Genres

Visitors Review

cshep 2012-05-24 10:56:31

The Stand(1994) or The Stink(Always)

What can only be considered a 6 part waste of time "The Stand" isarguably a total waste of time. Slow moving full of filler, the lessthan climatic ending is not worth the wait. Stephen King co-executiveproducer may know how to write, but knows nothing about film making. Itis awful, you almost hope evil wins just to give the film meaning.While the movie or mini-series has several good performances MollyRingwald and Gary Sinese , it does not justify watching this mundane ,dreary, life-extracting garbage. Nor does it do the book justice, whichI recommend instead of this complete waste of time. 2 stars out of ten.Read a book.

Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater 2012-05-23 22:02:03

The Works of Stephen King: Mick Garris' The Stand.

The Stand (1994) was a big production for A.B.C. For years Stephen Kinghas been trying to get his epic novel on the big screen. But afterseveral failed attempts he had to settle for the small screen (at onetime George A. Romero and Dario Argento were set to direct the projectat different times). A.B.C. green lighted the project. During thepre-production, Stephen King wrote the teleplay for The Stand himselfwith Mick Garris set to direct. What could have been an awesome filmwas severely hampered by the restraints of television and a limitedbudget. Overall the movie wasn't bad but I wished either Romero or Argentowould have had the chance to direct it. Even today, a good film makercould film the movie in either two or three parts (like the Lord of theRings trilogy). But until that day comes we'll have to settle for themini-series (better yet re-read the novel. Either way you can't lose.Recommended for Stephen King fans!

2012-05-19 16:15:51

excellent adaptation of King's BEST book!

The film adaptation of "The Stand" is an excellent selection to add to your Stephen King library. His book is, by far, his best work ever, and the film is very true to the book.

Billy Tallent 2012-05-18 22:22:52

thin line between tv-excellence and film-mediocrity

Not fair on my part that I've only read a few hundred pages of the book; Iwatched the stand when it aired originally - I was 13 or so and fell inlovewith Rob Lowe as Nick Andros; the most sympathetic character I'd beenexposed to at that point in tv culture caused me to stop enjoying ParkerLewis Can't Lose because *spoiler ahead* Nemic's character had somethingtodo with his demise in the film.I re-watched it again on cable last month. What an over-wrought,simplistic,under-directed, cornball marathon which still bears King's name. Mostperformances were decent, with extra credit going to Sinise as thearchetypal American hero, Sheridan as a laughable yet reasonabletheologicalvillain - chances are the devil looks like a New-Country sensation. RobLoweand Nemic were very respectable as two distinctly marginal outcasts.Ringwald - well, she - um. I have an 80s John Hughes fetish like everyhonest film geek but hers was a weak, whiney, ridiculous role. Maybe thecharacter is equally obnoxious in the book I wouldn't know.The dialogue and acting is at times laughable, (Nick during the firstcornfield segment - pontifically gesturing his neck and smiling gayly - "Ican hear! I can talk!" caused me to burst out laughing) and the ridiculoushokum-accents at the beginning of the film over Campion's intercom whenthevirus is released are just idiotic. It angers you, when the subject matterand characters are intriguing - you want to step-in and direct partsyourself.There are moments of brilliance, however. The Flu Buddy ad for instance,with the miscegenated black man breakdancing and high-fiving an animatedcold remedy as corporate america's tonic for an impending armageddon. Ialsolike the fact that Larry's hit song 'Can You Dig Your Man?' is horrible,equipped with lyrics so infectious everyone from college professors to thedevil are heard to recite them.It's good, clean all-american fun. But, y'know, so is deer huntingapparently. Watch it twice with two different moods and you'll see twodifferent films. If you approach it unbiasedly (not having read the book,not having experienced the cult following) - you'll either disregard thescale and forget what the miniseries offers or you'll truly feelenlightened. If you saw the film when it first aired (especially if youwereyoung) and are seeing it again, you'll appreciate it for nostalgic valueandfind it hard to disregard, no matter how slick the criticism.It's goofy - but its goofiness becomes infectious - I've spent worsertimeswith the television, but I've spent far better with film.

