I thought I did some kind of King Movie Rankings post back in 2012-2013, but apparently I did no such thing. I did rank the mini-series (though that post is missing a few, so I need to re-do it properly) but never the movies.
So! Let's rank the King movies.
Before we do, let's establish for the purposes of this post anyway what a King movie is and what it is not. It's on the list below if it was a) released to theaters or Netflix / streaming, but not cable or straight-to-video, b) based on previously published King material, c) not an original-material sequel to anything that would qualify for "b", and d) a film and not a mini-series, short, or TV show.
I don't think I missed any or bent any rules to bring you the following, but the possibility exists. I'll break these up into a few posts. Let's begin with:
42.
The Dark Tower
Let’s put aside the film’s poor structure and general not-making-sense-ness. Whom exactly was this made to satisfy? Blockbuster fans? Sci-fi fans? King fans? Idris Elba fans? Matthew McConaughey fans? Some hopeful Venn diagram of them all? It's difficult to see how this film possibly could satisfy any of them. It fails first and foremost as an adaptation of the book. Bad enough, but it fails even more spectacularly as the tentpole of some kind of franchise. Right there you have two unforgivable problems. It also fails as any kind of credible blockbuster/ action-mystery/ whatever-genre-blend it was meant to be. Or just as an intelligible or even entertaining movie. It’s as unparalleled a waste of cinematic muscle as any in recent or distant memory, squandering ten freaking years of pre-production.
A lot of virtual ink was spilled on Idris Elba’s casting as Roland. I spilled some myself. The casting isn’t the issue people think it is. Had Rosie O'Donnell been cast as Roland and the film actually resembled, say, The Gunslinger, it'd have been very weird, but it'd have been okay. Usually what people are saying is “I’m concerned the filmmakers are not interested in making the novel to which they bought the rights but instead want to skin it, gut it, and wear its skin and dance around in front of me." That’s a concern I understand, and share. And when the end result is The Dark Tower, it’s worth asking what happened and who was responsible. And to squint cold fury in their direction.
41.
It, chapter Two
I didn’t love pt. 1 as much as a lot of folks, but it was decent enough. It certainly left pt. 2 in a great spot; they just had to come in and swing at anything close and the game was over. Unfortunately, and somewhat unfathomably, they decided not to swing at anything close and instead leave the stadium and forfeit the game, but not without dragging the fans along for hours of their lives they'll never recapture.
What a squandered set-up! What a chance to write your name in cinematic history! Instead, they wrote their name, unofficially, in the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. Seriously: watch it with that in mind; this is a friggin’ Freddy Krueger movie. Nothing wrong with that, but why-God-why make that choice here?
Forgetting both its source material and its leading man for unforgivably long stretches of time in favor of swipes, invented arcs, slapdash bullshit, dumb jokes, bad effects, no scares, and no sense, this film blows. 'Nuff said. I'd single out a least favorite scene, but they pretty much all are terrible. Actually, two come to mind: the "Mike doses Bill and info-dumps" scene, and every last one of the "King blows the ending" jokes. Just dreadful.
40.
(tie)
Cell / A Good Marriage
(2016 / 2014)
I won't pretend I actually saw these, but I don't think I need to. If there's some mass re-evaluation of both in the years to come maybe I'll give them a shot, but they sound like terrible movies that even the cast and crew disavow. It’s a damn shame, as both of these stories could be great movies, so there's again that sense of waste. Why do that? I'll never get it. There's a scene in Dawson's Creek of all things where Dawson, in Hollywood at last and a PA on a film set, chews out the director for being an asshole. It's a ridiculous scene, but the general gist of it ("you get to make movies for a living, and you do this?") applies doubly when adapting great King stories.
Probably worse than either The Dark Tower or It, ch2. But those two had a lot further to fall and leave bigger splotches.
39.
