Pros: Tim Curry's acting performance is the only "pro" to this film.
Cons: Pretty much every other aspect of this movie, notably the laughably bad acting.
The Bottom Line: The bottom line is that this movie is a goldmine for Tim Curry fans. Aside from that, this movie can only be tolerated by very forgiving Stephen King fans.
Plot Details: This opinion reveals no details about the movie''s plot.
I recently re-viewed this film after not seeing it for a long time, and I couldn't help but take note of how your perspective on a film can change over the years.
Overall, this movie has not aged well. There is a very "dusty" and dated feeling to the entire picture.
Back in 1990, this was a fairly intense movie, particularly for television, and I recall it as quite a memorable experience. What really stood out about this miniseries was Tim Curry's performance. It's outstanding - one of his finest. It's also probably the ONLY reason for sitting through this movie (or miniseries depending on how you look at it).
Curry's performance stands in *strong* contrast to the remaining main castmembers, who all turned in mediocre to bad performances. This kind of "Z" acting is typical to Stephen King filmed material, and this is certainly no exception. There is one scene in particular between John Ritter and Anette O'Toole that is laughably acted by both (Ritter in particular). Richard Thomas is perhaps the only actor (taking Curry away from the equation entirely) that turned in a somewhat-respectable acting performance.
In a way, this is to be expected from television miniseries. Noone should rightly expect Oscar quality acting, but I really cannot ignore the fact that the acting is almost univerally sub-par. It stands out, and you will indeed be suprised at how strong Curry contrasts with the remainder of the cast.
For me, if a movie has any *huge* holes in the "big three" (directing, script, acting) then it doesn't deserve a lot of respect. More so than that, it isn't very enjoyable to take in.
The script is competently written. Tommy Lee Wallace (the director) and Lawrence D. Cohen penned this adaptation. It has been too long since I have read the novel to make any sort of comparison, but from what I *do* recall it contains most of the major plot points from the book.
Of course what is lost is the subtlety and a lot of the character moments that make King's books page turners. Strong actors can bring performances that can usually condense *some* of those character moments into a look and a line of dialouge. But don't expect it from here.
The special effects are...well...as dated as the movie is in general. You *really* have to suspend some heavy disbelief in order to get through those moments.
It's really unfortunate that some of King's greatest literature had to be adapted into shoestring budgeted and heavily censored made-for-television miniseries. "The Stand" is still the only one that manages to go above and beyond expectations.
The best thing that fans of the book can hope for is that this story will be re-made in the near future.
Recommended:
No
Viewing Format: DVD Video Occasion: None of the Above Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older
Based on the King Of Horror s 1986 Best Seller, It is a jittery, jolting excursion into personal fear. It raises goosebumps-and brings out the stars. ...More at Buy.com
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.