The Stephen King movie thread - Page 4

Have you read the book? I've read it and seen it and I know which got under my skin. Maybe a matter of personal taste, but I was disappointed.

I think it's one thing to say "I would like to see an adaptation of THE SHINING that hews closer to the novel" and it's quite another to say "Kubrick's THE SHINING is a disappointment because it's not like the book". The last one is not valid criticism.

Oh, and Rath. What're your late to the party Jaunt impressions? Because that shit gave me nightmares for an eternity. And it's the best use of that particular trope I've seen. I even flashed to it when they started talking about limbo in Inception.

For me, Kubrick's version is the one that gets under my skin. All throughout the novel, our sympathies tend to lie (at least somewhat) with King's Jack; even as hes losing it, we still identify him as a victim of sorts, because even though he's got his problems, he's a good guy. Kubrick's iteration is far less sympathetic from the get-go (hes actually kind of a dick); as Kubrick's Jack slides into insanity, we're not as willing to identify with him. The monster he becomes is much scarier and the danger to Wendy and Danny carries much more weight.

Also the hedge animals coming to life is kind of stupid.

See, I find him more scary because he's not all bad. It makes him much more believable. Everyone has problems and everyone has times when they lose control of their bad side, the fear of what regular decent people are capable of is a powerful one.

Agreed on the hedge animals though. Through most of the book they're creepy but when they start full on running about it's kinda stupid. Never said it was a flawless book, but it works a lot better for me as a whole.

Yeah, this is a good point and I see where you're coming from. Maybe its just years of being bombarded with horror cliches (definitely not pointing the finger at King here), but I feel like when a story goes in that direction, its usually guaranteed to end with that last minute 'snap out of it!' moment, because ya know, hes a good guy inside, and has been all along!

I never get the feeling that Kubrick's Jack will have this moment of realization, and I think that makes him much more frightening.

That used to be my take too, but I've since changed my mind. Nicholson's character is a bad guy, but he's not crazy going in, he's just weak. He's the kind of guy that blames everyone else for his own problems. This is a big part of the book character too, but Kubrick doesn't cut him any slack by letting us feel bad for him. He's a failed artist, and an alcoholic with a bad temper and it's no one's fault but his own. All the stuff with punching a student and resenting his bosses isn't text in the movie, but it's all strongly implied.

Where Kubrick goes King one better is making Jack resent his family as well. In the book, his relationship with his wife and son is strained by his drinking, but ultimately they're all tied together by love. Movie Jack views his wife and kid as dead weight tied around his neck, insurmountable obstacles between him and his failed dreams. It's why Kubrick cast Shelly Duvall (and cruelly manipulated her on the set), so Jack can feel like he deserved better and got trapped. The crazy histrionics with Lloyd the bartender might be broad (and awesome), but the base idea behind Movie Jack is, to my mind, more fucked up and maybe even more honest than Novel Jack, whose trials are really well written and enjoyable, but maybe a bit idealized.

It's been postulated (probably on Chud. I think we've talked this out before) that the reason King hates the movie so much is that his Jack was largely autobiographical and Kubrick makes Jack out to be a huge prick. That's a little too neat for me, maybe, but it might have played a role.

Personally, I think the error was in casting Shelly Duvall or, perhaps, the performance Kubrick deliberately extracted from her. By that, I mean that her shrewish, hysterical behavior undercut the sympathies we're supposed to feel for her. Hell, it makes me--to a certain extent--side with Jack. Yes, he's insane. Yes, he's murderous. But, at the same time, there's a point where he's backing her up the stairs that I almost start rooting for the guy.*

Oh, and great post, Arjen!





*Please note that I, in no way, endorse spousal abuse, spousal homicide or evil hotel induced psychosis.

Really? I thought casting Shelley Duvall was one of the most genius casting decisions of all time. It works so well in putting us into Jack's state of mind. Something like that was needed since so much of the goings on in Kings books are internal.

I second this motion.

Well, I'll stand by my position, but this
makes a crazy amount of sense and has given me a reason to rewatch the movie.

Well yeah, I kind of get this too, but not in a 'Friday the 13th, Jason needs to kill these irritating bitches' kind of way.

I think its great casting. For the reasons Arjen said.

Goddamn, this thread is really making me want to watch this movie again. Like right now.

Well the blu-ray is really good and only like 15 bucks.

I don't know why but there is something I really like about Sleepwalkers. I know most hate it though and I know I should if not only for the fact that Mick Garris directs. I would love to find out what pictures he has of Stephen King for King to perfer this man directing all his films.

I used to really like SLEEPWALKERS when I was a kid. That's on my list of films I wish I'd never seen again as adult. I don't begrudge your enjoyment of the film, though.

I would also like to fucking know what kind of satanic ritual Garris performed to become glued to King. I saw a special screening of RIDING THE BULLET that Garris hosted when I first moved to LA. At that time I had no clue who he was and he talked before the film started about his relationship with King and I thought, "Wow, this guy must be great for King to like him so much!" Then they started the movie.

Maybe Garris is a brother-in-law or something.