The Lawnmower Man
(1992)
A week before I went to college the summer after my senior year I took a trip down to Wilmington, NC to meet a couple of pen pals in person. (Who turned out to be jerks. C'est la vie.) The trip was my grandmother’s graduation present to me – neither here nor there, pretty much no details of it are, except that it was on that trip that I saw this movie, on VHS, and that’s the first thing I always think of whenever it comes up: watching it in aforementioned-jerk's living room and counting down the days til I could escape back to RI.
The second thing I think of is “Everyone thought the CGI for that was so mind-blowing.” It was the first shot of the CGI revolution. (Not really). The third thing I think of is: holy moley this film is terrible. If somehow you’ve never seen it and are a fan of the story, don’t worry about missing it. I am, too – I think it’s one of King’s successfully weird ones. Only a Pierce Brosnan completist needs to see this, and even then, will be disappointed.
38.
Thinner
Holy shit this movie. A friend nails it in his review: "Thinner wrecked a good Stephen King novel. Not a great one, by any means, but definitely a good one. The movie version is bad on every level, from the casting to the direction to the dialogue to the lighting to the effects to the makeup. I suspect the catering was bad, too."
It really is instructively bad. I hope someone makes a film making the opposite choice to everything on screen in this one; it couldn't help but be a masterpiece.
37.
Dolan's Cadillac
A good if odd novella was turned into some half-baked comment on immigration. Or something. I made it about halfway through and then had to turn it off. The original novella is not great, but it's unique enough and is actually quite cinematic. It's a story that could be told better visually than textually perhaps.
Speaking of visuals, I hate to point out how easy it looks for Christian Slater to escape up there. I mean, come on - that's the whole damn point.
36.
Dreamcatcher
Infamously terrible. I’d like to say it’s a guilty pleasure or has some unappreciated aspect. It really doesn’t, though. I remember seeing a trailer for this before the Mark Wahlberg Planet of the Apes movie and being utterly baffled. Actually watching the movie didn't clear much up.
The only cool thing about it isn’t even about it. While I was watching it for the first time I got a call from my wife to let me know she was pregnant with our first daughter. Project Spacegirl (nee Spacebaby) had begun. Dreamcatcher, indeed.
35.
Doctor Sleep
I’m not a fan of the book, but I was so intrigued by the first forty-five minutes of this that I stopped watching it streaming and ordered the blu-ray so my wife and I could watch it together. I wrote a friend that night “Holy shit this movie's good. I'm only an hour or so through it, but man - I've had a lump in my throat since the beginning. This is really a remarkable movie.”
I wrote the same friend a week later: "I haven't turned on a movie like this mid-stream in awhile. (I think the last one was Midsommar.) The second half of the movie completely obliterates all the good of the first. I was frankly amazed. You know me: I wasn't a fan of the book, but I was shocked at how good and how emotionally involved I was with the first part. Then: everything goes to shit. The problems are well-sketched out in this review (i.e. they lost the center of the movie - Danny's recovery) and it turns into a literal X-Men monster of the week movie for an hour or two.
So many completely avoidable problems: (1) It is never explained adequately why on earth Daniel wants to take them to the Overlook. It comes off as needing to be done to drag the film back into the "this is a sequel to The Shining" lane. (2) Danny turning on the juice in the boile room for the Overlook makes little sense. I'll give this section a little leeway because I think it's supposed to be drifting back and forth between what's actually happening and what might be only metaphor. And yet, the film itself loses sight of this (the ambulances and such are coming up the mountain at the end? i.e. is the Hotel actually on fire? how? Are they telling us the literal power/ boiler has been on for 40 years, just waiting for someone to walk in and turn it on? Electricity/ power does not work like that. (3) Also: let's assume she (Abra) gets a ride back down the mountain with the ambulances. That's it? Just a jump cut to her room, chatting with her Mom and Ghost Dan? There are a thousand missing questions, there. The film lost Danny and ends with Abra? No. The best part about the book that really resonated with me was the last 5-10 pages where it brings it all back to Danny at the hospice. The film jettisons this completely. Awful.
