Rose Red (2002) User Reviews

This is not for all you short attention spanners...

[hadar-20 · 8/10 · 6 October 2003]

For the rest of you, though, this mammoth 250 minutes horror miniseries, is well worth the time. Stephen King has probably created one of his best screenplay-to-screen only works (not based on a novel) in "Rose Red", a chore usually not too successful ("Sleepwalkers", anyone?). This haunted house tale, about a creepy enormous mansion in Seatle, and the intrepid psychics that go there for a "field trip", boasts amazing production design and sets, fine acting, especially by Nancy Travis as the determined Joyce Reardon and Matt Ross as Emery ("Go and warn someone who isn't broke!), and decent special effects (especially considering this is made for TV). Although not everything is always clear, and although the middle part tends to sag a little, this is a high quality mini-series which amazingly manages to sustain interest through four hours of haunted house shenanigans, one of the most overused themes in horror. It's length also allows it to dedicate the first hour to character development and story buildup, so that when the characters walk for the first time into "Rose Red", we are almost as anxious as they are. this wouldn't have worked in a two hour film.

Loved it either way

[stormynighttigerlily · 8/10 · 2 February 2005]

Though most people did not appreciate this movie due to lack of insight, I still found it interesting and mentally exercising. I do agree that some of the down time should have been used to go into depth on the characters but it also makes me use my mind to fill in the blanks which could make the movie even more fun and eccentric. Stephen King knows how to tap into peoples minds. This movie didn't scare me or make me jump at the time I was watching it. It was a few days later when I actually started to think about it and analyze it that it struck a cord. It makes you think about the possibilities and consequences. Well all in all I liked this mini series and though I do think they could have done better, it was still mentally captivating.

Good TV quality

[sam_aj_01 · 6/10 · 25 March 2007]

Rose Red is a great TV series based on the fictional events that took place inside the house, where a group of psychics plan to awake the spirits.

For practically three hours its entertaining which most TV series and films fail to do, but its missing a plot which is the only problem. There's a really built up story and background to the house but what actually happens in the film go's nowhere... Personally there's too much about the house and too little about the characters, it basically fits into one sub-genre. Horror.

Definitely not movie material, but a good watch for those who enjoy other Stephen King films.

Review of the Supernatural

[sef_dcs19 · 27 September 2004]

Three deaths occurred within one year of construction before the house was finished in 1909. Rose Red was given her name by Ellen Rimbauer (Kimberly Brown), the new wife of John Rimbauer's (Steven Brand). After Ellen died at the age of seventy, the house lay dormant. A woman on a tour of Rose Red in 1950 disappeared, and it was closed. Dr. Joyce Reardon (Nancy Travis) became interested in Rose Red as a way to prove her thoughts of paranormal activity being real. She is most interested in AnnieWheaton (Lisa Brenner) to come; she thinks Annie is the key to reawaken the house. Annie is an autistic child with the power of telekinesis. Eventually the house and Annie become one. The house is alive when she is awake and at rest when Annie is sleeping.

Rose Red owned Ellen and her life. Anyone crossed her or became more important to her would disappear or die in the house. Ellen lived a life of heartbreak and anger. Her husband cheated on her constantly. She loved her daughter, April Rimbauer (Courtney Burness), more than anything. April eventually disappeared. When Ellen finally died at the age of seventy, she was forever trapped in Rose Red. She remained at Rose Red after death to hurt anyone who came, just as she was hurt. There truly are evil places in the world. How else could we explain the findings that paranormal psychologist found? The message of the movie is that things are never forgotten even in death. If we are hurt that bad in life, there is the possibility of us taking it to the grave and beyond.

The audience must have the patience to watch a four hour movie. Of all the ghost movies I've seen this is the best even though it is long. I recommend it for a rainy day. The details which make the movie long don't seem contribute much to the film's plot. 'Rose Red' is not for the faint of heart: it is very gory and violent.

"How beautiful you are, Rose Red."

