IMDb > "Rose Red" (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"Rose Red"
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"Rose Red" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 31:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 305 reviews in total 

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Rose Red: The House That Keeps on Giving

Author: woterfalz1991 from America
17 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Dr. Joyce Reardon is a bright but slightly off-kilter professor on a mission. Having just had her tenure revoked by the head of her department of Psychology for her eccentric antics, Dr. Reardon needs proof of paranormal activity to prove that she isn't crazy and save her career. In order to obtain this proof, she decides to venture into Rose Red, and enormous mansion built by John Rimbauer for his wife at the turn of the century in the 1900's. Even before it was a house, Rose Red was taking victims. Its first being a construction worker who was shot by a crazed co-worker. After the fact, the co-worker said he had no recollection of the incident. This horror was the first of many. After Rose Red was finished and the Rimbauers took up residence in its confines, the "accidental" deaths and disappearances came in abundance. Despite the house's dark history and taste for blood, Dr. Reardon collects a team of psychics to go and wake up Rose Red. They soon find themselves trapped in a never ending labyrinth of death and mystery.

Propelled by stunning sets and well developed characters, Rose Red keeps its audience almost as trapped as its own hostages, despite a few sagging scenes.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Good TV quality

6/10
Author: sam_aj_01 from United Kingdom
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Junk of the highest order

2/10
Author: hawksburn from sydney, australia
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A fairly decent eerie flick from King

7/10
Author: Webb from Portugal
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

mildly enjoyable but very unoriginal

6/10
Author: fibreoptic from England
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Absolute Rubbish

Author: dungeonkeeper from UK
22 July 2003

OK, the 1st part is not too bad, but as soon as they get to the house, it descends rapidly into utter trash. I suffered the rest of it in the vain hope it might get better, but by the end I really couldn't care less.

don't waste your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Another proof that the masses are dumb

1/10
Author: trans_mauro from Brazil
1 January 2015

Stephen King has produced pages and more pages of the purest crap. Rose Red is proof of that.

A psychologist/researcher wants to prove that the paranormal is real. She is risking everything even her career to accomplish it.

So she assembles a team of people who have every type of ESP power to investigate a haunted house.

The funny thing is that one of the members of her team is an autistic girl with extremely powerful telekinetic powers... and every other member of the team has some sort of ESP power too.

Wouldn't it be smarter, safer, less expensive to take the autistic girl (and/or the other members of her team) and examine such girl and her powers instead of risking the lives of a bunch of ESP people in a ghost hunt inside a evil and malignant house?

This is a pretty dumb way to start a story. Everything after that falls apart.

This is for low IQ people only, or those folks who do not care about plots holes the size of Texas.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A recipe for "Red Rose"

1/10
Author: Prophetess from USA
2 February 2002

Start with "Burnt Offerings," throw in a healthy portion of "The Haunting," lift scenes directly from "Firestarter" and "The Shining" (whole, no changes) give it the ending from "Carrie" and you have "Rose Red" -- without a storyline, of course, and characters who have no motivation (Why was Joyce Reardon so obsessed with the house? Why was she having an affair with the latest owner?). The special effects might have redeemed this waste of film and time were they not so reminiscent of the Crypt Keeper and his ghoulish puppet friends. I want my six hours back.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The house was great…

7/10
Author: SamRag from New Zealand
9 August 2002

Having read many of Stephen King's books, and seen several of the movies made from his books, I have to say that this film/miniseries didn't do too badly. I rented the four hour long DVD and was able to watch it without feeling the length, which should be considered an achievement. The story took a while to take off, and doesn't manage to be a horror film as such. There were some scenes where I (being a scary cat) had to look away, but surprisingly few. Most of the actors did well though specially the little girl (Kimberly J. Brown) and Julian Sands (e.g. from Warlock). However the lead was bit weak by Nancy Travis, not managing to come across as over-enthusiastic scientist, but more as a lunatic (maybe that was her intention?). The house and everything to do with the set was really well done, with the house being one more character. While watching the film I was more scared of the house then what might be found in it! What irritated me during the film was that they build up scenes, and then relaxed the atmosphere by pulling the camera away to show the house from above, or several rooms on the inside, sometimes while Nancy's character seemed to be explaining how the house was a live. Maybe this was due to this originally being a miniseries, but as a film it kind a dampened the excitement. This is however a good piece of work and enjoyable to watch. 7/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Started great and ended with a long hard boring flop

4/10
Author: 70mm MAN from Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA
20 June 2002

Well, I was wondering why it took so very long to get 5 votes posted here on the IMDB. And I certainly understand now! "Rose Red' was the color of all our eyes, here at my house,after well over a 4 hour watch. I now wonder if most people never had the patience to make it to the end of this movie! So.... they never got to the vote. Or... They were so exhausted after the longggggg drawn out last hour(that felt longer than the first 3 hours), that they were too tired to vote! Seriously! It took me 2 days to get in my vote and I really didn't want to even write any comments, but I felt obligated to warn y'all that this will be a very hard and long watch. I love Stephen King. But this movie is not even worthy of being called his worst. It's all been done, by him, before. The beginning showed really great hope... and then the characters "whined" their way to pure disgusting boredom. If I was Stephen King I would have "Alan Smithee'd" this movie!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 31:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history