1• The Plague: 3.5
2• The Dreams: 2.5
3• The Betrayal: 2
4• The Stand: 3

FUCKK and I just realized I should've watched this while standing

1• The Plague: 3.5
2• The Dreams: 2.5
3• The Betrayal: 2
4• The Stand: 3

FUCKK and I just realized I should've watched this while standing

i’m so proud of myself this was 6 hours long and i locked in and watched the whole damn thing

i’m so proud of myself this was 6 hours long and i locked in and watched the whole damn thing

Pretty mid but fun

I'm currently reading The Stand, just about halfway through, and wanted to check out the film to see if it held up at all to where I was and where I'd be going. Safe to say I'm looking forward to keep reading it, but probably wouldn't have picked it up if I'd only seen this.

First thing I'd like to note, this film doesn't translate very well from the book. So much happens off-screen and isn't explained within the film itself; it's cool if you have read the book, but from an outsider perspective, it feels very rushed. Now, as I mentioned, I'm only about halfway through the book, so I'm quite excited to continue and see everything else the movie misses and changes. The story itself is enjoyable, but if you really want the best experience of the story, I'm sticking with the book.

Outside of the story itself, it is painfully obvious that it was made for '90s TV. Effects are pretty awful all around (some good parts: one cool scene in the prison and most of the sick people look good too), and some of the sets are really bad as well. I love cheesy effects, but it just feels so off here. Probably should have kept Flagg with just a human form, too. I love practical masks, but once again, it just doesn't quite turn out right. The lighting and most of the acting are pretty bad as well. Again, it's just so obviously a made-for-TV movie.

Overall, not too much good to say about the film itself. Great story, poor adaptation. If you like the cheesy and mid Stephen King adaptations (like IT 1990), check this one out, but even then, maybe don't... 6 hours is a lot!

Pretty mid but fun

I'm currently reading The Stand, just about halfway through, and wanted to check out the film to see if it held up at all to where I was and where I'd be going. Safe to say I'm looking forward to keep reading it, but probably wouldn't have picked it up if I'd only seen this.

First thing I'd like to note, this film doesn't translate very well from the book. So much happens off-screen and isn't explained within the film itself; it's cool if you have read the book, but from an outsider perspective, it feels very rushed. Now, as I mentioned, I'm only about halfway through the book, so I'm quite excited to continue and see everything else the movie misses and changes. The story itself is enjoyable, but if you really want the best experience of the story, I'm sticking with the book.

Outside of the story itself, it is painfully obvious that it was made for '90s TV. Effects are pretty awful all around (some good parts: one cool scene in the prison and most of the sick people look good too), and some of the sets are really bad as well. I love cheesy effects, but it just feels so off here. Probably should have kept Flagg with just a human form, too. I love practical masks, but once again, it just doesn't quite turn out right. The lighting and most of the acting are pretty bad as well. Again, it's just so obviously a made-for-TV movie.

Overall, not too much good to say about the film itself. Great story, poor adaptation. If you like the cheesy and mid Stephen King adaptations (like IT 1990), check this one out, but even then, maybe don't... 6 hours is a lot!

As far as an adaptation goes, you can tell Mick Garris loves the material, and in particular the empathetic folksy side of King's writing. I didn't love this back when I first saw it in high school as I felt the soapy vibes didn't match with the grand image the novel built in my head, I'm sure the low budget with 90s television restrictions didn't work in Garris's favor, but it stuck with me as an endearing relic adapting one of my favourite novels. That's not to diminish what a great job they did with this adaptation, episode one feels truly epic and there are plenty of stylistic choices that are very successful. The cast is so endearing, James Sheridan is spectacular. And the years have looped back around to being kind to the series as that Twin Peaksy Soap aesthetic is much more welcomed in the wake of the streaming endemic we're in now. I also am revisiting this for the first time since seeing the 2020 remaining of--ostensibly--this miniseries. And I say that because it largely feels like Josh Boone's modern effort pays a lot of loving tribute to this, from costume and casting choices, to omitting similar storylines from the novel (the 94 version being more due to the unavailability of the unabridged manuscript and the 2020 version being due to whatever crack they were smoking to edit it all nonlinear like that). It is very interesting that there are now 2 takes on adapting the Stand to TV that both do good jobs translating certain aspects of the story while being held back by the nature of their contemporary TV landscapes respectively overpowering the text so strongly. Maybe someday it'll get the Dune treatment where there were 2 pretty good but divisive shots at it in the past but not until a big talented director with pull in the industry attaches themselves to it does it get the scale it deserves (even if I have my reservations about the Villeneuve Dune films but I digress). It's also great that 2 iconic villains from 90s Steven King TV adaptations were played by Skarsgards in the modern remakes.

TLDR; this rules and Sam Raimi has a small role in this so that'll give it an automatic 5 stars in my heart.