[bensonmum2 · 7/10 · 16 April 2007]

Prof. Joyce Reardon teaches psychology and has a particular interest in the psychology of the occult. For her next research project, she intends to take a group of psychics to a local haunted house, Rose Red. The house is known as "dead cell" as it's been years since any reported supernatural activity occurred in Rose Red. It's Prof. Reardon's goal to use her team of psychics to bring the house back to life and gather physical data supporting her theories on the supernatural. But Rose Red is no ordinary haunted house. It's the granddaddy of haunted houses. Over the years, it's been responsible for the deaths or disappearances of dozens of people. What will happen if Prof. Reardon's team is successful in their mission? And will anyone be left to tell their story?

Even for a writer as gifted and talented as Stephen King, coming up with original ideas for a haunted house film is difficult. It seems that every haunted house movie made since 1963 follows the pattern set out by The Haunting. Rose Red is no different – a notorious house with a deadly history, a scientist looking to uncover its mysteries, a group of psychics, etc. So Rose Red gets no bonus points for an original story idea. But its execution is very nicely done. Because Rose Red was originally conceived as a miniseries, there's time to get to know a little something about the characters. It gives a little more substance to the danger they face. This extra time also allows for atmosphere – something that I've argued is missing from a lot of modern horror. The special effects are also quite good. I was especially impressed with some of the lighting, miniature, and matte effects. And the acting is better than I would have expected. Julian Sands has always been a favorite of mine and he does not disappoint here.

The only negative aspects of the film that immediately come to mind are the movie's finale and some ill-placed comedy. The ending of the movie is extremely muddled. I've seen Rose Red three times now and still have trouble deciding just what is behind the haunting (vampire, ghost, or something else). And the comedy featuring Prof. Reardon's colleague Prof. Carl Miller is really out of place given the tone of most of the rest of the movie.

Overall, if you're a fan of haunted house films like The Haunting or The Legend of Hell House, don't let Rose Red's 240 minute runtime put you off. It's about the best "traditional" haunted house movie I can think of from the last 20 years.

Another Great Stephen King Miniseries

[QuisitsTrepe · 6/10 · 3 November 2002]

Okay, when I first heard of this film I was quite skeptical. Although I had enjoyed other SK miniseries' I did not believe that anything could make the haunted house horror films good again. I, however, was totally wrong. This film is great, it had action and horror and the acting was surperb. Julian Sands was excellent as he always is and the others were good too. The only thing that I did not like was the little girl who "woke up" the house. I do not like child actors if only for the simple fact that very little of them can actually act, this girl was no exception. Other than that it was a great film.

^_^ Have Fun!! Amanda

A Novel on Film

[ladylynch · 10/10 · 25 April 2003]

Someone said this was "too long" and made the comment that longer books don't translate well to screen. However, if they knew anything about Rose Red, they would know that it was never a book. It was written directly for the screen by Stephen King. As I watched the film, I kept thinking how much it was like a novel come to life! Then I was watching the featurette "The Making of Rose Red" on the DVD and Stephen King as well as the director said that it was really just a novel that was played out on screen. It is so true! I am an avid fan of King's work, and this film was a real treat, because it was just like reading one of his books. It it not SUPPOSED to be your typical 90 minute work (as King says, he feels like that is similar to stealing all the towels in the hotel room and then quickly packing them into your bag and sitting on it to try to force them to stay in). It is much more character driven and rich, and takes much more attention than a regular film does. That is WHY it was a 3 part series!

If you are willing to put forth the effort--and I mean this as a COMPLIMENT to the film, for it really is like reading a novel--then you will love it. 10/10 from me!

"We're in trouble ladies and gentlemen. Big trouble."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 12 November 2018]

Way, way, way too long. I know this was made as a TV mini-series, and I recall the ubiquitous presence of commercials hyping it when it was about to appear on network television, so I guess you can give it a bit of a pass for the repetitious elements. But it doesn't work quite as effectively as a four hour plus movie marathon; one is bound to get antsy at some point.

