The title to my review specifically notes that this is the best work that King has *ever* personally contributed for any Hollywood production - television or film, whether that be writing/producing/directing in any combination.

I was a member of the viewing audience when this was originally broadcast as a 4-part ABC Miniseries in May of 1994. It has now been transferred to DVD, given a full-length commentary (by notables such as King, director Mick Garris, Lowe, Dee, Ferrer, and Sheridan) The film has been cut together, removing most of the fade-outs for commercials, and an approximate 1 minute of footage that wasn't originally included in the broadcast finds itself in this dvd release.

It is very tough to give this movie an overall grade, since there are many aspects that go so far and above what you would expect from a television miniseries, and in particular what you would expect from a Stephen King television miniseries. On the other hand, there are numerous aspects of this film that not only dissapoint, but drag this film below any comparison to the best of his feature film adaptations.

The good: The Casting - Period. While there are one or two choices that fans of the book personally pick out as being inapporpriate for a given character, those involved with the casting of this film did an incredible job.

Gary Sinise: This was the last role that Gary did before he went off to make "Forrest Gump", which was his breakout role, landing him in front of the spotlight with an Oscar nomination. Gary's performance of Stu Redman is excellent - some would even call it outstanding. He was able to take the essence of the character and transfer it for the screen. The producers of this film were particularly impressed with his performance in "Of Mice & Men", which inspired them to cast him in this role.

What hurts Gary is that Stu Redman isn't exactly that dynamic, nor that interesting, deep, or complex of a character. Gary's Stu Redman is designed to be the "everyman" hero in blue jeans. The crowd-pleaser. The charismatic leading man you're rooting for. The character was the only limiting aspect to Gary's talent as an actor.

Rob Lowe: Rob Lowe's performance in this movie was hailed as his "comeback" performance, which helped to dissolve his sordid and troubled past with the public at large. These days Rob is doing high-quality network television dramas, and much of that stems from his performance as Nick Andros. His career and reputation was anything but good before this movie was produced.

I like what Rob was able to deliver with this role, and you can almost *see* how serious he took this role by watching his performance. Stephen King fans were outraged when they heard that Rob was cast. I think that almost all of them felt differently once they viewed the movie.

Much has been made about Rob's performance as Nick. I believe that it has been highly overrated and exaggerated. And Rob's previous reputation factored heavily into the praise that he recieved for this performance, since noone thought that he was capable of handling a role with the kind of subtley and complexity that the role of Nick called for. The point is that Rob Lowe got his life together, and gave every ounce of his acting talent in this role, and it shows.

But this is not Lawrence Olivier doing Shakespear, no matter what some King fans might lead you to believe.

Bill Fa.ggerbakke: He personified Tom Cullen. This was the one role in the movie that I truly felt was exactly translated from the book to the screen. If you've read the book, it's almost sublime to see the way Bill plays the character. Bill also saved this role's dignity, because it could've been played for laughs by another actor.

Ray Walston: Superb as Glen Bateman. Ray Walston has always been a terrific actor, and his believablility in the role is another strong point.

Adam Storke: I've never been impressed with Adam in any other role I've seen him in, but this is the lone exception. While I feel that Adam's role of rock & roller Larry Underwood was watered down and abreviated from the book to screenplay, Adam still made this a real character. There are many moments where he perfectly conveys the early sleazeball and eventual transformation into a caring, decent guy.

Ed Harris: Ed did an extended cameo in this movie, but it is so good and so potently memorable I felt it was worth mentioning. It is easily the best cameo performance I have seen in any picture - period.

I feel that Matt Frewer's performance as The Trashcan Man deserves mention as well. Matt played the pathos in this role, rather than the insanity, and that makes the performance noteable. Another actor may have approached this role as the "raving lunatic", and played it that way. Matt manages to turn Trascan Man's first meeting with Randall Flagg into a love scene (not "physical" love).

The other really great aspect to this movie was the original score by W.G. "Snuffy" Walden, which in my opinion is *so* good it deserves to be heard on it's own. I cannot overstate this point enough - it is first rate material.

The bad performances:

Molly Ringwald: Nuff said. This woman has a notable lack of acting range and skill, and it's all too transparent in this movie. It doesn't exactly help that she played a character who became progressively more annoying and one dimensional as the story wore on.

Corin Nemec: I am not that familiar with his other work, but I am familiar with the character that he played. Corin's Harold Lauder was sanitized and softened for this movie - period. Many have complained about the fact that Corin was not heavy and Harold's character was. I thought and still think that getting across the characters personality and demeanor is more important than seeing the manifestation *of* his personality (his obese body) Even with that said, Corin doesn't exactly light the screen up with what he *is* given to do.

Jamey Sheridan: I like Jamey as an actor. I don't like him in this role. Part of this has to do with making Flagg a Fabio look-alike (King admits this in the dvd commentary) Jamey's delievery of this role is hammy - excessively so. Throw in the cheap makeup jobs (after one particular transformation, it is so obvious that Jamey cannot turn his head because of this cheap, from-the-shoulders-to-the-head once piece headgear), and dumb, gratuitous makeup changes with now-dated mid-90's "Morph" technology, and you end up with a role that is at times completely cheesy.

