Without giving away any plot points (I haven't finished reading the book yet) can anyone tell me whether this film is any good? I don't want to shell out my hard-earned to find The Keep mark two...
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

I thought it was a LOT worse than the Keep. Keep in mind I am one of the very few (maybe the only person) on this site who likes the movie (granted, it is not as good as the book, but ....). I thought the Midnight Mass movie was quite simply horrible. Mostly due to bad acting and low budget. I have not read Midnight Mass, but as I understand it the movie does not encompass the entire novel.

Without giving away any plot points (I haven't finished reading the book yet) can anyone tell me whether this film is any good? I don't want to shell out my hard-earned to find The Keep mark two...
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

I agree with Jim, the movie is attrocious.

The over acting is quite comical and the dialogue is stilted in most places. The final showdown? Laughable in it's continuity blunders and time frames, but some of the special effects make up are good.

Send me your address, and if you're still keen I can send it to you.

Dave

Without giving away any plot points (I haven't finished reading the book yet) can anyone tell me whether this film is any good?

The film is based on the 1990 novelette, which recounts the Zev sequence (sans Lacey). Tony's filming of the novelette got me thinking about the story and characters again and how so much more needed to be told.

I've seen it for rent in various Blockbusters.

I think Tony did all that could be done with $500,000. If he'd had another 250k, maybe even 100k, he could have hired some real actors and the film would be much, much better for it.

The film is based on the 1990 novelette, which recounts the Zev sequence (sans Lacey). Tony's filming of the novelette got me thinking about the story and characters again and how so much more needed to be told.

I've seen it for rent in various Blockbusters.

I think Tony did all that could be done with $500,000. If he'd had another 250k, maybe even 100k, he could have hired some real actors and the film would be much, much better for it.

All things considered, the only fault I could find with it was that the actors acted as though they were acting, instead of acting as though it were real.

If that makes any sense.

Ken V.

All things considered, the only fault I could find with it was that the actors acted as though they were acting, instead of acting as though it were real.
Ken V.

With the single exception of the expert speaking during the initial newsfeed. He was truly believeable.

All in all, the movie wasn't great. However, it was better than "The Keep" as this was low-budget and didn't have the overhead of M. Mann's ego.

With the single exception of the expert speaking during the initial newsfeed. He was truly believeable.

Whoever he was, he was good.

Whoever he was, he was good.

I don't know, he looks younger and slimmer in person.

But seriously, I didn't want to say too much about the movie at GU-3 because I thought it might be a sore topic. I thought the editing between screen shots was choppy at the beginning (and in all fairness, I could only watch a few minutes of the movie before I had to turn it off--there, I said it). The acting was amateurish, too. You actually were the best, most believable actor I saw in the part I watched.

BTW, I got a copy of 999 through eBay a few days ago, and I read "Good Friday" last night. I had previously listened to the Midnight Mass audiobook (the anthology). What short stories, etc. would make up the Midnight Mass saga?

But, Biggles, you have to admit, a signed copy of the DVD is pretty cool... especially your "Canadian" edition.

But, Biggles, you have to admit, a signed copy of the DVD is pretty cool... especially your "Canadian" edition.

Beauty, eh? I wish they had released it in Japan. Dubbed in Japanese the lulls in the dialogue would have been less noticeable, and I could read the subtitles or have my son translate.