] and uninteresting it was, I never would have rented it... This is definitely one of the worst Stephen King movies...
Rating:
Summary: I've Already Said It
Review: ...It's like a crillion other Stephen King movies. "The Stand" is not a bad film in any way, but is the same as any other film King has produced. It starts out great, falls in the middle, and runs around in the last hour or so trying to fit everything together. The six hour movie does have some good actors and actresses, but Gary Sinise stands out above the rest. The plot takes you through many twists and turns, the first being any surivors of the plague, which we don't know if it ever reached other countries, although logic suggests that it did. It then takes you to a struggle between the forces of good and evil, ending badly for the evil people, but still leaving you like you've been cheated. The ending, which is a nuclear explosion, is very stupid and short. The film is worth watching, that is, if you have the time and patience to watch it. "The Stand," which probably would have been better off as a miniseries, is exactly what I said in the beginning... It's the same as every other Stephen King movie
Rating:
Summary: Made for TV kick in the crotch
Review: Watching this movie was like being eaten alive while being on fire. It's long, boring, and features a multitude of bad acting. If garbage, bad, and horrible got together and made a movie, it would be better than this.
Rating: 
Summary: Too long!
Review: Maybe my mistake with The Stand was cramming it into three viewings instead of spreading it out into four like its initial television release. What started off brilliantly quickly got repetitive and boring during the second disk. Of course, the storyline in itself is fascinating. What if the world came to an end and all that was left was good and evil, forced to fight it out in an all or nothing battle? However, there are too many characters to keep track of, too many shifts in location, and way too much going on. Stephen King films usually work well as a three-part miniseries, but the extra 90 minutes on this one was WAY too much. Two hours could have EASILY been cut from this, and the film would have been a lot stronger had that been the case. By Part 4, I just wanted it to be over, without really caring about what was going to happen. I was fascinated by the story, but the film itself was too slow and too boring. I really wish it had only been a 4 and a half hour film instead of a six hour one. I finished "The Shining" mini in one sitting and "Rose Red" in one and a half, but this was excruciating at parts and I had to keep stopping it and getting back to it later. Despite everything, the cast is amazing and it's hard to believe the film was made almost 10 years ago. Most of the effects are great, and some are not, but it does have that television feel to it, which can easily be overlooked. The characters are as strong as the story, which is why I was so disappointed in the end. The first 3 parts seemed to be leading to a great climactic showdown, but the ending disappoints, with Part 4 being the worst of the lot. The showdown was cheesy and the wrap-up boring and sappy. So while The Stand has so many great things about it, in the end, it all falls short and ends up being pointless. I started off loving this, but I ended up hating it. See it if an edited version ever comes out, this one is just too much to sit through.
Rating:
Summary: As good as the movie is, it can't hold a candle to the novel
Review: Stephen King fanatics such as myself waited a long time to see a cinematic version of Stephen King's The Stand, the apocalyptic epic which many fans then and now consider King's masterpiece (although The Dark Tower series may have passed it in terms of importance to King's legacy). Personally, I consider the novel It to be King's magnum opus, but The Stand naturally means a lot to me. One wondered if a film version could ever be made that could do the original novel justice; certainly, King himself would not proceed with such a project until such time as he felt he could pull it off. This six-hour miniseries is fantastic, due largely to King's hands-on overseeing of what can be called "his baby." This was a massive undertaking, and it yielded a final product just about as good as it could possibly be. The obvious truth is, though, that even this monumental film pales in comparison to the novel. While the onset of the superflu and its horrifying effects is told extremely well and in great detail, other parts of the story are glossed over to some degree, particularly the activities in the Free Boulder Zone; more importantly, there simply isn't enough time to flesh out all of the important characters, and it is this unfortunate yet essentially unavoidable quandary that somewhat diminishes a fan's enjoyment of the story. By and large, the casting is excellent. Gary Sinise is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, and he essentially becomes Stu Redman in this production. Jamey Sheridan is more than acceptable as Randall Flagg, Ray Walston is brilliant as Glen Bateman, Rob Lowe gives a powerful performance as deaf-mute Nick Andros, and Bill Fagerbakke oftentimes steals the show as the mentally challenged Tom Cullen. Molly Ringwald is good, but she just didn't become the Frannie Goldsmith I had long ago created in my mind, her character becoming rather aggravating to me in the later segments of the production. Laura San Giacomo really brought Nadine Cross to life, and the raw yet tapped sexual energy she brought to the role makes me think she could have tempted me over to the dark side without a heck of a lot of trouble. Matt Frewer simply is Trash Can Man; it's just a pity that his character was not explored to the much more significant degree found in the novel. The one character I have a problem with is that of Harold Lauder; Corin Nemec overdoes things a little early on, but the real problem is with the character more than the actor. It's not simply a matter of Nemec not really looking like Lauder; the problem is that Nemec's character is thoroughly unlikable from the very start, whereas the Harold Lauder of the novel is someone I sympathized with to a significant degree (at least up until his little surprise parting gift to Boulder). Of course, no discussion of the actors and actresses assembled here is complete without a chorus of praises sent Ruby Dee's way for her remarkable portrayal of 106-year-old Mother Abigail Freemantle. I was shocked to learn that Ruby Dee was actually a vibrant, far from elderly woman. One must also mention Stephen King's fine acting performance here, as he puts in much more than just a brief cameo appearance. The Stand does have some weaknesses in terms of the special effects, notwithstanding the amazing makeup job on Ruby Dee. While the explosions and decayed bodies are brought off quite well, the transformation of Flagg's face between human and demon leaves much to be desired, and some of the special effects at the climax of the film are not very impressive at all. The way in which masses of dead bodies were displayed was quite effective, but I was a little bothered to see dead men and women hunched over buffet lines, poised in the seats of tractors in the field, etc. "Captain Trips" was not some type of poison that killed you instantly; you suffered with the flu for some time before death came knocking, and I can't believe gravely sick people were doing some of the things they were purportedly doing when the end came. In the final analysis, Stephen King's The Stand is far from perfect, and watching the miniseries is by no means a substitute for reading the epic novel. You don't get a chance to really know these characters inside and out over the course of a mere six hours, and those who have not read the novel may question why some characters were even there in the film. Still, The Stand represents a monumental achievement in miniseries and film production, and I for one am thankful that a network allowed King as much time as it did in order to bring the pages of his novel to life. On a final note, the special feature about the making of The Stand is quite disappointing, coming in at just over five minutes in length. This disappointment is offset to some degree, however, by the inclusion of commentary provided by Stephen King, director Mick Garris, and several of the actors.
Rating:
Summary: It's the End of the World as we know it...
Review: And ... if it ain't entertaining. This is easily one of the best TV-movies ever made. It's one of maybe three good Stephen King adaptations into film. The casting is great. Tom Cullen is portrayed perfectly, as is most of the other characters. However, Cullen is the one that sticks out as the best. Molly Ringwald, however, should never act again. She depresses me... The SFX, too, are pretty bad. The 'Hand of God' is worthy of Ed Wood. But the writing is excellent and there are sections of the film that terrify me. Of course, I do have a slight fear of germs and diseases, so that could be a part of it... That, and Jamie Sheridan is just a freaky-looking dude...
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.
|
