 | |
List Price: $9.98 | | Label: Lions Gate
Salesrank: 41346
Released: April 19, 2005 |
| Our Price: $3.00 |
| Used Price: $0.99 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Riding the Bullet is based on, the master of macabre, Stephen King’s first e-book and was directed by Mick Garris (The Stand). Alan embarks on a 100 mile hitch hike to see his mother in the hospital. Along the way he must confront his many demons – both living and dead – and in the end make the ultimate choice that will mean life or death for him and his mother! "A nifty standalone supernatural drama that features some truly terrifying scenarios, while also offering up a bit of well-placed humor and poignancy." – Horror.com
Description of Riding the Bullet (Widescreen Edition):
A vintage Stephen King concept unfolds in Riding the Bullet: a college kid, circa 1970, must hitchhike a very long (and very dark) hundred miles to visit his hospitalized mother. The ghosts waiting for him along the way are either real or of his own mind (which seems to be a dark place itself). As a King short story, this might have been a usefully frightening premise, but it's almost entirely literary; on screen, it boils down to a guy walking down a road at night. Jonathan Jackson is suitably tortured in the lead role (or roles--he frequently appears double on screen, arguing with himself), but the movie is stolen by David Arquette, rocking it up as a '50s greaser who died in a car crash years earlier. Barbara Hershey and Erika Christensen are wasted in support. There's a strain to make the Woodstock-era setting relevant, but this doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with the private demons of the protagonist. (And if you're going to set it in 1970, how hard is it to catch dialogue anachronisms?) Director Mick Garris is a longtime King conduit (The Stand), but this one is misconceived from the start. --Robert Horton
Riding the Bullet (Widescreen Edition) Reviews:
Waste of time, unfortunately 
2009-11-09 - I've been a big fan of Stephen King books and films in the past. Some adaptations are more successful than others but this is probably the worst (of the ones I've seen).
Without spoiling anything, the main problem is that the way the movie is edited, you can't tell what's really happening and what's happening in his head.
It's not clever, it's not engaging, it doesn't add to the drama...it literally just becomes a visual hodgepodge of random, meaningless little visual scenarios.
What's the point of a story line if the stuff that happens in the movie adds nothing to it?
You can literally sum up the whole film in 5 sentences. The rest is extraneous visual noise. Is it happening? Is it in his head?
After a few of these false alarms, you really don't care one way or another. The writer of the script loses the viewers completely after a few of the curve balls as you care less and less about the character and even less about the plot itself.
Anybody can write a script where you don't have to adhere to any kind of real story line. And unfortunately, far too many hide behind plots like these. Drama should be written into the plot. Not added at random and scattered here and there.
One other thing...there are no scary parts to the film. The only 'shockers' are (again) relied on through visual things like birds flying in front of the shot and loud noises. Those are the only parts that will make you jump. Unless you're jumping for the remote control to turn the thing off before you get to the end because you can't deal with the lack of any real story, character development or dialogue.
Deriding The Bullsh--
2009-06-09 - What a depressingly bad film.
The essential plot is pretty good,
but wasted by the film-makers.
I knew it was going to be bad
when the opening shot was a
nude young woman with large breasts
whom for no apparent reason we are
encouraged to linger upon
for a substantial period of time.
She yawns as do we.
That was followed by our hero
contemplating/attempting to
commit suicide because:
a) He had nothing better to do
b) His girlfriend dumped him
c) That was what he had for a girlfriend
d) Mr. Death smoked his marijuana cigarette
Things get better:
Flashbacks of the aftermath
of his father's death
brought on by the news that
his mother had a stroke
...Mindless cliche roommates/friends
...Picked up by a succession of
deranged people while hitch-hiking
...A crow asking him
"What the f--- are you looking at"
while feasting on road kill.
It just goes on and on.
None of this is interesting,
entertaining or scary.
Just depressing.
The characters were awful,
top to bottom.
This is not a horror film,
It's a horrible film.
It's a depressing film.
I was so unhappy watching it
that I could not finish it.
That is rare for me.
It probably had its moments,
but I don't care.
This might hold the attention
of a pre-adolescent.
Maybe not.
The music and cultural references
were Woodstock, hippy, Vietnam War
era "counterculture".
That is ancient unknown history
to today's young people.
They wouldn't get it.
That's a good thing.
There are too many excellent films
out there to bother with this one.
Did I mention that it is depressing?
The Bullet missed its target! 
2007-06-25 - I've never seen a horror movie with a plot like this before. It's absolutely original. The first half of the movie is engaging. Some frightening and suspenseful scenes happened while he's walking on the street at night. For example, the moment when he was chased into a car cemetery by two strangers.
The second half is boring and repetitive. The worst thing is it turned out they all came from his own imagination!
It's worth watching once.
Should You Take This Ride? 
2007-04-06 - Once again Mick Garris is at the helm of another Stephen King adaptation. Garris has made many King movies(if it's a mini series or tv movie, you can bet it was most likely Garris), and while his contributions aren't as memorable as efforts by other directors, Garris tries his damndest to stick as close to the source material as possible. Plus he is one of the most active and dedicated individuals in the horror scene, and for that I respect him quite a bit. But I can't honestly say he made a great movie here. Not bad, but nothing worth a second viewing. Much more plot has been added to the story in order to fill out the 90+ minute running time. A story like this(which if I recall was around 50 pages, give or take) should have been done as one of Garris' Masters Of Horror episodes rather than a full length movie. But when Garris is on, he's on. Alot of the dialogue is straight from the story. A big problem with this movie is Garris' repeated use of the daydream gimmick. You know those scenes in film when something happens to a character(usually horrific and outrageous), then the scene quickly flashes back to the character before the horrific event and you realize that it was all in the character's imagination? This movie is full of these. In fact, it may actually have set a record for uses of this movie trick. It seems to happen at least once every two minutes and quickly becomes silly and then downright annoying. Plus we add a bunch of hallucinations and the main character continuously talking to himself(two of the same actor onscreen at once) and it dulls the suspense and seems like a desperate attempt at being flashy. Plus, the film takes place in 1969, but every now and then we get a blast of very modern sounding music. Personally I can't stand anachronistic music in a film that's supposed to be taking place in a different time period. But even with all of my yapping and whining, Garris managed to pull off another passably entertaining and fairly accurate King adaptation. Just not a terrible memorable one.
Its not scary and its not brilliant
2006-09-04 - Its kind off like Stephen king meets Twilight Zone. Dont get me wrong both are brilliant but i appreciate King as more of an "Epic" 3 hour mini-series kind of storyteller and not the hitchcock short story kind of guy.
It really feels like you have just watched a short story from Twilight zone at the end of the day. The character development and storyline is just too limited to be worth the 2 hours.
If it was one of 3 stories on a ("twilight zone like") compilation and only an hour or so in length, it would have been 5 stars!
If you want an epic tale by King (like Rose Red, Storm of the centuary, the Shining) rather look for something else because this will dissapoint you.
(Please forgive me Mr. King)