ametaphysicalshark 2012-05-13 21:28:38

Abysmal direction ruins a potentially excellent miniseries

Sometimes one forgets how essential a good director is to make a filmworthwhile. Obviously the director is, most of the time, the majorforce behind the finished film, but sometimes it's easy to say that agreat script can make up for shoddy direction. It's true of stuff like"Clerks", but the issue is that when compared to Mick Garris, KevinSmith seems like the best American director since Anthony Mann. MickGarris single-handedly ruins this potentially excellent miniseriesadaptation of "The Stand" with consistently awful, amateurish,mind-bogglingly inept direction, and it doesn't help that thecinematography is dull throughout. Stephen King's "The Stand" may notbe perfect, but it's the best apocalyptic epic America's ever going toget, and so enduringly popular that it really is deserving of a bettertreatment than this.King's script for this television adaptation is actually quite good,and actually probably around as good as any adaptation could be.There's not much bad dialogue, certainly no more than in the novelitself, and basically all of the main story points are covered prettywell. The casting's also not bad, and I'm going to actually praiseMolly Ringwald, she's undeservedly criticized for her performance here,but it's pretty much how I imagined Frannie when reading the book.Still, Garris is inept with the actors as well, and you can justimagine him demanding silly, over-the-top performances from reallytalented actors when restraint was necessary. In addition, the entiremovie (yes, the ENTIRE movie) looks just horrible. It's completelyinept, there's no quality here at all in the direction. I mean, it'struly awful.Also, couldn't they get someone half-decent to do "Baby, Can You DigYour Man?" for the movie? The song is now burned into my memory in thishorrid version, I had a rather pleasant one-hit-wonderish version in myhead. My suggestion: use King's script for this, partially re-write itto make either a three film series or a two film series, get a good,talented cast, and a decent budget. Just give it to someone whose nameisn't Mick Garris. I'm not a massive fan of Frank Darabont, but really,that guy does have talent.

2012-05-13 14:16:19

The Stand by Stephen King

One of my favorite King stories. Was sent quickly and in excellent condition. Very Happy.

Sant Jordi 2012-05-11 23:21:50

Being Boring

Stephen King seems to have gone thru a period where he must have been soin love with his words that he would not let anything be cut. That isthe only explanation for a slew of bloated and over written booksand their mini-series spawn.This opus, which is truly one of his lesser and most over-rated efforts,was one he stewarded to the screen with great excitement. Like all hisMini series--Rose Red, The Shining remake, and It (the evil clownfilm)--this would have been best left unmade. The script is over-long,nearly twice the length of War & Peace; badly plotted; and the actorsare forced too say badly written cliches like," I'll see you in hell,Randall, holding your baby in my arms." (Which one will be holding thebaby?)The actors literally chew the scenery of the "Great American West"(which they refer to every third moment.) But with this ploddinglyplotted opus, it is not their fault folks--it is theiragents!Poor Ray Walston, a generation that never saw My Favorite Martian mightactually remember him for his horrible down home faithfulness. Oh andRuby Dee as the voice of god---I am sorry, the poor woman should neverhave been so desperate for money as to have needed this role.

