IMDb > "Rose Red" (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"Rose Red"
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 3 of 31: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 305 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Started great and ended with a long hard boring flop

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?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

"How beautiful you are, Rose Red."

Author: bensonmum2 from Tennessee
16 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Very gripping, good twist on an old story concept

Author: swaron from Texas USA
24 July 2002

This movie is well over 4 hours long and I hardly noticed. Remarkably, there is very little slow down and there is enough story to fill the space. The concept of a group of people staying in a haunted/evil house has been tried many times (Haunting, House on Haunted Hill and many more) but this one is unique. Rose Red is a Large mansion that has been in the same family for many years. Many people have been known to die there and the last remaining family member gives permission for a weekend ghost hunting retreat. A group of psychics is recruited to stay in the house under the "leadership" of a psychology/supernatural professor (Nancy Travis), who is very energetic and obsessed with Rose Red. The group, I thought, worked very well together and each had their own unique psychic abilities, which all play there part as a whole in understanding the house. Once the group is situated in the house, it is non-stop thrills, action, twists and pretty good special effects. The acting was above par, especially Julian Sands (Nick), whose character and portrayal was entertaining and convincing. All in All, all the actors did a good job of playing off each other's talents and characters. Very complimentary. Overall, there is a lot involved in this movie and it does have it's share of suspense, scary moments and originality. Even at 4+ hours in length, I would watch this again.

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: geocapital from Sweden
14 August 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a typical paranormal activity movie: The characters act like idiots, making always the worst choice (like going alone somewhere), most of the paranormal things do not happen on screen, characters die one by one (although they do stay longer in this 4-hour mini series) and you can't even understand why these characters are there in the first place, music that you would never listen by itself (it feels strange that the OST seems to have been released as a double album) and a whole stage and acting that offers more laughs than its parody could ever do. So, the story is about a mentally problematic "psychology" professor who is also a fond fan of paranormal activity. Trying to boost her career, she decides to go and collect some "hard" data (hahahaha) to prove to her boss and the psychology scientific community that paranormal activity is real. The place for that is a mansion belonging to her boyfriend and is supposed to be haunted. Because of numerous deaths, the place was left empty for many years and is considered to be sleeping... For reasons unknown, the "scientist" believes that the house will wake up thanks to a group of other paranormal crazees that she is actually paying to go to the house with her and especially a telekinetic teenager that seems to be special among the rest (we don't know why). Although each of the members seems to have a special talent (a special move if you are a gamer), they barely seem to need it as any random guy could act the same way in that house. So, this professor takes all the expensive equipment of the university (telemetric... hahaha) and goes to collect some hard data. These equipment include a camera and a machine that measures temperature (called thermometer) and how many people are in the room (and despite the number being larger than the actual people, it still doesn't make a difference in the story). After they move in and before setting the equipment, they go on a tour. Although a lot of the paranormal activity happens during this tour (like the screaming room), they don't record anything, and the prof continues the tour like nothing happened. Later on, when more paranormal things happen, the same professor who was so adamant that there is paranormal activity, appears to ignore it and get even crazier forgetting the reason she went there in the first place. Maybe at the end, we understand why... Anyway, to tell the truth, if you like this kind of movies, you will have some pleasant time, with some nice laughs when you know what is going to happen (and it does!). But it's a terribly long movie, with very slow development and these boring scenic gaps fitted for TV shows. Anyway, I'd better go change my underwear for the fifth time. Still half an hour to go.

Was the above review useful to you?

Ho hum.

Author: Sarah r from australia
22 August 2002

I liked the concept of a house that grows, and I normally enjoy Stephen King stories, so I picked this up with high hopes. However, I found this was just one big disappointment. Far too long, there was no need for the full 4 hours. Scary? Maybe I've just seen too many horror films, but I found myself laughing at the incredibly weak props and "special effects". The acting wasn't too bad. In fact, I'd say most of the cast deserve an Oscar for looking so terrified in front of those ridiculous corpse puppets. Here's hoping the book is better.

Was the above review useful to you?

It wasn't all that great

Author: NoVarelluM ( from Groningen, Netherlands
28 July 2002

It was supposed exciting, it must be, otherwise 4 hours is a very long way! I kept telling myself that it will get better. What I liked about 'Storm of the century' 'the (new) shining' and 'the stand', that it was exciting from minute 1 and that is how it stayed through out the movie. Rose Red wasn't anything like that, the only thing I liked about it was the Autistic girl, I thought she was pretty good. So if you're going to watch it, try to realize it is 4 hours! And it at your own risk! want to watch a good Stephen King movie? The Stand! 6 hours of movie, but worth your time,

See ya Greetings,


Groningen, Holland

Was the above review useful to you?

Hard to believe it was made for T.V.

Author: wwp-1 from Indianapolis, Indiana
19 July 2002

I highly recommend this title on DVD. It was truly suspenseful, yet a bit repetitive at points. Considering the medium this movie was made for (television), I can forgive that much. Don't let the `Made for T.V.' part fool you, what it may lack in gore it makes up for with suspense and tension. Make plenty of popcorn as well, at 254 minutes it may need to be tempered with snacks and a bathroom break or two. `Rose Red' is a perfect example of how good television could be instead of the mindless drivel that tends to congest it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great job

Author: TheShadow22 (
18 July 2002

I'd have to hand it to Stephen King. He did a great job on this movie. Some good thrills, excellent graphics and animation, and a good cast. The only thing that he shouldn't have done... make it as long as Titanic. It made the movie and plot seem dull sometimes.

Was the above review useful to you?

Very interesting.....

Author: jess422000 from Alabama
17 July 2002

Although the plot for this story was not unique (haunted houses are never unique), I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was a bit lengthy, over 4 hours, but I could not stop watching it because there was always something happening. Stephen King never ceases to scare you with his crazy ideas and supernatural beings. In short, I loved it and I would encourage anyone to watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 31: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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