You know, I had to laugh at one point. Professor Carl Miller (David Dukes) made a derogatory assessment of Joyce Reardon's (Nancy Travis) mission to record anything remotely paranormal at the abandoned Rimbauer Mansion, by referring to it as the 'House on Haunted Hill'. And just like that 1959 black and white horror classic, all of the participants involved wound up sleeping in separate bedrooms! Why oh why?, and how can anyone be that ill advised when staying in a place with a reputation suggesting that something bad is bound to happen. It just doesn't make sense except in films like this, and even then it doesn't make sense. And by the way, I saw Vincent Price's "House on Haunted Hill" when I was about ten years old, and didn't come out from under the bed for about a week.

No such trauma here, I don't even recall a good jump scare in the entire run. Adding to my disillusionment with the picture was when Professor Reardon placed a bandage on Annie's bloody forehead slightly to the right of center, but for the entire rest of the picture, it was seen positioned left of center. Only to be outdone by Cathy Kramer's (Judith Ivey) dry dress immediately after walking through knee deep water in the Mirror Room. Would it have been that hard to maintain continuity if someone were paying attention?

Best scene for me was the pizza delivery man. He seemed like the kind of guy who could have written this story.

Have been waiting

[terbearinky-11839 · 10/10 · 2 August 2021]

Have been waiting to find on a streaming channel.

I think it's one of the best , Ghost, old mansion, horror shows.

Save the warnings for someone who's not broke

[petra_ste · 6/10 · 24 May 2007]

This mini-series follows professor Reardon (Nancy Travis), as she visits an ancient mansion (the titular Rose Red, which is infamous for being haunted) with a group of psychics, hoping to trigger paranormal phenomena and study them. Since this was written by Stephen King, it goes without saying the group is soon trapped inside and people start dying.

Character development is decent - at least one can tell those people apart and understand their flaws and motivations. I also appreciated how the final survivors are difficult to predict. Giving the house some backstory, and therefore more depth than the usual "It's haunted!" stuff, was also an interesting idea, although it's not entirely successful. Acting is serviceable; Travis seems terrible at first but then her performance starts to make sense (her professor turns out to be an unusual protagonist, both unsavory and quite bonkers).

Sadly, the location is not creepy enough. Sure, the house is surrounded by a park, but it's still inside a city. Seeing the street traffic from the windows of Rose Red is very distracting and spoils the atmosphere: imagine a version of The Shining with people skiing right outside the Overlook Hotel. Now, it's possible to make an effective horror in an urban setting (The Ring), but not with the Gothic premise of a haunted house, which thrives on isolation.

Also, too often characters behave like morons, shattering suspension of disbelief into tiny pieces - like the middle-aged, mild-mannered woman visiting the kitchen alone to fetch some tea after GHOSTS HAVE STARTED KILLING PEOPLE. From someone like the King of horror, these shortcuts feel rather lazy.

6,5/10

Stephen King Writes "Autopilot"

[nycritic · 5/10 · 25 January 2005]

Once upon a time there was an author who could spin a good yarn about some horrific occurrence in some place, namely Maine, or Colorado. He had a way of slowly enveloping the reader with characters caught in a mystery that partially revealed itself, and while delving into the supernatural, plausibility was never sacrificed in lieu of ridiculousness.

Of course, once that author began seeing he could make money in droves by basically adapting older horror stories and horror clichés into new book versions, quality went right out the window, never to be seen again (except on rare, non-horror stories, tales about a coming-of-age, or crime novellas).

And of course, falling in love with his prose also became a trademark. Telling tales with a didactic tone in which everything is seen and even minor flashbacks have to be played out in extensive, overdrawn passages (which also, to me, indicates needing to play out the part of the best-selling author who has to maintain an image and sell large, fat books) made for even poorer storytelling. Not that long novels and multiple story lines don't make for good storytelling... as long as it's related to what's being told. (See Dark Tower IV: Wizard and Glass for a prime example of a book seventy-five percent too long and who's backstory stops this massive yet simple story dead in its tracks for almost 500 pages. By far, this has to be the most voluminous flashback in literary history, and I don't mean it in a good way, even though I have admired this author since childhood. But admiration doesn't impede me to see that he seems to have lost his touch and hasn't truly evolved in favor of "the best-seller syndrome.")