Also (4) Snakebite Andi was like 35 years old FFS. Just saying. Not credible jailbait for pedos."
Like It, ch. 2 it seems to forget both its source material (such as I remember it) and its leading man for weird stretches of time. All the weirder that this comes from Mike Flanagan, who’s brought Gerald's Game (and Haunting of Hill House) to life so successfully. The book's problems are only magnified in this adaptation.
34.
1408
I quite enjoyed this the first time I saw it. Less so on the second, and it basically free-fell to a gruesome landing on the third. No subsequent viewing (it was on cable a lot) ever changed my mind much, but I think it’s where it basically will stay.
John Cusack is a weird one, eh? He’s in two of the worst King adaptations and one of the best. This film has less in common with King, though, and more in common with another of his movies, Identity. Just twists and jumps that make no sense. All atmosphere, no oxygen.
33.
Firestarter
The book is basically another slightly modified X-Men annual. (Picture the ending being outside the gates of the Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters in Westchester and not the New York Times.) Both late 70s / 80s X-scribe Chris Claremont and King are baby boomers who plugged into their generation’s zeitgeist pretty darn successfully. This movie can’t decide what approach it’s taking and ends up feeling false.
Both the image above and this one below burned fiercely onto my eleven year old brain. As I often mention whenever this comes up, for some reason this movie more than any other freaked me the hell out when I was that age. I had nightmares for a month.
32.
Carrie
(2013)
The time/ momentum seemed / still seems right for Carrie to be remade and replace the De Palma version now over forty years old in the collective imagination. And this wasn’t bad, really; it’s just… not that. It should’ve swung for the fences. Did it? No one gives a performance anyone is still talking about, and that’s a problem. This is the sort of movie where that needs to happen.
Or perhaps its cultural moment has passed? Maybe the imagery and events of Carrie have been absorbed into the culture and collective unconscious now, blunting its ability to reflect or shock us. We have assimilated Carrie, or perhaps been assimilated by it, so we can’t react to it that way, even if done well.
What they should do is get De Palma to re-do it. Shot for shot. This 2013 movie, I mean, not his own.
31.
Pet Sematary / Pet Sematary
You know, the new one isn’t bad. It’s just forgettable. I watched it fairly recently and am hard pressed to remember anything except the changes they made. (Which don't really work but hey, they tried.)
The old one is… kind of bad. I know some people love it. It’s one I too liked in the era it came out, but subsequent viewings soured me on. There’s a camp value of Gage Creed at the end (wholly, almost punishingly, absent from the remake) that I’ve come to appreciate. And I like Fred Gwynne’s whole deal. But overall it’s not one I find very fun to watch nor very well-made. And the Zelda scenes are excruciating. And Tasha Yar is terrible. And the lead is asleep throughout the whole thing. How does this movie have an overall good rep, anyway? Is it just on account of the Ramones song?
Its existence led to the South Park "Old Farmer" character, so if nothing else there's that.
30.
Cujo
Everyone seems to love this movie. I feel kinda left out. It’s just never really clicked with me. The book neither. Take this, for example; that making-of book sounds like a whale of a good time, but it feels like I’m crashing a party when I read about it.
Maybe next time we do these (hello, 2030) there’ll be some movement on this one.
29.
Apt Pupil
The most interesting thing about this one is how dated it now feels. I don’t mean the fact that it’s dated is remarkable; that happens to most everything. But this one feels dated in a specific way, like putting on the wrong pair of glasses. Everything “feels” off, from the high school to David Schwimmer and Joshua Jackson being in it. And Brad Renfro, who was miscast.
The source material hasn’t aged well, either. But at least it's still somewhat shocking. King was going for something in his novella that is missing, here. And that's not entirely Bryan Singer's fault. I think the best a filmmaker could do with this is something that would feel like a Nazified Blue Velvet if pulled off properly. Which is the sort of thing which sounds okay on paper (if it even does that) but would probably be retread-y at best, and likely horrendous.
