Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

loktar Its really shame people rate this movie so low, i mean yeah true not so many movies can be good as book and honestly you cant perfectly transfer book to a movie, but to give so many bad review's just because of that is stupud.. If you can get over that you will like movie cuz its damn good, and actors did pretty good job... Bottom line dont listen to bad reviews watch a movie give it a chance and you will see how good it is.

Gene Bivins (gayspiritwarrior) I don't understand the complaint that it's not scary. I just watched it as an uninterrupted three-hour movie, and I found it gripping, atmospheric and scary the whole way through. I never saw it on TV, so I have a guess why people may not have found it scary there: commercials. If it was shown in two parts then each part was 1½ hours stretched out by 30 minutes of commercials to fill a 2-hour block, and there was at least a 24-hour break between halves. With that much interruption and delay it couldn't help but be watered-down. The directing, acting, and visuals were all first-rate. I'll recommend it enthusiastically to my friends.

dcarsonhagy Just watched this (believe it not) for the first time. There was disappointment around just about every bend. This particular adaptation (because the first was done in 1979) was weak in story, characterizations, and acting. I read with some amazement another reviewer's take on this and could not believe his/her reasoning. He tried to say this particular version wasn't trying to be scary...and at least he got something correct.The book was one of the most frightening novels I have ever read, and the first miniseries managed to capture the horror; well, at least until the vampire was finally introduced. That went down hill quickly after that point, but up to that point, was pretty much a by-the- book film.I will let each viewer decide what they think. Check out the first one, which stars David Soul, James Mason, and others. Then check the "updated" one--complete with cell phones. It isn't even close.Suggested for mature audiences, this one has some language and very minimal violence.

lathe-of-heaven I've pretty much given up trying to understand what people here consider good films or find entertaining. Seriously...I was not expecting much because the original 1979 version is a bit of a minor classic in a way. And truthfully, MOST Stephen King adaptations are pretty poorly done. BUT... I was quite amazed at how involving and engaged I was with the way they did the story. It was not done in the same traditional mold as the original mini-series, and it was somewhat 'updated' in some ways which some may consider unnecessary. But, even so, the quality of the writing, acting, and direction were quite good, really. And most surprising was ol' Rob Lowe did a pretty decent job!At first I was kind of put off by both Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer playing the parts of Straker and Barlow (mainly because of strong images of James mason and 'Nosferatu' from the original) But, after reflecting on it, I do feel that using them DID work in this updated version, making them seem a bit more contemporary as opposed to the traditional feel of the original version - and I really DO like Rutger Hauer anyway : )So, if you can buy into the updating of the story, mood, and look of the film and you appreciate good writing, acting and execution of the story (which happens RARELY with Stephen King) then you should indeed enjoy this gripping, updated version of the classic story!