Thirty years after achieving success with Carrie, Stephen King has essentially re-hashed the same story styles over and over again and become wealthy and ubiquitous in the process. Rose Red, a screenplay adapted for TV, is a summation of all of the things I've been writing about: overlong, with too many unnecessary characters, derivative of earlier stories which in turn were remakes of earlier literary works, and as predictable as the weather. The archetype of a house gone bad, holding deadly secrets and hungry spirits within its walls. The lead character who either comes back to face his demons or becomes obsessed, like Captain Ahab, by its secrets and subsequently dives into madness. The overuse of a child's nursery rhyme (used masterfully by Hitchcock). The presence of the loud, fat overbearing mother who vomits forth screams of Judgement Day and quotes from the Bible. The unpleasant small man prone to self-preservation. The reasonable woman who suspects something is wrong but doesn't really come involved until late in the story. The psychic child who acts as the catalyst, sometimes creepy, sometimes verbose, sometimes severely damaged, and who has the monster mother (or father, or both) for baggage. The evil which cannot be destroyed, ever, like mold, and feeds on the psychic prana of unsuspecting humans (foolishly) drawn to it.

It would work if there was an element of parody to the genre, but when for jolts we keep seeing dead people open their eyes as they hang from the ceiling, obvious CGI creations that simulate walking zombies and speak in seductive voices, bombastic scenes of explosions and wind, and the milky white appearance of a girl who beckons an autistic young girl to come to her (twice) while nobody does anything to help, or that laugh-inducing ending where all the ghosts slowly creep over Nancy Travis who unconvincingly carries out the aforementioned Captain Ahab role best seen previously in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining under Jack Nicholson's performance doesn't make for a good or especially frightening movie.

And the dialog... can we say cringe inducing? Like Emery's preferred "bon mot," it was simply "not there." A prime example where less is more, shorter is preferable, and atmosphere is everything. Watch only if particularly bored or if there is absolutely nothing else on.

King finally gets his due on the screen

[amanda_tlg · 8/10 · 25 May 2005]

There are so many of King's books that didn't go over well as movies. And this one, which was never even a book, did really well. If you have a Friday night and a lot of popcorn to kill, this is a decent one to settle down with. A lot of the actors are unknown, but pull this off well. I like how it's not just a group of people going to spend the night in a haunted house and win money and fame shtick. (i.e. the new House on Haunted Hill) I also liked how all the people who went had a unique specialty in the paranormal/supernatural. Also, it has the regular blend of characters you love to hate, ones who are suspicious, and the adorable ones that you hope don't make the mistake of investigating unknown noises in the middle of the night alone.

High quality horror from the master of creepy tales...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 10 October 2008]

If you like haunted house stories, this Stephen King tale is for you.

ROSE RED is a high quality horror tale from the master of the genre, his ability to spin a creepy tale never seeming to diminish.

The real star of the film is the mansion itself, as terrifyingly real as possible despite the use of miniatures for many of the shots, all of its corridors and rooms magnificently photographed and obviously sparing no expense for a TV film that was part of a mini-series.

The story tends to drag once in awhile but the horror is gripping enough to sustain interest throughout the lengthy tale. NANCY TRAVIS is excellent as the off-kilter psychology professor willing to undertake an experiment with other psychics at Rose Red, a haunted mansion known for devouring its occupants. MATT ROSS, as Emery, a spineless mama's boy who pays dearly for entering the premises, is another who stands out among the largely unfamiliar names in the cast.

Especially good are David DUKES as Professor Miller, MATT KEESLAR as Steve, JULIAN SANDS as Nick and LAURA KENNY, a screaming delight as the possessive Mrs. Waterman.

But again, it's the atmospheric house itself and the many special effects that have it reaching out to get its hooks on unlucky victims, both in and outside the mansion, that keeps the story spinning in a very compelling sort of way. The photography captures every menacing moment in the sometimes opulent interiors, as well as the rotting decay when the spirits of the undead make their presence known.

Very intense at certain moments, it may well have been even more effective if the opening scenes did not seem so padded before the events switch to the house itself. Once Rose Red is entered, the fun begins.

Dreary.

[nocturnalgloria · 1/10 · 13 September 2005]

I have been a fan of the Stephen King world of now trademark horror and like so many of his older fans I have keep being disappointed at his most recent attempts to tap the dark vein.

