The Green Mile (film) - 3rd Mar 2013

So good.  So, so good.  It's nice when you don't have to watch a Stephen King adaptation and constantly make excuses for the quality and convince yourself that it's at least worth watching for the story and revisiting the novel or short-story.
If you haven't seen it, you should.  The ending is utterly crushing, no matter how many times you've seen it.

Desperation (TV mini-series) 11th Mar 2013

Seriously now, WHY?  This was terrible.  Ron Perlman was about the best thing in
it.  The smugness of the 'god is good/terrible/great' thing was nauseating.  I
really need to stop watching these.  I won't.  I'm an idiot.

Dolan's Cadillac (film) - 21st Feb 2013

Why? Seriously, though. Why?

Why do I read Stephen King novels/stories and then watch film adaptations? I know there are some exceptions that don't need to be listed here, but there are so many more that just didn't need to be made. Maybe that's not entirely true. Some of them work well enough on their own, when compared to other films of their quality and production value. For example, I've seen Dolan's Cadillac likened to an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and other stories described as perfect for The Outer Limits. Now, that's all well and good. It's just, when you read Stephen King, you don't ascribe the movie in your mind with the production value of a 70's TV mini-series. That's being a little unfair towards Dolan's Cadillac as it's a pretty good looking film and, while Christian Slater and Wes Bentley are no longer the big hitters they once were (moreso Slater), they're not shit.

And neither is Dolan's Cadillac shit. It's not great and, as a fan of the story and Slater (yep, you heard), I really hoped it would be. One thing that threw me was that, having heard Slater was in it and looking no further into the film until it came through my letterbox, courtesy of Lovefilm, I'd assumed Slater played the part of Robinson. So fully formed was this assumption - made before I'd even read the story - that I read it with Slater in mind. I'd got him looking all harried, sweaty and balding like he did in the film He Was A Quiet Man. Error on my part. Or maybe theirs.

Stephen King film adaptations are a bit like when you go out to eat and have something that blows your mind. Then you have a go at making the dish yourself and it may range from a passable imitation to an inedible mess or on those rare occasions, you nail it or make something not quite the same, but due to the quality of the ingredients and the skill/luck of adaptation it's just as mind blowing. Most of the time, it just won't be as good and you'll realise that you'll never equal the restaurant version and should just save that dish for when you eat out and know that the chef will nail it.

All that said, you know I'm still going to watch all of them. Idiot.

Secret Window (film) 21st May 2012

Writing the post on Secret Window, Secret Garden the other day, I had to stop myself from just writing about the film. Here, it's the other way around. I really don't want to go on about film adaptations of books and their inherent handicap for anyone who has already read it, but here's an example where the film is almost pointless if you know what's going to happen.

In terms of its plot, the film relies so heavily on the twist reveal that, knowing all the events and the outcome, it ends up being a thankless charade. Johnny Depp's performance, particularly the comic touch, saves it from being a total waste of time and the darker ending is a satisfying change but it's really not great.

I don't know what else to say. Part of me is lurching to come out and claim that if you've read a book you should never see the film because you know where the mystery tour is headed. The other part understands that you can know how a magician does a trick and still have your breath taken away by the grace and skill of its execution.


Here, it's just a case of "Oh, that's how it's done..."

Misery (film) – 8th February 2012

I watched the film again last night. It’s very good. I’m not usually James Caan’s number one fan (ahem, sorry) but he did a great job in this and, of course, Kathy Bates was tremendous.
I also watched the accompanying featurette on the DVD from 2000-ish (I’m presuming that date as they were talking about Richard Farnsworth in the past tense) and there was Barry Sonnenfeld talking about how he used different lenses and, as his last job as cinematographer, before he went onto directing such gems as Wild Wild West, but even though the bit about using different lenses to match the tone of certain scenes was interesting, the film generally has the flat look of a TV movie. The more I think about it, the more I'd like to watch the film again with the director's commentary to see what in filmic terms went a good mile or so over my head as I did get the sense of it being filmed and staged with a very classic feel, I just haven't got that film school knowledge to provide adequate points of reference.

Rob Reiner also talked about the casting. I thought it was a nice touch that the relative fame levels of the characters was reflected in the choice of actors. I didn’t know that Kathy Bates was much more of a stage actor at the time but she certainly set out her stall for the film world with this one.