As far as an adaptation goes, you can tell Mick Garris loves the material, and in particular the empathetic folksy side of King's writing. I didn't love this back when I first saw it in high school as I felt the soapy vibes didn't match with the grand image the novel built in my head, I'm sure the low budget with 90s television restrictions didn't work in Garris's favor, but it stuck with me as an endearing relic adapting one of my favourite novels. That's not to diminish what a great job they did with this adaptation, episode one feels truly epic and there are plenty of stylistic choices that are very successful. The cast is so endearing, James Sheridan is spectacular. And the years have looped back around to being kind to the series as that Twin Peaksy Soap aesthetic is much more welcomed in the wake of the streaming endemic we're in now. I also am revisiting this for the first time since seeing the 2020 remaining of--ostensibly--this miniseries. And I say that because it largely feels like Josh Boone's modern effort pays a lot of loving tribute to this, from costume and casting choices, to omitting similar storylines from the novel (the 94 version being more due to the unavailability of the unabridged manuscript and the 2020 version being due to whatever crack they were smoking to edit it all nonlinear like that). It is very interesting that there are now 2 takes on adapting the Stand to TV that both do good jobs translating certain aspects of the story while being held back by the nature of their contemporary TV landscapes respectively overpowering the text so strongly. Maybe someday it'll get the Dune treatment where there were 2 pretty good but divisive shots at it in the past but not until a big talented director with pull in the industry attaches themselves to it does it get the scale it deserves (even if I have my reservations about the Villeneuve Dune films but I digress). It's also great that 2 iconic villains from 90s Steven King TV adaptations were played by Skarsgards in the modern remakes.

TLDR; this rules and Sam Raimi has a small role in this so that'll give it an automatic 5 stars in my heart.

As far as an adaptation goes, you can tell Mick Garris loves the material, and in particular the empathetic folksy side of King's writing. I didn't love this back when I first saw it in high school as I felt the soapy vibes didn't match with the grand image the novel built in my head, I'm sure the low budget with 90s television restrictions didn't work in Garris's favor, but it stuck with me as an endearing relic adapting one of my favourite novels. That's not to diminish what a great job they did with this adaptation, episode one feels truly epic and there are plenty of stylistic choices that are very successful. The cast is so endearing, James Sheridan is spectacular. And the years have looped back around to being kind to the series as that Twin Peaksy Soap aesthetic is much more welcomed in the wake of the streaming endemic we're in now. I also am revisiting this for the first time since seeing the 2020 remaining of--ostensibly--this miniseries. And I say that because it largely feels like Josh Boone's modern effort pays a lot of loving tribute to this, from costume and casting choices, to omitting similar storylines from the novel (the 94 version being more due to the unavailability of the unabridged manuscript and the 2020 version being due to whatever crack they were smoking to edit it all nonlinear like that). It is very interesting that there are now 2 takes on adapting the Stand to TV that both do good jobs translating certain aspects of the story while being held back by the nature of their contemporary TV landscapes respectively overpowering the text so strongly. Maybe someday it'll get the Dune treatment where there were 2 pretty good but divisive shots at it in the past but not until a big talented director with pull in the industry attaches themselves to it does it get the scale it deserves (even if I have my reservations about the Villeneuve Dune films but I digress). It's also great that 2 iconic villains from 90s Steven King TV adaptations were played by Skarsgards in the modern remakes.

TLDR; this rules and Sam Raimi has a small role in this so that'll give it an automatic 5 stars in my heart.

As far as an adaptation goes, you can tell Mick Garris loves the material, and in particular the empathetic folksy side of King's writing. I didn't love this back when I first saw it in high school as I felt the soapy vibes didn't match with the grand image the novel built in my head, I'm sure the low budget with 90s television restrictions didn't work in Garris's favor, but it stuck with me as an endearing relic adapting one of my favourite novels. That's not to diminish what a great job they did with this adaptation, episode one feels truly epic and there are plenty of stylistic choices that are very successful. The cast is so endearing, James Sheridan is spectacular. And the years have looped back around to being kind to the series as that Twin Peaksy Soap aesthetic is much more welcomed in the wake of the streaming endemic we're in now. I also am revisiting this for the first time since seeing the 2020 remaining of--ostensibly--this miniseries. And I say that because it largely feels like Josh Boone's modern effort pays a lot of loving tribute to this, from costume and casting choices, to omitting similar storylines from the novel (the 94 version being more due to the unavailability of the unabridged manuscript and the 2020 version being due to whatever crack they were smoking to edit it all nonlinear like that). It is very interesting that there are now 2 takes on adapting the Stand to TV that both do good jobs translating certain aspects of the story while being held back by the nature of their contemporary TV landscapes respectively overpowering the text so strongly. Maybe someday it'll get the Dune treatment where there were 2 pretty good but divisive shots at it in the past but not until a big talented director with pull in the industry attaches themselves to it does it get the scale it deserves (even if I have my reservations about the Villeneuve Dune films but I digress). It's also great that 2 iconic villains from 90s Steven King TV adaptations were played by Skarsgards in the modern remakes.

TLDR; this rules and Sam Raimi has a small role in this so that'll give it an automatic 5 stars in my heart.