First of all, Rose Red is not scary. That's quite obvious and almost blatantly intrinsic to this movie's plot. After all, the idea is to drag the action for as long as possible (yes, that means around 4 hours) and to make sure that the same computer animated scenes are played over and over again.

When will horror film makers figure out that glowing milky white ghosts are something straight out of a cartoon. The house itself which is supposed to the apex of everything as it embodies the true spirit of "evil" that is supposed to feed off people (original, isn't it?) fails to make an impression as it looks just like what it is: scenery. While aiming to create a truly exccentric building, the product of a diseased mind (a theme that was getting old around the time Poe turned around with the "House of Usher") the movie delivers a vaguely Victorian massive cardboard cliché-ed stereotype of a "haunted house". I suppose the idea is to reach that crystallized status of the site of evil, bred within the confines of lunacy and isolation. It does not pull it off.

Now, acting...it's average. It becomes downward atrocious when it is set side by side with those terribly inane "ghosts" that made me laugh. I cringe whenever I do as much as try to remember the sheer stupidity.

Then, King delivers a bunch of re visitations of his former works that do little more than cast a stain upon the times when he knew what he was doing. If you have read Carrie, you will recognize where the final scene with the falling stones came from, and if you read The Shining you will easily see that the character of Annie is an over simplified version of Danny meets Seth from The Regulators.

The annoying nursery line comes from the Storm of the Century, and I am sure I could find more things, were I to bother.

I won't, though.

Most horror fans hate this...monster and I have to agree with them.

1 out of 10, only because there is no zero.

Love it!!!

[Texasladi75 · 28 November 2004]

Great movie!! As for the length, it was perfect for me...yeah, I know that sounds crazy to most of you...but I wish lots of movies were longer, with more of a story line and this one has it!!! I love movies with creepy old houses and ghosts! I give it a 10! So far, it's my favorite horror movie! The characters in the movie were very good! A bit of sarcasm and humor...fun parts, scary parts...!! I bought the DVD and watch it over again from time to time and it never gets boring to me! I can't compare the book to the movie, as I don't read Stephen King's books...I rather wait for the movies :-) !!! And like always, he plays a small part in the movie ;-) Stephen King gets a 10 also, such a wild imagination that doesn't let his fans down!!!

A Real Haunted House Film

[whpratt1 · 7/10 · 8 August 2007]

If you like Steven King,(Pizza Delivery Man) and his many films and books, you will like this story about a Professor Joyce Reardon,(Nancy Travis) "Becker" who lectures at a University in Seattle concerning the supernatural, extrasensory perception. Joyce decides to round up a group of people she knows who all have different talents concerning the spirit world and how to upset ghosts in a haunted house. Eventually Joyce has this group of people she is willing to pay thousands of dollars at her disposal and leads them all into a very haunted house. However, the ghosts have a great time driving all of these people completely crazy, especially people who are related to the former residence who lived their years ago. There is plenty of blood and gore and the film goes into great detail with every individual in this picture. There is outstanding photography and all the actors gave a great performance and even Steven King as a Pizza Delivery Man. This picture is rather long and you will begin to get tired and want the film to end quickly as possible.

mildly enjoyable but very unoriginal

[fibreoptic · 6/10 · 30 January 2004]

Is it just me or is Rose Red a rehash of The Shining? Everything about this screams unoriginality and if you watch it carefully you will notice lots of things in common with The Shining! Big creepy place haunted by evil ghosts who want a psychic kid who can see them so they can grow stronger. It was an interesting watch but there's only one problem....it wasn't scary! That's probably why the DVD got a 12 rating in the UK! Some of the acting was cheesy or over the top but Julian Sands acting was superb. This is just Stephen King trying to make a quick buck and just did a quick remix of one of his classic title's. If this was written by anyone else but Stephen King it would be acceptable but i don't expect this off a man of his calibre! And the obvious cameo by Mr King is just so grrrr unsubtle that it's just throwing the fact that it's Stephen King in our faces (when the guy who wrote it has his name much bigger than the title on the front of the DVD you got to start wondering) and to make you think it's got to be good if he appears in a 30 second cameo. Some of the effects annoy me like the bee's and the exploding sink which are obviously not realistic enough (the statue effect is quite cool though). If you haven't seen either of The Shining's then watch this first because you might get more entertainment from Rose Red.