It’s a very faithful adaptation (obviously there are some alterations and omissions - but don't tell me you didn't wince at this version of hobbling too) and, from a fan perspective, that’s perfect, particularly as it’s underpinned by outstanding performances. One of the other things I liked is that the film did a lot of showing and not a lot of telling. It's nice to see that in a book adaptation.

Kathy Bates rules. After her awesome turn on Six Feet Under I'm still crushing on her like crazy. Her part on The Office was lovely too.

I know this post is a bit disjointed and cack, but if there's one thing I want to say it's that in a world where there are really only a handful of really good Stephen King film adaptations among buckets of shit, this is one of the very good ones.

Are you kidding me...?

I know the film/mini-series got some stick but this is terrifying!

The King Long View...continued

I started this post in August last year, but failed miserably in finishing and posting it.  I’ve watched quite a few of the film adaptations recently and meant to write a bit about them at the time but, of course, indolence always wins out; that and the indomitable wariness of ever espousing a critical opinion.

29/03/11            The Shawshank Redemption

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/02/different-seasons-rita-haywo-rth-and.html


I’ll come straight out and say I love this film.  I know there’s some mixed opinion on it, and I summed up mine in a recent tweet – “If you don’t love The Shawshank Redemption, you are either a reactant douche, dead inside or a fucking liar.”

I don’t know about it being one of the best films of all time, but it’s one of my favourites.  Aside from the fact that there’s a yawning chasm between something being critically good and it’s potential to be enjoyed, I can’t help but feel that anyone’s dislike for the film is fuelled by a desire to buck the trend.

30/03/11            Stand by Me

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/03/different-seasons-20th-february-29th.html

This film gets better each time I watch it.  It’s one of the few films where comparisons between it and the book are largely meaningless and the realm of trolling donkeys.

04/04/11            Apt Pupil

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/03/different-seasons-apt-pupil-22nd-march.html

McKellan’s always great, but the kid was just annoying.  I guess that was the point, so he did a good job, but it made it hard to get behind. 

02/05/11            Christine

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/04/christine-30th-march-26th-april-2011.html

Shit.  Can’t be bothered to explain, except to say that Arnie was a dick who was neither menacing enough nor capable of eliciting any sympathy.

11/05/11            Firestarter

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2010/10/firestarter-26th-sep-13th-october.html

I’ve read reviews of the film that hated it.  I didn’t hate it.  Like many adaptations of King’s work, they just stay faithful and let poor performances shit all over your imaginiations.

25/05/11            Cat's Eye

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2010/03/night-shift-20th-feb-8th-mar-2010.html


Not great, but not bad. 

08/06/11            Creepshow

Awful

12/06/11            Pet Sematary

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/05/pet-sematary-26th-april-4th-may-2011.html


Apart from Herman Munster being in it (although I think he was miscast), there’s no justification for this film having been made.  It’s one of the few times where I’ll put my foot down and say “just read the book!”

20/06/11            Cujo

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2010/11/cujo-6th-26th-november.html


A bit pointless.  And they changed the ending.  Pussies.

17/08/11            Silver Bullet

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/05/cycle-of-werewolf-4th-5th-may-2011.html


Definitely one for the ‘so bad it’s good’ category.  Good, but not great.  Gary Busey was typically inappropriate and wonderful.

22/12/11            The Mist

http://thekinglongread.blogspot.com/2011/09/mist-skeleton-crew-22nd-31st-august.html

I loved the novella.  Loved it.  I didn’t like the film nearly as much; mainly because it’s a straightforward retelling of the story that removes all of your imaginary detail and replaces it with someone else’s.  I’ve seen criticisms of the effects and acting which, to be fair, were TV-movie standard (Toby Jones was the standout and Marcia Gay Harden was effective in that I wished her eventual demise could have come within moments of her appearance on screen.  But it was still a solid film.

Much has been made of the ending.  I’d heard it was even bleaker than the book so was very interested into what Darabont had changed.  I know I’m dropping book spoilers all over the place, but I won’t spoil the film ending, save to say that my jaw dropped and I sat gaping at the screen with my mouth agape and thinking ‘fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.’  Awesome.

'Salem's Lot - 1979 TV mini-series

I’m definitely going against Marcus’ advice and running a King Long View alongside this reading project.



I’ll be honest and say that I found it hard to get past how dated it looks. It’s so seventies it hurts and I can’t begin to imagine where the $4 million budget went. Presumably on James Mason’s wage. Not to mention it has got David Soul in it. Aside from the fact that he can’t act and has the most preposterous hair and those glasses, I always pictured Ben Mears as younger and more virile.