Maybe someone will prove me wrong one day; hope so!
28.
Hearts in Atlantis
Here we move into warmer waters, closer to the shores of my heart. Not quite comfortable swimming distance, though.
By excising both the title novella of the collection and the Dark Tower elements of “Low Men in Yellow Coats”, this again feel more like an X-Men annual of some kind than a stand-alone story. (Can you tell I've been re-reading my old X-Mens lately?) And nothing against those. it's just not quite universal enough for all purpose nostalgia (and a few shades too dark) but not quite sensible as a stand-alone thing, either. Especially with the attempt at a wrap-around ending.
It feels like a house with a shiny coat of paint on all four sides but no roof. Pretty to look at but functional only in specific conditions.
27.
Children of the Corn
Not a good movie. A real slog to make it all the way through, actually. But if you were of a certain age when it came out, it will always have a certain cachet. Maybe that should read “if you were of a certain age when it got into your head,” not necessarily when it came out.
Say, you ever see “Disciples of the Crow?” It’s great. Check it out.
I mentioned all the X-Men I've been looking at, but not all the Iron Maiden I've been listening to. A friend and I've been revisiting their catalog and having a lot of back and forth. I'm sure it'll port over to the blog sooner or later. It's funny how well the lyrics to "Children of the Damned" synch up with this movie. (You have to supply your own "corn", though.) Where's the appropriate YouTube mash-up?
26.
In the Tall Grass
Well-made but kind of forgettable. I don’t remember the original story too well, for that matter. I remember when it came out though, in 2012, over two months in Esquire.
At the time, my wife lived in a little carriage house apartment over in Bucktown and there was a Walgreens (and a comics shop, since closed) about a half-mile from her house. I mention this only because whatever filing cabinet houses my memory of reading the story apparently has things misfiled in it. Nothing about the story, plenty about the walks to and fro, and the magazines themselves. Memory is a special little thing, isn’t it?
As for the movie, the disclaimer above for Children of the Corn will likely never be written by anyone thirty years from now. (Whether or not there are a gajillion sequels made remains to be seen.)
25.
Silver Bullet
Cheesy, but harmless. Probably something every kid should see, I think. It’s a good primer on both werewolves and kid-horror-genre stuff.
I'll let you know on that part once I think my kids are ready. I remember this still feeling scary at age thirteen, but everyone's different. Of course, it would negate the "primer" aspect if I wait too long to show them; they'll get contaminated with more recent werewolf takes. Decisions, decisions.
24.
Creepshow 2
From the magical year of 1987. I saw this in the theater and a whole bunch of times on VHS. Somehow I got it in mind that it was a terrible movie. It’s not at all. The guy in the mask and some of the animation is, no doubt. But the segments are all fine. More than fine, actually – well worth seeing and very much in the spirit of the original movie.
23.
Christine
Here’s another one a lot of people love and I always feel left out on. But like Cujo, neither book (though I like parts of it) nor the movie really do much for me. It’s John Carpenter and smack dab in the middle of his classic stretch of work, so hey: just historically, right there, it’s worth anyone’s time.
That one guy's hair is definitely impressive. Google it you won't be disappointed.
22.
It, Chapter One
I was not as blown away by this as everyone else seemed to be. Pennywise was just okay. Passable in a not-Tim-Curry way but not iconic. It's not the actor's fault, though; everything about this one is ruined by part two, so look there for the source of almost all ills.
In this one, the special fx are good, and the kids are great. Had they only landed the damn plane without killing everyone on board...! Ah well. Keep the sequel out of mind and this is a pretty great adaptation of a few parts of the book. We already had the mini-series for that, though, plus Tim Curry, so what they had to do was fix the landing. Which they did not. Again, all things seem to go back to that.
21.
The Running Man
Another shining jewel in the cinematic crown of 1987. Well, perhaps it merely reflects the shine of other jewels - either way.