Flagg in the book was just as much of a creepy and unnerving presence as he was a goofy, jokey, charismatic sort of guy. That is really what I liked about him. He's also referred to in both the book and film as "The Man With No Face", but we only really see one or two examples of that in the movie. In the book, Flagg is far more of an etherial and supernatural creature, than what he was in the movie, which most of the time consisted of a creature of flesh and blood with a mullet and shaved beefcake chest, and a tendency to giggle and sing. I think that a more even balance should have been struck between the two major "personas" of Flagg. I flat out don't agree with Stephen King's admitted decision to make Flagg resemble a male model on the cover of a romance novel. I think that it was a ridiculous idea to even consider, let alone impliment for the character.

I was never scared, unnerved, or bothered by Flagg in the miniseries. This was not a result of a lack of blood or gore, but of the way in which Flagg is portrayed, and what kind of presence the actor and filmmakers (King was certainly among them, and as a matter of fact likely had the last word on anything outside of what the censors dictated) decided to go for with this particular character.


What doesn't really work about this move: Two primary things: Network censors, and shoestring budget. Both of these limiting factors manifest themselves many times in the movie. Sometimes the movie feels very cheap, and looks very cheap. Most of the time, you are very much aware that you are watching a network teleivison miniseries. There are moments of this movie that transcend the medium (mostly the great acting bits) but much of this movie is just flat out klunky and awkward from the lack of funds, and you can always tell that the script had to hold back and pull a heck of a lot of punches from the network censors.

The problem with Stephen King and television is stated in the published screenplay for 'Storm of the Century'. I'm going to expand upon my review here by mentioning some of King's other ABC adaptations. In any case, in the SOTC screenplay, he states that he finds it "amusing" to deal with the network censors, and he actually enjoys the sparring and dealings that he has with them. He also goes on to say that he likes that there is only so much that he is allowed to do and only so far that he is allowed to go. King then went on to say that he *likes* the challenge of having to take a "revisionist" policy regarding his material with the ABC miniseries adaptations. They *don't* bear resemblance to the books, and King says as much (yet, amusingly enough, hardcore King fans never seem to notice this or make as much noise about this fact than with the Stephen-King-Not-Involved adaptations). The core issue I find is that the miniseries lack a sense of maturity, and that they are all too often very hokey and cheesy. The Stand manages to avoid that tendency for the most part, at least until the final episode. The other issue is that the ABC miniseries are jam-packed with mediocre or bad acting, and most are just flat out mis-cast (witness "The Langoliers", "IT", and in many roles in "The Shining".) Mick Garris has carved a career (or been typecast, depending on your viewpoint) as a frequent adaptor of King's movies, but he is AT BEST a mediocre director, and is often just flat out BAD. The Stand is *easily* the best material that he has directed. It is difficult for me to figure out whether Garris deserves praise for directing the great acting in the film, which is where the movie's real strength resides at. However, I am hesitant to say that because when looking at Garris' body of work outside of The Stand, there isn't anything there to convince me that this man actually possesses a knack for getting great performances out of his actors. As a matter of fact, his directorial resume' outside of "The Stand" are of films that make me think of the phrase: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." It's likely that the actors on this project were given a lot of leeway in directing themselves for the most part. In any case, he quality of the directing, as far as I am concerned also plays into how bad some of the adaptations have been. Some, like Craig Baxley, have managed to provide relatively decent stuff given what he has had to work with.

I can only hope that the recent problems that King has had with ABC will convince him to move his adaptations to a lesser constrictive medium.

This is the one story that King has written that wholly deserves to be delievered 100% undiluted. Time can only hope that this will be one of his books that will be re-made in the future.

*There are EXTREMELY MILD SPOILERS below*

The other noteable problem to this miniseries is that it goes from a fantastic first episode (the first 90 minutes) and slowly over the next 4 hours begins a slide downward in quality. The show completely falls apart over most of the last 25 minutes of the final episode. Part of this has to do with lesser actors being given more and more screentime as the miniseries goes on. The other problem is that this movie has a completely campy and sappy ending. The end effect is that it sucks away whatever dignity the movie had right out of it. If you like maple syrup-thick sappyness, then the ending is fine. I don't, and I think most who have watched the show agree with me. I turn this movie off once I have hit the point where 25 minutes remain. It is so bad that it almost ruined the entire experience. (mild spoilers begin) I will just note that the special effects crew did two rather horrendous effects. One of them is at the film's final "showdown", if you will. The other is an awful insertion of a deceased character onto the screen near the very end of the show. It needs to be witnessed to truly convey how ridiculous either effect is, and just how much both effects add to the already bad ending. If you have never seen this movie before, just be prepared. This movie never improves upon or even equals the first 90 minutes. I wish that it had been the other way around, given how important I look upon the endings of movies. You are warned!

However, I will concede to the often held opinion that "The Stand" as a novel never gets better than the early-to-middle section. I don't think that the ending or anything towards the ending of the book matches the quality of the earlier parts of the story.

Ultimately, the book that Stephen King published in 1979 and re-published as an expanded version in 1990 is so much better than this film. It's actually in an entire different leauge. I know many people who've been captivated by the miniseries, and *then* found the book to be 10 times better. And yes, originally many of them thought that I was talking like some sort of book snob, but all of them in the end thanked me for my recommendation, and clearly look upon the miniseries as being the vehicle that sent them onto something better. I honestly recommend that if you find "The Stand" as a movie an involving experience, you won't regret spending your time pouring through the even-more expansive and epic novel. You also gain a lot more insight into the characters, and get to meet a few more.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older