2012-05-11 09:45:44

Above average TV miniseries, inexcusable EP video transfer

Network television constraints notwithstanding, "The Stand" satisfactorily brings Stephen King's apocalyptic epic to the small screen. A well-rounded cast (including Brat Packers Ringwald and Lowe)--and a King-worthy 6 hours to develop the multi-layered tale--make this a landmark in the ever growing library of Stephen King films. Unfortunately, after Republic Pictures released the original 4-tape edition intended exclusively for rental, this 2-tape edition was put on the market for sale to the public. How is this possible? The video is duplicated in Extended Play (EP) mode, the recording speed that allows you to put 6 hours of video on a standard T120 VHS tape. That's fine for recording a televised ball game you'd otherwise miss, but for a movie that you intend to make a part of your video collection, it's a crime. The picture and sound quality is just plain lousy. Wait (patiently) for the DVD release, which is now being developed by Trimark, I think, with the cooperation of King himself.

morrison-dylan-fan 2012-05-11 02:09:47

"This is the way the world ends,this is the way the world ends,this is the way the world ends,not with a bang,but with a whimper."

While i was reading Stephen Kings fantastic novel The Stand,i wasreally looking forward to see how it had been filmed,and with justhaving finished watching.I think the While it was good that it was nowhere near as good as i hoped it would be.The Plot: In the summer of 1990,a flu-like virus breaks out from anarmy base and over the course of the summer it kills off 98% of thepopulation in America.When the survivors try to settle down,they allstart to get very strange dreams with "visions" of two leaders,the theyare told they each have to choose which one they want to be on:The sideof god,led by the 100-plus year old Mother Abigail or the side of "thedark man"-Randall flagg.When they meet there chosen leader,they aretold that only one side can survivor,and that they must make astand,and battle until there is only one side left.View on the film: One of the great things the i have to highlight isthe films score,the is a very sharp,enjoyable southern acousticsound.Sadly,i feel that even thought the film is six hours long,itseems very under-written.Where you don't really feel that supportedabout any of the characters (which is a big thing that works reallygreat in the far superior Stand-inspired series Lost.)And while GarySinise (who did stunning work as directer,producer and main actor in Ofmice and men.) gives a very good performance as Stu Redman,their issurprisingly very little build up,the would make you understand whyStu,Abigail or Flagg are so respected by the rest of the survivors.Final view on the film: An enjoyable film,the is let down by being toounder-written.

papafain 2012-05-10 06:21:28

Watching this is punishment

Let me preface my remarks by saying, unequivocally, I am a Stephen Kingfan, but not an uncritical one. This is worse than Rose Red and that issaying something, in my opinion. I have not and will not, read thisbook, ever. Even granting that King has a tendency to write a 600-pagebook to tell what could be a good short story, a book this long on thissubject is , well...forget it. The mini-series fails to explain why allthe survivors in the East are pretty good guys and in the West aremostly outlaws. As far as the ultimate battle between good and evil arethere no survivors in any other countries? I guess a plague of thisproportion is not enough trouble for the characters, so the Devil hasto show up. I must add that I am second to none in my admiration ofGary Sinise, but I wish he would not waste his time with this kind ofwork. I also think Rob Lowe did a solid job in this. Most of the restof the cast got lost in thankless roles with many contradictions intheir characters behavior. If a story of confrontation between cosmicgood and cosmic evil is well done, the viewer does not have to bringpersonal religious beliefs along to appreciate it. This is a failure onall counts.

2012-05-09 13:34:12

one of the best movies I have ever viewed

Although long in content it is very well made and produced. Tho I haven't read the book ( and from what i hear I;m glad i havent ) It is one i have enjoyed over and over ( to the tune of over 6 times so far) So you may say im nuts but what the hey It is just plain old good for any one and does represent one possibility of our future.

ozthegreatat42330 2012-05-09 04:07:20

Serves its source material well.