This is an Arnold movie first, second, and third, and a King movie in distant fourth. It only stumbles when it tries to make any serious points on media, specifically that horrifying merger of government and media described in the novel. Considering America in 2020, this should all feel familiar. But it doesn't, really. I mean, had you told me that in 1987, I'd have said "That's a good thing." And it would be. Only we live in a dystopian future-present immediately relevant to the subject matter of The Running Man, and at no time does it feel immediately relevant. It feels like what it is: an Arnold vehicle. He'd have to wait until Total Recall to find the right sci-fi fit for his unique talents.
And not that he isn't good here, I mean no disrespect. Just a genre clarification - like Batman and Robin, this belongs in the Arnold Movie genre; unlike that movie, it's an enjoyable (if probably-equally-terrible) slice of said genre. ("NOW! PLAIN ZERO!") Hell, I'll watch it right now.
Don't touch that dial, says Dweezil Zappa. His guitar wants to kill your mama.
~
Hope to see you next time for the Top Twenty!
(1) " let's establish for the purposes of this post anyway what a King movie is and what it is not" -- Isn't it bizarre that qualifying things in this manner is even necessary? It seems like it would be entirely straightforward, but it really isn't.
ReplyDelete(2) "The Dark Tower" -- I agree with your every word here. I personally think there are a number of worse King movies, but if grading on a curve, there might be no bigger a failure in the whole bunch than this one. And, as you say, it's a failure (a huge one) in multiple ways. It's almost impressive; one could do a lot worse than study this one for lessons in how to fuck up a movie.
(2) "It Chapter Two" -- I'm not AS venomously disposed toward this movie as you are, but you know what? I appreciate the fact that you are. I think it deserves it; I just haven't gotten myself worked up about it to that degree yet. Granted, I've still only seen it a single time. The best thing I'll say for it is that it managed not to entirely wound my enjoyment of Chapter 1. But it DID wound it some, no doubt. And in its own right, it's a lame-ass disappointment at best. Especially King's cameo scene, which should embarrass him.
(3) "Cell and "A Good Marriage" -- I've seen 'em both, and they are dreadful. They ARE worse than the two they ranked ahead of, I think; unlike those, these are borderline incompetent. But, as you say, they had farther to fall. That said, there are at least moments in those that I like. I don't think I like a single second of either "Cell" or "A Good Marriage." And King wrote both screenplays!
(4) "The Lawnmower Man" -- I don't hate it. I should, I just don't. It was the first King-based -- well, allegedly-King-based -- movie I ever saw in a theatre. Or wait, was that actually "Misery"? Yep, I think it was. Ah, well. Either way, it's amazing Brosnan made this and still got to be James Bond.
(5) "Thinner" -- A perfectly-chosen screencap for that one. If someone told me they thought it was the worst of all the King movies, I couldn't disagree.
(6) "Dolan's Cadillac" -- You know, I actually think this is a pretty great movie. It's got a lot to say about the moral wretchedness that results in human trafficking, and also manages to nimbly speak to the ways in which a man's desire for revenge can take him to the dark side. Hahaha, no, just kidding, this movie fucking blows from beginning to end.
(7) "Dreamcatcher" -- I can imagine this being one that I eventually learn to love ironically. Sure hasn't happened yet, though. It's a bad novel, too, though, so the movie probably never had a chance. AND YET, they managed to make it worse, despite having an A+ cast!
(8) "Doctor Sleep" -- I do like this one, and love parts of it. I've been unable to wholeheartedly embrace it the way some King fans have, though, and I wonder if what's going on here is that it's actually a terrible movie and I've just been hoodwinked by my fandom for Mike Flanagan. Food for thought!
For what it's worth, the actress who played Andi apparently was, like, 17 or so. But I agree, she looks older.
(9) "1408" -- I'm firmly on the record as being opposed to this movie having a good reputation. It's got a few good moments here and there, and I generally like Cusack in it, but once Mike goes into the room, boy does it get brightly lame. Making things even worse, the most commonly available version is a director's cut with a terrible alternate ending.