I don't think hes terrible (the opening half hour or so of Desperation was surprisingly tense and cinematic), but he's a middle-of-the-road made-for-TV guy and it shows. I guess I should hate Garris more for what he did to The Stand. Randall Flagg, you deserved better.

I actually do think he is terrible. I kind of like Sleepwalkers and like most of The Stand. Other than that I really can't stand his movies. The worst might be Riding the Bullet though.

I don't think any complicated theories for the Garris relationship are necessary; he's a workman who stays faithful to the source material (Oh hi, Kubrick) and generally defers to King's judgment, storywise.

Yeah the simplest explaination is always the right one which of course means that technically Kig is responsible for his movies not working and thats what I don't understand. How can a writer like him adapt his own movies in such a horrible way. Most of the stuff he has adapted directly or through Garris have been terrible with the exception of Storm of the century.

Great post.

Because King doesn't understand that direct adaptations don't work for film. He slavishly tries to recreate his text as a mini-series and it just doesn't work. You can still be true to a text but adapt it properly for a film. See, The Dead Zone. But you also don't have to. The Shining works because the man directing it had his own interpretation of the text, and it was interesting and it worked as a film. The ABC' version is DOA and downright painful to watch. Garris's lack of energy as a director doesn't help, either.

I do like Storm of the Century, though. It's flawed, but it's the best of the mini-series because it was written as a mini-series. Great ending, though.

ETA: Is Jack in the Shining autobiographical? Or is it supposed to represent his King's father? Or a mixture of the two? I'm going for the last, as that seems to fit best with the text of the book.

I agree, but think "Rose Red" is better than most people give it credit for. It's a nifty little haunted house story that plays on the myths that have grown up around the Winchester Mansion.

Kingdom Hospital is something that I kind of loathe intently, but also kind of love in drabs. The forced wackiness actually makes it kind of watchable and it's probably one of the better acted/visualised of his mini-series, but compared to the Lars Von Trier original it's just not very scary.

I haven't seen it, but I'd be willing to give it a chance. Kingdom Hospital was terrible, though, but being a big fan of the Von Trier version doesn't help.

Don't get me wrong: it's chock full of King cliches. The neglectful/abusive father figure. The overbearing and overweight mother. The evil authority figure. The magic child. The cowardly nerd. I think the only one that's really missing is the heroic and possibly alcoholic artist. For all that, like I said, it's a lot of fun, especially if you enjoy haunted house stories.

Ehhh I enjoyed parts of it until time travel reared it's ugly head.

Del Toro to direct Bag of Bones... that would be really good.

Anyone else enjoy that novel as much as I did? Got love an old man who has a rocket for an arm.

Bag of Bones is the last King novel I remember reading and really enjoying. Well, I guess that doesn't include Wolves of the Calla and Song of Susanna, both of which I liked quite a bit, but which lose their stature after the appaling last Dark Tower novel.

I liked Desperation, but I don't think it's a very good book. Not sure if that makes any sense.

I haven't read Under the Dome, though. Everyone tells me it's good but I just can't seem to commit to it.

You left out "the terrible ending." Does it end well? That's one thing Storm of the Century actually got right, even better than most of his novels. In fact, the ending was better than most of everything else.

Storm benefits from solid production values, a good villian, Tim Daly and a fantastic ending. The whole package is a fucking slog though. Desperation isn't a good book but it is an entertaining one.

Salem's Lot will never get a good adaptation, despite it being his best and most straightforward.

Great reading. I think that's exactly what Kubrick saw hidden in the book. A guy telling himself he ain't that bad really, it's just the booze and the drugs and the stress, and this fucking nagging wife and that damn wimp of a kid who won't stop being weird! All that's covered perfectly in the scene at the bar. The rest of it is just his resistance being worn away by domestic reality.

Kubrick's version also has all that malignant geometry and symmetry going on visually which the TV version didn't capture at all. The Overlook is bad news without all that extended back-story needing to be spelled out or magical topiary monsters.

There's stuff in the book that's utterly amazing conceptually/structurally, but would never translate into a movie. The Shining is a great book, The Shining is a great movie, The Shining is a mediocre at best TV Series.

The window tapping scene is of course a classic. Geoffrey Lewis in the rocking chair was pretty damn creepy too ("looooook at meeee, teacher").

But I do think Mr Barlow was the film's greatest vampiric asset. Like the ending to The Mist, movie Barlow is an example of someone making changes to King's original work for the better... he's this silent, vicious demonic rat thing that exists only to FEED. Combine that with Hooper's mastery of visual scare tactics (like having him jump out from below the frame at just the right moment) and you've got one of the great screen vampires IMHO.

Yeah, switching him from Dracula-type vamp to Nosferatu-type really is a simple act of genius. And, honestly, you don't need the Dracula-type because King already plants the suave, erudite Straker into the story.

That's a nice point about Barlow. I'd kind of like to see Salem again, but it strikes me as a bit of a slog. And I hate David Soul.

What do we think of 1408? I'm thinking about checking that out again. There's a director's cut, but the original is on blu-ray...which is the way to go?