While "Salem's Lot" was my personal favorite book and mini-series "TheStand" based on the abridged edition of the novel, was captured veryfaithfully for the small screen. A first class script treatment, andinspired casting all round borough King's sometimes confusing story tolife in the best way forward. Hats off to Gary Sinese, Bill Faggerbake,Miguel Ferrer, Rob Lowe, Ozzie Davis and Ruby Dee in particular. Thismini-series again points out why Stephen King has become the master ofthe American Horror Story. I can't help but think he must have had avery disturbed childhood to have conjured up the horrors that he seemsto continually churn out. You won't want to miss this one. See also:Salem's Lot-the full Mini-Series, and "It" also excellent adaptationsof King novels.

geidde 2012-05-08 17:30:28

Obviously Can NEVER Be As Good As The Book

I was extremely hesitant to rent this movie because I knew ant movie couldnever be as good as the book. What Stephen King book could be translatedinto of his characters on film as you can imagine reading the novel, that isthe beauty of his writing, you lose yourself in his character developmentand that is what the movie lacked, what any SK movie lacks.C'mon, Molly Ringwald as Frannie Goldsmith? The only satisfactory portrayalwas James Sheridan as The Dark Man, what a great find in him. I simply love,adore, admire, and worship Stephen King but it his his writing that enthrallus all. We must always keep that in mind when we rent a SK movie. NOTHINGbeats his written word. I think every Stephen King admirer would attest tothat, or at least I would hope so.

2012-05-08 05:56:47

No Oscars, but for keeping faithful to the book - kudos!

This review is from: Stephen King's The Stand [VHS] (VHS Tape) I am almost always dissapointed when someone other than Stephen King does Stephen King on screen, but not this time. I have all of the books and have read many of them more than once. Yes, I have a life too. King fans will notice many of the "inside" references to other characters and stories, which true fans enjoy. We also like to be able to see and hear characters on screen use what some are calling "corny" lines, because thats what makes the characters who they are. Stephen King fans don't read his books for horror, we read them for the characters. We watch these films to see what we imagined so easily in the books. Sometimes we are let down, this time we are not. As good an adaptation as Stand by Me. I recommend it if you have the time!

cobramaster12000 2012-05-08 16:23:40

Wonderful.

A great movie of good and evil. This movie's effects aren't thatgreat...but hey it was made in like 1991 or something. Anyways it's agreat movie. I think it would be good for the kids to watch if they canwatch a four hour movie. But skip the sex scenes. The part I found tobe really sad was when NICK dies. Another one of my favorite parts iswhen TOM saves STU. That part to me just shows that even a mental cansave a life and that God is with the good and he detests the evil inthe world (No I'm not saying he detests the evil people, but he deteststhe actions those evil people do.) This movie shows that even at thehardest times we can all "MAKE OUR STAND" against the evil forces thatSatan presents us to. It was a great movie and I really think thatpeople should realize what good there is in the world. Why must therebe fighting, hatred, and most of all evil in this world? Why must hatelive? Why must there be only a limited amount of supply of good in thisworld? This movie shows that in the end, it will be all worth it. Inthe end there will be peace and happiness. We must struggle to get tothe end... but the end is worth it.

2012-05-07 19:01:12

A secular view of the Book of Revelations(if thats possible)

I first watched The Stand when it was presented in the 4 part miniseries back in '94. Having recently purchased the video package and watched it in its entirity I had to look at what other people thought of the film. I wasnt surprised to see a somewhat polarization acceptance of the film. In any film adaption of a book you have a chance of disillussioning some readers. However I have just 1 word for those of you who absoulty hate this film and think its one of the worst Stephen King films ever.....Langoliers...*shudder*...Well simply put some books arent made to be translated into film (The Langoliers for example)...and others like The Stand is epic in scope, and by the shear size of the task is difficult to undertake. The Stand does well under these circumstances and especially for being made under tv standards.I'm not a relgious person by any deffinition but by Kings own admission The Stand was his view on the end of the world and barrowed heavily from themes of the Bible. Its hard not to see these items (Flaggs "gifts" of dark beads and the way the beast marks his followers etc etc). However it isnt as heavy handed nor preachy as some other end of the world televangists movies like "Left Behind" . Not that theres anything wrong with these movies however they obviously have a message while The Stand is more of entertainment with some insight into a living breathing "end of the world". Excuse the pun. However there are some flaws to it. Namely the ending. As most of the moderate reviewers have noted. However all in all it is worth your 20$ and 6 hours of your time. This movie tries to tackle an enormous task by taking on the the book. It does the best it can do under the circumstances. All in all it captures both the ideology and feel of the book. Which is quite an accomplishment.