(10) "Firestarter" -- I have a soft spot for this one. It's not particularly defensible, though.
(11) "Carrie" -- The idea of DePalma doing a ahot-fot-shot remake of this remake is pretty hilarious. I've defended the movie in the past, but current me wonders why past me bothered. It's just a nonentity of a film, really.
ReplyDelete(12) "Pet Sematary" -- I *guess* I love the old one? I think it's kind of bad, but it's an efficient enough take on the vastly-superior novel that somehow manages to not make me resent the gap between quality in getting from book to movie. I dunno, maybe it really IS just that Ramones song.
The new one is kind of like the 2013 "Carrie." It makes me just shrug, really. I admire what they tried with the plot twist, but the marketing ruined it, so even that's a wash.
(12) "Cujo" -- I confess, I'm one of the ones who love it. But don't feel like you're all alone, I've heard plenty of people express dislike for it. I assume you all feel kind of how I feel when I hear people talk about loving "1408." All like, huh?!? THAT piece of crap?!? So I get it, I just don't share that feeling for "Cujo" with you. We can't all agree all the time, though, can we?
(13) "Apt Pupil" -- For whatever reason, it took me years to realize that I disliked this movie. I always did, in retrospect, but for a LONG time, I thought I liked it but just didn't love it. Nope; that was dislike eating atcha all along, kid. I don't even like Ian McKellan in it, and I typically love that guy.
I'll disagree with you a bit as regards the source material; I think that's aged pretty well.
(14) "Hearts In Atlantis" -- Here's another where I agree with your every word. I always think of Hopkins saying on the commentary track to keep your eye on Anton Yelchin, whom he figured for a star in the making. He was right; and now, poor guy is years dead. I haven't rewatched the movie since he died; maybe that unfortunate layer of real-world tragedy will bring me a little closer to the movie. Not entirely sure I want it to.
ReplyDelete(15) "Children of the Corn" -- I genuinely have no idea why I tolerate this movie. I don't like this movie one bit, and yet, I kind of love it and treasure it. Nothing about this reaction makes sense, and I confess it freely.
Don't think I'd ever heard that Iron Maiden song, but it rules.
(16) "In the Tall Grass" -- I watched this early one morning right after it came out, while on a stay-cation. It made virtually no impact on me, which is surely not the type of reaction a horror movie should inspire. Any type of movie, really, but especially not a horror movie. I wonder, is that the reason why fans like me sometimes end up embracing something like "Children of the Corn"? Just because it inspires SOME kind of actual reaction?
(17) "Silver Bullet" -- There's an argument that goes something like this: the only good time to begin watching horror movies is just a wee bit before you are actually ready to do so, so that they have an impact on you. You'll either be turned off and run in the opposite direction, or you'll spend the rest of your life hoping to accidentally-on-purpose replicate that experience. The more I hear people talk about how they became King fans, the more convinced I am that his popularity is due to kids stumbling onto his works at a slightly-too-young age.
All of which is a way of saying that I think "Silver Bullet" is kind of a great movie for kids. Not all kids, maybe; but in retrospect, I wish I'd seen it earlier than I did. I think it would have worked on me just the way King intended it to. Even so, I have only grown fonder of it since whenever it was I actually did see it for the first time.
(18) "Creepshow 2" -- Weird! I too, for a long time, thought that this was a bad movie and also one that did not remember the face of its father (the first movie). But it's held up very well for me, and I genuinely have an affection for it nowadays, beginning to end.
(19) "Christine" -- I love this one, so I'm one of those folks you mention. And in no small part, this is due to Buddy Repperton's hair. I'd murder numerous people in order to look like Buddy Repperton. I hope I'd use them looks more admirably than he does, of course, but I'll take what I can get.
