Kattiera Nana
I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Voxitype
Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
Plustown
A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.
Teddie Blake
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
bowmanblue
Christopher Walken - check. Stephen King - check. Spooky/creepy horror films - check. These are all pretty much lynchpins of my film collection, so you'd probably think that Stephen King's 'The Dead Zone' would fit in there perfectly. I wish it did. Before writing this review I took the time to read (the numerous!) five star reviews, all proclaiming it as a supernatural story that's up there with 'The Shining' and 'Salam's Lot.' Again, I enjoyed both of those, but I can't in all honesty recommend 'The Dead Zone' alongside those.Christopher Walken plays a school teacher who gets into a car accident, leaving in a coma for five years. However, when he wakes up, once he's got over the fact that his girlfriend has left him, he finds he's blessed with the ability to see people's futures just by touching them. Maybe it's because we're so used to seeing those with 'mutant' abilities jumping into a spandex costume and flying round New York fighting aliens that 'The Dead Zone' feels so muted. Yes, I know it's not meant to be an all out action epic and Walken's portrayal of a man coming to terms with the role he's been forced to take on post-coma is deliberately understated.It's not the plot or the lack of budget that didn't appeal to me. I think the main thing was the dialogue. Considering it was adapted from a Stephen King story and then - presumably - rewritten by one Hollywood screenwriter or another, you'd think it would have a better script. However, even with an actor as talented as Walken in the lead, the dialogue seems basic, clunky and very badly-written.Again, I don't know if it's just me, but if the film has a real 'low point,' it's Walken's on-screen love/former love-interest (Brooke Adams) who seems to never be able to make up her mind as to whether she should be with him (despite now being married and with child), or stick with her current relationship. These emotions seem to bounce back and forth from scene to scene and she comes across as one hell of a flake-ish character. Tom Skerritt is also on the bill, but I found him a bit underused, whereas the film's primary villain (Martin Sheen) gets more screen time, only to use it as a typicallly clichéd villainous and corrupt senator.I didn't hate-hate 'The Dead Zone' - it was okay enough. I just certainly don't see what so many have obviously seen in it. I found it slowly-paced, clunky-scripted and not worthy of the talent involved. However, I will agree with what many people have said about it - that it's a 'tragic tale.' It's not exactly a 'feel-good' movie and if you're looking for something to cheer you up, you certainly won't find it here! Maybe I should have been in a more cheerful mood before I sat down to watch it? Still, the ending was pretty good/different though.
Platypuschow
The Dead Zone is one of those critically acclaimed movies which I'm astounded has taken me this long to get around to.Starring Christopher Walken, Martin Sheen and the late great Herbert Lom this Stephen King adaptation tells the story of a man who upon coming out of a coma learns he has gained the power of premonition.The interesting thing about the Dead Zone is it's almost like a mini-series squeezed into a single film as it doesn't have one solid storyline throughout and instead is a series of stepping stones to the brilliant finale.The cast are on point and Lom who is famous for his villianous characters (Pink Panther for example) is highly likeable and steals every scene he's in.I'm so glad coming out of this that I finally got round to it as it is yet another great King adaptation worthy of its acclaim.The Good:Opening a movie with an Edgar Alan Poe quote works for mePerfectly executed from performances to writingGreat finaleThe Bad:Cheating protagonists, they never get oldWould have benefitted from at least 30 minutes moreThings I Learnt From This Movie:It's scary how alike Martin & Charlie were around the same age
preppy-3
Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken) slips into a coma. He's like that for five years. Then he snaps out of it with a "gift"--every time he touches someone's hand he can see events from their past and a probable future. With this he saves a little girl from being burnt, discovers a killer and saves a boy from drowning. Then he shakes the hand of Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen) who's running for the Senate. He sees Stillson becoming president and starting a nuclear war. He can stop him...but should he? And how. To make matters worse is ex-girlfriend (Brooke Adams) supports Stillson 100%.GREAT movie. It's based on a Stephen King novel and is directed by David Cronenberg. Despite their reputations this is very restrained in terms of violence. There's a couple of bloody shootings and a shocking suicide but that's it. The story is interesting and well-done. It was beautifully shot in Canada (but takes place in Maine). The acting is great across the board. I usually can't stand Walken but he's great here. Adams is wonderful but hardly in this. Herbert Lom, Colleen Dewhust and Tom Skerritt are great in small roles. And Sheen is downright terrifying as Stillson. This was lost in a sea of really bad Stephen King adaptations in the early 1980s but deserves rediscovery. Recommended.
Smoreni Zmaj
Written by Stephen King, directed by Cronenberg, starring Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen, music by Michael Kamen... this simply can not be bad movie. And it isn't. But it isn't specially good either. Story is entertaining and nicely told, acting and music are good, ending is distinctively Kings, but this really good movie lacks something to be great. I am not sure what genre it is, but I would say supernatural thriller, and for thriller this movie has serious lack of tension and anticipation. Emotionally it did not move me an inch. It does not make you smile, it does not make you cry, it does not force you to think, it does not scare you or keep you at the edge of the seat. Smart, entertaining, but not strong or deep enough for excellency.