Starcat Zeppo 2012-05-06 17:24:43

"This is the way the world ends"

When my sister and I read this book years before it's release to film, wewere paranoid at any sneeze or cough for months.I wish I could say this adaptation had the same effect.For a TV Mini, it wasn't bad. There were a lot of the more intense partsof the book that couldn't be seen on the small screen.For the part of Tom Cullen, I envisioned Bill Fagerbakke as the perfectperson to play him and was delighted at his performance. Ruby Dee was alsoperfect in her role. Ray Walston's performance also remained pretty true tothe character as it was written in the book.However, Molly Ringwald's weak and pitiful performance of the strongestfemale in the story, Fran, was just... It was terrible. I could understandwhy her weak performance along with Laura San Giacomo's Nadine would makesomeone turn this movie OFF if they had not read the book.The best thing to do is read this first. Then, watch the mini series.Bestleft for the die hard King fan who is used to his work being butchered onfilm, unless you have an idea of the characters and story involved, thisadaptation leaves too much to be desired. Another hour or two of storywouldhave helped. Hey, the BOOK is a mamouth, so why not take advantage of thetime alloted to a mini series and go all out?As negative as the review may read, I LIKED this movie. Jamey Sheridangives me the creeps in anything I see him in now because of his part asFlagg. But after reading the book so many times, as a whole the movie justleft out too many parts.

LivingDog 2012-05-06 11:59:11

Glued to the TV

This was an excellent TV show. I was glued to the TV every night it was on.None of the actors stood out from the rest of the cast. This is ok since itwas the story that kept me so intrigued.Ray Walston as "Glen Bateman" was great in being able to shed his well-known"My Favorite Martian" character baggage. At no time did I get distracted bythis - pointing to Mr. Walston's stellar acting ability.Miguel Ferrer as "Lloyd Henreid" was able to solicit major amounts ofsympathy from me. I felt that he could be "saved" if only he would turnaround just a little... but alas it wasn't meant to be. (I have seen Mr.Ferrer in many films and always enjoy his acting.)Corin Nemec as "Harold Lauder." Although Corin's character chooses sideswith the evil "Randall Flagg" (played very well by Jamey Sheridan) he isalso worthy of much pity for in the end, although he commits suicide, heasks for forgiveness.Gary Sinise as "Stu Redman," Matt Frewer as "Trashcan Man," Adam Storke as"Larry Underwood," and Rob Lowe as "Nick Andros" made an ensemble of menthat is rarely seen in any show. They melded together as one unit. It wasrefreshing to see an unadulterated view of real men. 9/10- Zafoid

george.schmidt 2012-05-05 06:48:51

Epic King adaptation: Don't Fear The Reaper

STEPHEN KING'S "THE STAND" (1994/MADE FOR TV) *** Gary Sinise, RobLowe, Molly Ringwald, Jamey Sheridan, Laura San Giacomo, Ruby Dee,Ossie Davis, Corin Nemec, Bill Fagerbakke, Matt Frewer, Miguel Ferrer,Shawnee Smith, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.Mick Garris directed this miniseries tv epic adaptation of King'shorror novel (who wrote the teleplay and has a cameo) , destruction andone nasty plague that nearly wipes out mankind.Pitting good vs. evil (106 yr. old Dee and devil incarnate Sheridan)with two factions restoring civilization. Long but worth the wait; Loweis outstanding as the noble mute Nick Andros. Great use of Blue OysterCult's cult hit "Don't Fear The Reaper" at the beginning over thecredits.

John 2012-05-04 11:49:40

Best movie ever

Stephen King wrote everybody else created it into a movie and I think it turned out to be the single best movie ever created.