(20) "It" -- Haven't rewatched this since Chapter 2 came out, so I'm curious to see how my relationship with it changes. My guess is that it's going to drop significantly. The kids are unquestionably awesome, and I love the design for Pennywise. The CGI, though, not so much. And nothing in it scared me even when it came out; but in some ways, this, too, is a kid's movie. It might be the ultimate gateway-horror-drug film, and I kind of admire that about it. How many millions of people became King fans off this movie's back? No small thing, that.
(21) "The Running Man" -- This is about as 1987 as it gets, isn't it? It's bad, but also great; relevant to modern times, but in completely shallow and useless ways. It's distinctly Ahunld, but a distant runner-up to the actual best Schwarzemovie of 1987, "Predator." There's nothing Kingian about it whatsoever, and yet it somehow managed to introduce me to his books. Very strange, man; very strange.
(22) Regarding that Dweezil Zappa song: do I like that song? I honestly can't tell. The guitar sounds familiar, but I can't figure out what it reminds me of.
(17) "The more I hear people talk about how they became King fans, the more convinced I am that his popularity is due to kids stumbling onto his works at a slightly-too-young age." Yeah there's something there, all right! I agree. Watch out, kids, we're watching SILVER BULLET after your LOL-dolls-movie wraps up! Then American Werewolf in London... we'll re-create Bryan's horror-VHS-no-no-don't-watch-it-OMG-IWATCHED-IT-AND-NOW-CAN'T-SLEEP childhood...
Delete(17) and (21) Good points on both. I remember when that Dweezil song was on MTV; it's a remake of one of his Dad's tunes. I don't know if either ever got a lot of airplay, but I agree: cool video/ cool tune.
(21) Also: my comment about The Running Man makes no sense. Is Predator not a sci-fi fit for his talents? Was the Terminator not up to snuff? Stupid. I meant compared to the irony and sarcasm they were going for in both movies, it works much better in Total Recall. Should've made it clearer.
Delete(21) No, I think you were right. I knew what you meant. I mean, yes, sure, "Predator" IS a sci-fi movie, but it's really just an action movie with sci-fi conceits powering it. Same with "The Running Man" (although the satirical elements get it a little closer). "Total Recall" really is in a class of its own, in terms of hard sci-fi.
DeleteOh, and hey, almost forgot: (23) Was there really no previous ranking post for King movies here? I'd have lost money on that bet. Maybe I too was just thinking about the miniseries one. Mandela strikes again!
(6) You had me there for a second! No word of a lie before I finished reading this comment I had a flash of "Oh great, I've embarrassed myself; I have to actually go back and watch the whole dman movie now..."
ReplyDelete(8) I looked up the actress playing Snakebite Andi and saw her age and was shocked. She looks a lot older. They should have got Aron Eisenberg.
(11) Glad that joke landed! I love this idea.
(13) Oh good to hear. When I revisited it in 2011 I was kinda meh on it, but I was disappointed to discover that, as I had such fond, creeped-out memories from reading it in high school. King is going for something in the novella that just doesn't quite translate to the screen.
(6) *nods self-satisfiedly* My work here is done.
Delete(8) That is the grossest thing I have ever heard. I love it.
I think maybe the idea with Andi is that she is supposed to be a young girl trying to look like she's failing to look a little bit older, so as to be more enticing to the sort of creeps she is victimizing. But instead, the end result is that she just looks older. It works alright for me, I guess. Not in the creepy way, thankfully.
(13) That's my take on it, at least. Granted, I've not actually read it in a good long while. I listened to the audiobook not super long ago, but I might have been wowed by the narrator more than anything else.
(1) "Dark Tower" is one of those films where you go in knowing that, in essence, nothing is going to happen on-screen. At least that's the impression I was left with. The whole thing was forgettable from start to finish as far as I was concerned. There are just two scenes that disappoint me more than others. One is the gateway guardian in the house that leads Roland's world. It has a name, I know, and I'm real sorry for blanking here. I just can't, for the life of me, recall what it was. I do know, however, about the guardian, and that it was a major action/horror set piece in "Wastelands". All that gets sucked right out in the film.
