The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer (2003)

I wasn't aware that Stephen Kings Rose Red (2002) had a prequel, upon finding out I was quite excited as the potential was really quite good.Sadly this was not penned by Stephen King at all which I find to be a really strange decision.It tells the story of Rose Reds construction and how it came to be. The setting, the cinematography, the writing is all quite good but feels forced.I enjoyed Rose Red, though I don't think it was exactly ground breaking it did manage to accomplish what it set out to do. I don't think however that this does.Though it tells a great story it gradually falls apart and when the credits rolled I was left with a frustrating number of unanswered questions.I think perhaps it could have done with an additional 30-60 minutes to flesh it out, in it's present state it is passable but very underwhelming.The Good:Couple of great momentsLooks greatThe Bad:Few plot holesToo shortThings I Learnt From This Movie:I'm anti-remakes/reboots but this and Rose Red could perhaps be considered

I just have a question. I saw the movie Rose Red, and was wondering if anyone knew whether or not the house still stands, or did Steve Rimbauer tore it down already? e-mail me back if you know anything about it. Over all I thought that the movie was awesome. Although Joyce Reardon did go a tad bit insane in it. I love how Stephen King gave his view of what Joyce's team would encounter while in Rose Red. Does anyone know that Rose Red is a true story but me? Or am I alone out here. so whats up with Rose Red? Is it still standing? Was the house itself possessed? Or was it just the grounds that were possessed? It was believed that the grounds were an ancient Native American burial ground, and that all of the artifacts that were dug up, were incinerated. So is it possible that something like in the movie the Poltergeist happened? e-mail me back with your thoughts.

I saw Rose Red not too long ago, and not too long after having read the book. I went to Spain in the Summer of 2003 for a few weeks. I was traveling on my own, making a documentary for the University of California, and literally on my last day in Spain, I noticed a book called My Life at Rose Red, by Stephen King, at a liquor store in a town called Benidorm on the southeastern coast. I picked it up, since I had about 30 hours of travel ahead of me back to California and because I hadn't seen a book in English in quite some time. Having been a Stephen King fan for most of my life (I opened the floodgates of horror novels when I read `It' in 6th grade), I was amazed at how much of a character study the book was, but the movie dealt with the mystery of the haunted Rose Red, not with it's construction, which is what the book is all about. The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer, I think, makes an honest attempt to go back and tell that part of the Rose Red story. What is truly odd, however, is that the movie that actually tells the story of Ellen and John Rimbauer, the story of the construction of Rose Red, about which Stephen Kings' book is written, is actually based on a journal of Ellen's that was written by a different author. I hope I have my facts straight here. King's book is actually in the form of Ellen's diary, although he delves suspiciously close to novel writing at many times. Who writes a diary like that? Anyway, this film telling the story that led up to the subject of the lengthy miniseries aired on ABC a couple years ago comes much closer to telling the story in the book from which that miniseries took its name. Its interesting that the miniseries needs a prequel to tell the story of the book upon which it is based.Okay, I'm getting a little repetitive. Much more digestible at less than half the length of Rose Red, the movie unfortunately never really comes out of the shadow of the movie that its content precedes, always coming across as a prequel that leads up to something else. Maybe it's because it didn't have enough life of its own or because I always got the feeling that it was purposely covering the holes left by Rose Red, providing an excuse for that movie having so little to do with the book upon which it was supposedly based. Either way, taken together the two movies provide a pretty interesting ghost story, one about a haunted mansion that actually has such a turbulent past leading to why it is haunted (hence the need for this prequel). It's just too bad that it takes a total of more than six hours for them to tell that story

This movie fails to capture any bit of the mystery and intrigue of the best selling book it was based upon. The acting was bland, the effects unappealing and the story uninteresting. I found myself flipping through the channels I was so bored with it. It's a shame the movie turned out so bad because the book was so wonderfully done that I found myself believing that Ellen Rimbauer actually existed and wrote those words herself. The movie did not capture Ellen's innocence and naiveness when she first entered into John's life nor her gradual descent into insanity. My advice is to pass seeing this and go read the book.