The Barlowe change is one of the things I hated about the mini. I liked Barlowe a lot in the book, and he looked cheesy as hell in the mini. It took the psychological menace of the character and made it physical. He looks like a crummy version of Orlok.

I know there are some quarters that like the film, but I thought it was silly and not remotely scary. C'mon . . . Mini Sam Jackson?

No offense, but I don't get this at all.

The original mini-series is one of the 'scariest' adaptations of King's work. The vampire reveal a shocker for kids of that generation (my Aunt had nightmares), in much the same way Pennywise freaked young kids who watched It.

A shame the rat subplot was dropped from both versions of the mini-series, and even in revised collector's editions of the book.

I don't like my vampires totally feral (on the other side, I hate Anne Rice's femme, debonair stuff). I agree the movie is scary but I simply didn't like that they made the character a mute Nosferatu. The best part of the book for me was the confrontation between him and Callohan.

I kind of fall in between the different Barlows, and I'm not sure which I prefer. The Straker point, and the whole monster-ness of Nosferatu Barlow kind of argue in favor of the movie's version, but I've always kind of liked Dracula Barlow, particularly that Callahan scene. Maybe I do have to watch this thing again, even though I seem to remember it having a lot of lighting and sound problems and being way too long.

The school bus sequence in Trick 'r Treat reminded me of Salem's Lot. In retrospect, that movie was kind of a blast, and I wish I'd seen it when I was nine.

The cinema version works better than the director's cut IMO. But mileage may vary.

I liked it but I was going through a heavy phase of tracing the various sources of inspiration for the Silent Hill games at the time it came out.

Yeah, Sam Jackson needs to have disappeared after the intro, but there's more of him in the DC and it doesn't help.

It's fun to see Cusack and "The Gent" revisit their Grosse Point Blank fight.

It's a really well written bit of pop fiction that I don't think would translate very well to the screen. The ghost stuff maybe, but the larger plot about the sexy single mom and the wacky old man/crazy old nurse vaudeville villain pair would be really hard to pull off on screen.

If I had to choose something for Del Toro, or any outlier director, it would be Insomnia, which could be an amazing challenge and a chance to go completely bonkers. An old man protagonist, tiny bald doctors with giant scissors, colored invisible aura sacks the surround everyone at all times, and a super loaded pro-abortion argument at the center of it all. Get Darren Aronofsky, or even Richard Kelly, on that shit.

I don't want Kelly near one of my favorites. Insomnia is so insane on the page that it would take Pixar or someone with real vision like Del Toro or Aronofsky (as you mentioned)to do it. Back when I thought about an adaptation I fanwanked Paul Newman as Ralph.

Huh? Are you talking about the recent Illustrated Edition? That didn't drop the rat subplot at all. In fact, it returned to the novel a key scene that brought the subplot to a gorey and satisfactory resolution (in fact, it had originally been edited out because King's editors deemed it too horrible).

As for 1408, I enjoyed it for what it was: a big budget horror flick that substituted nifty effects for actual scares. In that, it was like a more successful, less awful version of The Haunting remake. For me, it suffered mostly because it abandoned the Lovecraftian elements with which King's original story is imbued.

Are you talking about Benny "The Jet" Urquidez or someone else? If so, in all future correspondence you are to refer to him by his official 1408 character name: CLAW HAMMER MANIAC

"The Jaunt" much like many of the King stories freaked me out. Deeply creepy story that could make a great movies.

I also love the story "Crouch End" that didn't work on TV at all but I love it on page.


Also a film version of Insomnia would be fascianting. Its so completely bonkers on page I dont even know what a film version would look like.

Frank Durabont should be the only person who gets to direct King adaptations ever. Dude knocks it out of the park every time, especially with 'The Mist' and 'Shawshank'.

I also enjoyed 'Storm of the Century' quite a bit when it first released. Haven't seen it since, though.
It's sad to think about how the novel version of 'The Running Man' will never ever get a movie now. A Durabont-helmed adaptation made about 5 years ago would have been a great satire on the reality show TV trend, but that ending could not be filmed in this day and age (not going to spoil it, but if you read it you'll know exactly why).

Call me crazy, but I'd love to see JJ Abrams \ Lindelof \ Cuse tackle a big screen adaptation of The Stand.

No thank you.

Matt, did the illistrated Salem's Lot book you were talking about have a black hardcover? I got that as a gift, but returned it. If I recall my quick glance, the rat payoff was added but only as a footnote. The knife kill was still in text. Been a while, so I could be wrong.

I thought you were a Lost fan, Elvis?

I was.

I just can't imagine dream-casting that team for anything right now.

Has anyone mentioned Silver Bullet yet?

Nah, you've got it. I think the rat payoff was far more satisfactory than the oddly abrupt knife kill. I believe it was in "Danse Macabre" (which I wish King would update) that King mentions that his editors wouldn't allow the book to be published with the rat payoff in text.

Also, I'm now jonesing for a "Salem's Lot" re-read.

And, yeah, I'd love to see a Silver Bullet redo that adheres more closely to the novella and really takes advantage of the month-by-month format.