ReplyDeleteThe second major complaint is the Low Men. I'd been curious for the longest time how they would be handled. I've no doubt its possible to pull those characters off, however here, I just came away with one thought. "Man, y'all are some lame-ass looking motherfuckers".
(2) "Sleep" is still my candidate for worst thing King has ever written, really. The movie doesn't change that opinion. In fact, looking at it all now, I'm wondering if one of the things that makes both versions fail has to do with a subject that I've also noticed in other franchises. I personally prefer to remain clear out of it, though if I had to give it a name, it would be something like the "Woke" controversy. I don't know. I just wondered if I was starting to notice similar things in that book and film as are going on in, say, "Picard". I'm almost sorry to even bring it up. It's just something I noticed, is all. Either way, a failure is all it is to me. This is one of those cases where, if it wasn't broke, never try and fix it.
To be continued.
ChrisC
(2) Part of the way "woke"ness ruins everything is twofold. There's (1) the literal "run everything by a committee of wokeness and let them make changes to things based on woke optics/ premises-of-woke-religion." So, characters are changed, agencies are re-assigned, etc. It's about the agenda/ the optics, affirming the right message, not about the story or characters or anything else. Or (2) Internalizing/ anticipating all of the above so you do it yourself to whatever you're working on/
DeleteOnce people understand what the woke optics/ premises are, then it's easy to see how movies/ stories/ series are being changed by them. Picard is an unfortunate example. But a good one.
The basic woke impulse is to identify something that has brand visibility or has influence with millions of people, infect it with the woke virus, then wear its corpse as a trophy-skin.
Continued from part 1.
ReplyDelete(3) "It" is another adaptation that I came away from. For me, this is a problem that starts from early in the first film, and just goes on from there. It starts with Skarsgaard (is that the guy playing Pennywise? I'm bad with names and faces like this) trying a poor attempt a humor as the monster, and then it degenerates into a poorly abbreviated Cliffnotes list. That's kind of an insult to Cliffnotes, though, really. At least those books stick to the fact. Neither of these films can even bother with it.
Say what you will about the ending to the novel, at the very least, it can be something of a trip. Which is a polite way of saying I don't mind giant, intergalactic turtles. It's like, groovy, man! Other than, that, I'm afraid the Tim Curry version still wins.
(4) I hear what you're saying about "Carrie". I read and/or saw elsewhere that the original plan was to film the novel in a Mockumentary style. It was going to be formatted like on of those True Crime documentaries that crop up late at night on the History Channel, or PBS.
What derailed those plans was a spate of actual school shootings, and the controversy was enough to make everyone put the kibosh on the whole scheme. The result was the lifeless copy that probably no one wanted to make, and that everyone wound up stuck with. In that sense, maybe it isn't the filmmakers entire fault.
To be continued.
ChrisC
(3) I'll take the giant turtle/ CHUD ritual over every last thing we see in It, ch.2
DeleteConcluded from part 2.
ReplyDelete(5) I find myself not minding "Tall Grass" all that much. For some reason, this just strikes me as more in line with what I expect from either King or Hill. I suppose its that sense of expectation that drives my overall positive reception of the flick, yet there's always the fact that other will have little choice in the matter except to have other concepts of what a King flick should be like.
(6) It's the same with "Cujo". I came away from that with a double sense of pleasant surprise. Not only was engaged by the film, yet it was also the first one to capture the look an feel of Castle Rock. In other words, "Cujo" is the one King film where it feels as if the Castle Rock in my mind is the same as the one I'm seeing up on the screen. That's pretty cool in my book. Still, that just a potential bonus. What really counts is if the story is well told. I'd have to say yes.
(7) I tend to regard "Bullet" as one of those perennial classics. It just hits all the right 80s film buttons for me, if ya get my drift.
ChrisC.
(7) I do! That's the drift I live in.
Delete