• Network: A&E
  • Series Premiere Date: Dec 11, 2011
  • Season #: 1
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 20
  2. Negative: 6 out of 20
  1. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Dec 9, 2011
    30
    Another King production that begins with glimmers of promise and winds up being bad to the Bones.
  2. Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    Dec 9, 2011
    40
    Bag of Bones feels a little skeletal.
  3. Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Dec 9, 2011
    30
    Bag of Bones rarely scares but frequently induces unintentional giggles.
  4. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Dec 9, 2011
    40
    This Bag is sadly empty of surprises.
  5. Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    Dec 9, 2011
    40
    Like everything else in A&E's Bag of Bones, it is hollow and--boo!--not scary.
  6. Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    Dec 9, 2011
    37
    It starts slow, moves slowly and goes nowhere.
  7. Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Dec 8, 2011
    63
    Brosnan remains totally believable whether he's borderline batty or bravely resilient. [19 Dec 2011, p.44]
  8. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Dec 8, 2011
    58
    Sure, there are some fun moments. Sure Brosnan looks mah-velous. He always does. But a little less plodding plot and a lot more action, please.
  9. Reviewed by: Linda Stasi
    Dec 12, 2011
    50
    There are elements on night one that actually are pretty darned scary. Too bad there's a night two.
  10. Reviewed by: Alan Sepinwall
    Dec 9, 2011
    42
    It's just a collection of creepy imagery, lots of screaming and the occasional musical number for Anika Noni Rose.
  11. Reviewed by: Ellen Gray
    Dec 9, 2011
    70
    Compared with (sigh) "American Horror Story," the tale itself makes a certain amount of sense and like any good thrill ride, spaces out the scary parts just enough to make them truly scary.
  12. Reviewed by: Ken Tucker
    Dec 9, 2011
    83
    Bag of Bones is occasionally hokey, and Brosnan overworks his mad cackling, but the production is never less than creepily engaging. [19 Dec 2011, p.72]
  13. Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Dec 12, 2011
    30
    With tepid performances and a lifeless script, Bag of Bones feels like more of a chore than a television viewing experience.
  14. Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    Dec 12, 2011
    40
    Although it is far from the worst King adaptation (would that be "Dreamcatcher"? "Lawnmower Man"?) it feels less like a ghost story than a dashed-together homage to the King oeuvre that's slow where it should be fast and fast where it should be slow.
  15. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Dec 9, 2011
    91
    It's a genuinely chilling four-hour adaptation of the tireless horror-meister's 1998 bestseller.
  16. Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Dec 9, 2011
    30
    A deplorably dull two-night miniseries.
  17. Reviewed by: Troy Patterson
    Dec 9, 2011
    30
    At points, Bag of Bones plays less like a horror story than a fond parody of one.
  18. Reviewed by: Mike Hale
    Dec 9, 2011
    40
    Handsomely shot and deliberately paced, it has a superficially cinematic quality, but it doesn't have the storytelling juice to keep you engaged in Mr. King's convoluted multi-ghost story.
  19. Reviewed by: Lori Rackl
    Dec 9, 2011
    50
    Bag of Bones isn't completely devoid of suspense, but it's a lot less satisfying than many other, far superior King adaptations.
  20. Reviewed by: Amy Amatangelo
    Dec 8, 2011
    58
    While the pace of the series definitely picks up in the second night, Bag of Bones doesn't pull off the scares of King's previous works such as Misery" or "The Shining" nor does it have the poignancy of his "The Shawshank Redemption."
User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 9 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 2
  2. Negative: 0 out of 2
  1. Dec 17, 2011
    5
    I am a big SK fan, but this was still a waste of four hours of my life. This was one of his weaker plots to begin with and it has suffered more in this adaptation. I was hopeful because of a strong cast, but alas, it was pretty terrible I can't recommend you watch it. Full Review »
  2. Dec 12, 2011
    10
    Needs faster pacing for subplot (historical violence at lake). Shorter would have been better for drama. . Acting is excellent. "Shock" scenes are good. Just too slow, too drawn out. Full Review »