Is the the God-given gift of healing a fitting subject for sentimentality?

Rating: 4/10 (2 July 2007)

I saw this film recently late one night on television. Just happened to switch it on. I knew nothing about it (I'm not a film("movie") buff), didn't who it was by, or whether it was a true story or a piece of fiction. I found it too long; turned it off after about two and a half hours (too late at night/early morning). Nicely paced, though; obviously, the story takes three hours to tell, which is fair enough.
I went along with much of the early parts, the death row routines, the bad apple among the little good guys; the likable inmates - bad boys once but harmless old lags now. They bring in the black guy, he's marked down as the worst of the worst: good for dramatic contrast. I assumed he was going to be the healer. He is. Fixes up Hanks, blows - what: ash? evil? corruption? - afterwards.
It's then I had my first doubts. Looked like hokey was on the way. And do we get a wagon load of it! Brings the mouse back to life - bright lights please, otherwise no one will be impressed. Then the big miracle, why even the house itself rocks: must be a big big miracle. So I had my fill of hokey: turned off the TV and went to bed.
Never read Stephen King. From the comments above I gather that this is a good novel by him. So I never will readStephen King. I daresay some people need this kind of sentimental mush.
My main regret (other then to lament the fact that some people are so badly caught in this life that they need this kind of escapism) is that these writers and film (movie) makers should exploit such serious issues for such pathetic ends. What's wrong with romantic comedy for the escapists?. And what's wrong with plain straight-forward religion for those who might want to find some hope in this world? Why offer them this kind of straight-faced slush?