My favorite version of The Haunting

[BrandtSponseller · 9/10 · 2 July 2005]

Rose Red is basically an uncredited remake of The Haunting, based on Shirley Jackson's 1959 novel, The Haunting of Hill House. The novel was first made into a film by Robert Wise in 1963. Jan de Bont did a much-loathed remake, which I prefer to the Wise film, in 1999. Novelist Stephen King, who wrote the script for Rose Red, has long said that Jackson's book is one of his favorites, and he's a fan of the Wise film. The Jackson book has greatly influenced his work. I don't recall ever hearing King's opinion of the de Bont remake, but I could imagine that he might not have cared for it very much.

Thus, it was only natural that when Steven Spielberg contacted King about doing a haunted house film shortly after the release of the de Bont remake, King thought it would be a great opportunity to give the world an updated filmic version of The Haunting of Hill House, but done "right". Probably because of the negative public reaction to the de Bont film, and the temporal proximity (and possibly because of rights/licensing issues), it was decided to do something "original" instead of marketing another remake. But make no mistake, there are far too many similarities in the story, the structure and the visuals for this to not be a Haunting remake. Enough was changed that no one could be sued for copyright infringement, of course, and in making the changes and lengthening the film to a mini-series, King and director Craig R. Baxley have topped both previous versions of The Haunting. Rose Red is very nearly a 10. Only a couple slight missteps bring the score down to a 9.

Rather than Hill House, the name of the home is Rose Red. And rather than being in the countryside in New England, King has moved it to a hilltop in Seattle, Washington. This was a great idea, in that it gives the home an eerier feeling because of its incongruity with its surroundings, and it emphasizes the fact that the home is in its own world, with an ability to keep visitors captive, regardless of how close civilization may seem.

Dr. John Montague/Dr. John Markway/Dr. David Morrow has been changed to Dr. Joyce Reardon (Nancy Travis). The gender is different, but the aim is the same--to research the big, supposedly haunted house on the hill using the aid of some psychically inclined folks. Eleanor Vance/Eleanor Lance has been changed to Annie Wheaton (Kimberly J. Brown), now a teen, but just as "key" to bringing the house alive. Luke Sanderson has been changed to Steve Rimbauer (Matt Keeslar). He's similarly the heir looking to make some quick cash. King also gives his "hill house" a similar history, with a more typical turn-of-the-century source of fortune for John Rimbauer, who takes the place of Hugh Crain, and King lets Rimbauer's bride, Ellen, live much longer than Crain's. This all serves the story remarkably well--it gives a lot more depth to the home, and gives a good 50 years or so before the home was finally abandoned, after countless tragedies. Increasing Rose Red's active history also enabled strengthening the parallels to Sarah Winchester's "Mystery House", which had been alluded to in previous instantiations of The Haunting.

Similarly, increasing the running time of the film enabled King to go into great depth with characterization, exposition and backstory. Early material establishing Joyce as something of a quack at her university works extremely well and sets up a great subplot with a warring department head, Professor Carl Miller (David Dukes), and a student flunky, Kevin Bollinger (Jimmi Simpson). Annie works 100% better as a character than Eleanor, and King gives us a psychological intensity in her familial situation that easily trumps Eleanor. The increased running time also enables a large cast of characters for Rose Red to play with--that was always one of the problems with the other films. There just weren't enough people around to work with or make the experimental situation believable. The larger cast enables a typical King Ten Little Indians-styled gradual character knock-off, which for me helps the story work better as horror. It's notable that the deaths and the appearance of otherworldly antagonists in Rose Red are more graphic and brutal than the other versions of The Haunting, despite the fact that Rose Red was made to initially air on ABC television in the U.S. King and Baxley do a great job of pacing the build-up to violent chaos over the film's 4-hour running time.

