Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

A Disappointing Continuation

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Michael Piller works for "The Dead Zone" together with his son, Shawn Piller is gorgeous and in its very attractive.Michael Piller is a genius of this time, and all of his work in STAR TREK and "The Dead Zone" much use different from the rest of the content. Wherever he showed his initiative in each scenario and the various cinematic work - and it left a very positive mark in the correct general work.Looking at all of his works, you notice how big they are and what their contribution is large, even with a futuristic perspective from the point of view of sociology and psychology.All of his work is notable for its discernment to details. A man who not only did, but created, he could feel the details and pass them so well, that others have not even pondered in his mind. All of his work and ideas have made a great contribution. It is a kind of a genius of our time.Thank you, Michael... And thank you all for your attention, good luck to all you.

When i first saw the Dead Zone series in the videostore of me residence i never thought it would be so good.I mean if i have to compare it with the shining of Mick Garris and Carrie the 2002 version i say it is a lot better.Of course the film was much better but still this new version is very well directed.The main actor is quiet good and the plot is not bad.I mean i haven't read the book but i can imagine this show follows directly Stephen King's book.I believe Stephen King would be proud of this version. why wouldn't he?It has all these characteristics of a good show.I wonder how the serial would because the video film contains the first episodes of season 1 ''Wheel of fortune'' and ''What it seems''.It is somehow connected with David Cronnebergs it is like you see the first half of 1983 film.A very good choice you will no regret.

Nicole plays the perfect part in this series.she has such a open face that tells a thousand story's at a glance. i would love to see her get back with her old flame johnny.they are so suited for each other but i know it would take out the whole mystery of the series.i would like to see them interact more in the series.it always good to see the jealousy that it brings into the story.i feel that his Son is not involved enough in the film.the son and father should go camping and stuff to get the husband to get jealous.this could bring a whole new meaning with the husband being jealous of Nicole and johnny and the son.the whole series is a very true to life series if you think of what mediums can pick up from people.Nicole all i can say is you really rock in the series and it would never be the same if you left.thanks for making my week worth waiting for.Robin

This made-for-video movie is actually the first two episodes of the TV series stitched together. They cover roughly the first half of the 1983 David Cronenberg film "The Dead Zone," based on Stephen King's novel. I've never read the book, but I love the movie. And I was looking forward to an updated version with fresh ideas. All this did was poison my memory of the original, which I watched immediately afterwards as an antidote.Johnny Smith (Anthony Michael Hall) is a high school teacher in love with Sarah Bracknell (Nicole de Boer), a music teacher at the same school. But Johnny is smashed up in a horrendous car accident and slips into a coma that lasts for six years. When he awakens, Sarah has married another man, while his once-latent psychic powers come to flower. He now has visions that reveal things from both the past and the future. And this puts him in the path of a serial killer.This version's bumbling efforts show you how difficult it is to make this essentially silly material credible and affecting. Cronenberg made it look easy, while these filmmakers make it seem like an insurmountable feat. What did the writers think when they watched the original? That all the deft, subtle touches needed to be replaced with sledgehammer blows?Take the way these two versions handle Johnny's latent psychic abilities. In the movie Johnny has a weird headache on a roller coaster, which may or may not be a premonition of the car accident he's about to have. In this video-movie we know Johnny is latently psychic because he repeatedly anticipates an old carnival huckster's game of chance. And because he always knows where his mother left her glasses. And because he gets a bad vibe from his mother's new sweetheart. And because of a prologue where Johnny as a little boy correctly predicts that a hockey teammate is about to fall through the ice. So you're saying he has psychic abilities, right?Did they think the story needed less suspense? The movie generates a lot of tension because we never know when the touch of a hand will trigger a new vision. This video-movie kills it by making it a matter of course. Johnny touches someone, he has a vision. It comes off like a comic book superpower, rather than an unmanageable affliction.Did they think the story needed a lot of trick work? It's bad enough anyone would want to lard this story with unnecessary special effects. But when it doesn't even have the budget to pull it off? Johnny now has the ability to freeze-frame a vision and walk around in it. Yet we see the extras blinking and shifting. And the visions are accompanied by flashing lights and sudden camera moves and strange sound effects; the sounds in particular reminded me of the robots changing into cars on "The Transformers."Did they think the story needed less emotion? Both versions have only a brief time to convince us Johnny and Sarah are in love before they are torn apart. The movie does this with a few skillful brush strokes. The video-movie adds some lustful groping, but convinces us only that these two are really attracted to each other.The triumph of the movie is that even with flourishes like psychic powers, a serial killer and an evil lunatic capable of blowing up the world, it's still the story of two star-crossed lovers, still the story of an ordinary man caught up in extraordinary events. It's still human and down-to-earth. This show tries to capture that, but they fail badly.One problem is Anthony Michael Hall. I haven't seen him in anything since his days of playing high school nerds. I was surprised to see that he's aged into a creepy-looking guy with an icy stare. That also describes Christopher Walken, who played Johnny in the movie. But Walken commands enormous sympathy in his role while Hall comes off as shallow and self-satisfied. Nicole de Boer manages to imbue a bit more humanity into Sarah – and bears a striking resemblance to her forerunner, Brooke Adams. But it's not enough to make the love triangle affecting.Chris Bruno plays Sarah's husband (an amalgam of two characters in the original movie) with bland semi-competence. Johnny's physical therapist, who has a few lines in one scene of the movie, now becomes a full-blown character – a wise-ass, dreadlocked sidekick played by John L. Adams, whose every quip is more tedious than the last. And the less said about the eye-candy (Kristen Dalton) playing a snooping reporter, the better. The only intriguing character is the Reverend Eugene Purdy, played by the always-wonderful Donald Ogden Stiers. Johnny doesn't like the reverend, yet the character is neither written nor performed as a standard villain. In fact, he seems sincere and likable and may prove not to be a villain at all.Stiers would be the only reason to continue watching this series. But he's not enough.