Although de Bont's film is well known and deservedly respected at least for its eye-popping, opulent sets, Baxley also trumps that aspect conceptually. Rose Red isn't nearly as grandiose, baroque or decorative as de Bont's Hill House, but it's even more bizarre and surreal, and Baxley better keeps it in the realm of spookiness.

Also far better than any other version of The Haunting, King and Baxley expertly develop complex subtexts and motivations for characters. These are too numerous to mention here, but the most interesting and important one may be Joyce's gradual transformation from lovable kook to manipulative, obsessive maniac. There are increasing suggestions in later scenes that Joyce may be possessed by some spirit, but smartly, Baxley and King keep this ambiguous--it's just as believable that her own monstrous side is finally emerging.

Unfortunately for all of its brilliance there are a couple minor flaws with Rose Red. There is a muddled section during the crew's first night in the home, when some members go wandering around and unintentionally shed their mortal coils. There are also a couple later sections with characters wandering around the house in a panic that are just a bit too stretched out--it can begin to feel more like padding to meet running time requirements than plot necessity. However, these flaws are minor, especially given the breadth of the film. Rose Red is a must-see for any haunted house film fan.

A fairly decent eerie flick from King

[webb-15 · 7/10 · 12 August 2004]

I've just watched Stephen King's "Rose Red", and I ought to say that it was a somewhat moody and creepy experience this time around (as I've previously seen it on video, though the result was quite poor in comparison). I understand the fact that most people dislike some of his new works available these days, but if one's really used to his literary works, I believe the difference won't be that big in terms of expectation, plot and time. In fact, his version of "The Shining" was exceptionally good (even if I consider Kubrick's version a hell of a great ride), and much like "Rose Red", went on for a very long time in the player. Nevertheless, and cutting the chase here, most of these series are overall quite good and entertaining, providing an engaging effect on the viewer throughout their entirety. Still, I admit that "Dreamcatcher" was a quite big flop (in case anyone was wondering), but not this one, or even "Storm of the Century", for that matter.

Good, but not as good as Storm of the Century

[themothman666 · 7/10 · 4 February 2002]

Contains Spoilers I just got done watching this yesterday. I thought it was very good but it could have been better. I'll break it down. PART 1: The slowest part in the series only because it has to set everything up. I think it was good that we got the history of Rose Red and by the end of this series it becomes a developed character. I did like the character's especially Nick, Pam, and Rachel. MINOR SPOILER: So naturally two of the three die. END SPOILER. PART 2: A little faster. Some bad FX and yet some more background to develope Rose Red. This has the Stephen King cameo as the pizza guy here. This part is painfully full of bad lines. They kill off two of the more underdeveloped main character's and of course one of them was my favorite. PART THREE: A little slower part 2 but still good. More bad lines. My other favorite character dies. I liked the Mirror Room turning to the watery stuff. The ending is good but why is Ellen Rimbauer a vampire? So in the end this is a very good mini-series. I've noticed a trend with King's work. Every two years he puts out a new series.The Langoliers(1995), The Shining(1997), Storm of the Century(1999), Rose Red(very early 2002). So I hope we'll be seeing a new mini-series from SK soon.

Junk of the highest order

[hawksburn · 2/10 · 17 November 2002]

Stephen King screen adaptations have a well known history of being hit-or-miss (mostly miss). However I was prepared to give this a try, especially since I've regarded his made-for-tv stuff quite highly since "The Stand" (which I regard as one of the best mini-series ever).

However this sad affair I'm sorry to say, is junk. Lord knows I persevered. I persevered thru the uneventful exposition (taking a whole episode to do what a motion-picture would do in 20 minutes, thereby betraying it's tv origins - I watched this on dvd, it not having been screened by any of the networks in Australia). I persevered thru the lame attempts at frightening the audience (unless they're aiming this at 10 year olds on a sleepover, give up) via incredibly bad cgi & puppetry. I persevered thru the illogicalities that infected the script.

The biggest problem was that none of these characters had my sympathy. I didn't care about any of them. The only real half interesting character was Julian Sands but then they kill him off. By the final part I was sincerely wishing that the "ghosts" would finish the lot of them off (ESPECIALLY the little girl!!!). I understand the conventions of the ghost-horror genre. Put a bunch of stupid people in a spooky setting (i.e house, closed summer camp etc etc...) then watch them consistently make bad decisions until only 1 or 2 of them are left. But these people are beyond stupid.

"I'm just going into the haunted kitchen by myself to get some milk from the refridgerator that I noticed where we saw the headless woman this afternoon even though we have no power, it's the middle of the night, and the house is dark"

"Well remember that the house is prone to change shape and you may never find your way back and god knows 5 people are already dead or missing, so take a torch."

"Ok"

These people are dumb to the 'nth' extreme. Hard to give a crap about them really.

Nancy Travis' attempts at acting insane would make Jack Nicholson spin in his grave.

While this certainly isn't the worst ghost movie I've ever seen ('The Haunted' would probably win that award), the fact is it takes too long to get anywhere, and then when it finally does, the emotional payoff to reward ones perseverence fails miserably. It's neither scary, spooky, darkly funny or entertaining. It's boring.

An Honest Review

[generationofswine · 8/10 · 23 July 2017]

Reading through, a l0ot of the hate is for Stephen King and not so much for the series itself. Mind, they are hati8ng on him for being a popular writer in the literary version of the hipster nothing mainstream ethos.

And while they are doing it, they are forgetting the same hatred for the same reasons were targeted at Poe, Lovecraft, Dumas, and Sabatini...so King is in pretty good company for the haters.

His problem is...he doesn't know how to end things. At least most of the time with King the pay off is the build up and that build up is really fun to read...or in this case watch.

But it ends like The Stand, with a solid "meh." And the plot is very Drive-in B-Horror movie, which is fun, because, you know, they aren't trying to do Shakespeare who was also a--gasp--pop writer in his day.

It's King, he does horror and some of it is EPIC, like The Shinning, The Stand, you know the names...

...but most of it is B-Movie fun and enjoyable on a whole different level.

Rose Red is a B-Movie from the haunted house vein and it works, it makes for an enjoyable show with an enjoyable cast.

The is until it tapers out in the last act, but it's long enough where that doesn't matter, we had the build-up and it was worth it.

Let's face it - there aren't enough horror movies

[yvonatron · 7/10 · 8 February 2002]

As far as haunted house movies go, I thought it wasn't bad. Not too corny (except for the ghosty 'creepshow' representations of grandma). I even got home in time to watch all three episodes.

Lots of psychic phenomenon, (fire starter kind of stuff) would have liked certain people to have died (Emery!)...

Looks like they left it open for a sequel!

Please Mr. King, Stop making your own movies!!!

[Gianopulos · 3/10 · 5 October 2005]

It's bad enough making yourself finish a normal length movie that starts out bad, but when it is a 4 & 1/2 hr. miniseries, You just want to punch yourself stupid thinking of the EXTENDED amount of time you've wasted that you'll never get back.

I'll just say that I watched this movie by myself, in my house, with no lights on and after it was over, I turned off the TV, turned over and slept like a baby. That's how terrified I was of this pathetic attempt. The movie was beautiful, it just wasn't scary AT ALL. The whole idea of voices being heard is scary for like the first 10 seconds of hearing it, then it just becomes annoying when it is happening throughout the entire film. The sets were awesome but once again, not used to scare the crap out of people. The puppets of dead people were OK, but not scary. There were so many points where I was predicting the old bait and switch trick, where they open the fridge and close it and there's a dead person screaming at you (which scares the crap out of me every time) and they never took advantage of it. I was to the point of being pi$$ed off because I wasn't getting scared.

The only redeeming factor in this movie was the performance of Matt Ross. He seems to be the only one on set who really knew his character, Emery, and played it to the hilt with no indecision. Very unique and effective choices.

This is to Stephen King. If you are going to put your time into writing a movie that is supposed to be scary, why not take it the whole nine yards and actually get a director who knows how to put together a scary movie? Sam Raimi, Gore Verbinski, David Fincher even Wes Craven. You can always take a trip to Japan and get one of the bright new directors who are making ground-breaking horror flicks that we Americans are always taking advantage of by re-making all their previous works.