Barlow’s appearance was almost equally strange. He was blue and what were those teeth?


I’m entirely willing to acknowledge that I missed something and let Soul and its datedness get in the way of an objective viewing, particularly as a self-professed film aficionado friend (particularly vampire films, it would seem) listed it in his all-time top 5 vampire films.


James Mason was great, though. I’m only just realising how ashamed I should be of myself that I have hardly seen any of his films. I know!! I only saw Kubrick’s Lolita the other week!


Anyway, it made me want to read the book again. So, I’ve got hold of the audiobook so I can listen to it without interrupting my reading progress. Sweet.


I’ve also procured Carrie, read by Sissy Spacek and The Shining, read by Campbell Scott. How fucking cool is that! Campbell Scott is the bomb. If you haven’t seen Roger Dodger, make sure you do. Jesse Eisenberg’s in it as well.


I don’t know if I’ve said on here previously that I always keep an iPod full of audiobooks to feed my book hunger, but as long as this project runs, it’s my way of ‘reading’ things other than Stephen King. In this respect, though, it means I can read the books again while continuing the mission.


So, anyway, I’ll go back to basics soon enough and revisit ‘Salem’s Lot for real.

Carrie - Film

I watched Carrie last night.  I enjoyed it about a hundred times more than the first time couple of times I saw it when I was younger.  Probably for the reasons I keep mentioning.

Anyway, in lieu of a serious discussion of the film I'm going to summarise a major theme thus:

Girls can be cunts and boys will do almost anything for a sniff.

Sorry Brian...

The Shining - Film

I finished reading The Shining on Saturday night and it was a bit late and with a belly-full of wine I didn’t think I’d make it to the end of the film. So, I resolved to do so at the next convenient opportunity.
6 AM, next morning and BOING!, my eyes spring open and sleep eludes me. That’s 6 AM on a Sunday morning, which is a catastrophe in anyone’s book. So, while it’ll be a push to fit the whole thing in before the kids wake up, it’s still dark, I can still have the room and TV to myself, so I tramp downstairs, make a cup of coffee and put the DVD in.


I’ve come to realise that rather than saying that I’m not much of a fan of Kubrick, I should say that I haven’t watched his films properly and didn’t appreciate the complexity of what he was doing. With that in mind, when I went out to buy The Shining on DVD in preparation for when I finished the book, I ended up buying a box-set of his last eight films plus the Jan Harlan documentary.


So, lights off, volume up.


As I’ve said before, comparing books and film adaptations and getting all bent out of shape about the divergences from verbatim is for whiny tits. They are different and for good reason. Kubrick’s film is his vision, not Stephen King’s.
I’ve seen the film before, but this time it hit home. There are times when you wonder whether Jack Nicholson was the right choice for Jack. From early on, you can see the psychosis bubbling under the surface. His cracking up isn’t a big step and I’m sure, even for those who haven’t read the book, it doesn’t come as a surprise.


I made it through the first 45 minutes or so when I heard my son chatting away to himself. Well, I initially just heard some noises and, being a bit on edge from the film, wondered what it was. I paused the film and went to the foot of the stairs to find that he was calling me. So, I went upstairs to find him leaning over the headboard of his bed and peering out the window to announce,
“Daddy, it’s snowing!”
I hardly watch any scheduled television and very rarely see the news or weather reports, so this snowfall came as something of a surprise. There wasn’t much on the ground at that time and it could have gone either way, but after three hours steady snow, we had to cancel the day’s plans (cinema followed by dinner at the mother-in-laws) and were effectively, although much less dramatically than it sounds, snowed in. At this point I had to leave it there and, far from contemplating a bloody conclusion to the day as the mildest of cabin fever seeped in on the heels of the Tinkerbell dvd followed by lashings of Thomas the Tank Engine, we made the best of it.
I eventually finished the film that night. Awesome.
I know many people have a problem with film adaptations for not sticking to the source, but the few I’ve watched so far, ‘Salem’s Lot (2004), The Shining and Carrie last night have been so much better for having just read the books. Far from spoiling them by taking away any of the surprise of the plot turns etc. you can appreciate the film much more as ‘the film.’ There’s no need try to work out motives or who did what (or even who’s going to do what) and, a bit like the inverted detective story format favoured by Columbo and Hitchcock among others, you are free to sit back and revel in the spectacle of it all. Done well, you can see the actors breathing life into the characters, see the director’s take on the vision and, done badly, you at least get a reminder of the Stephen King story and, quite often, a nudge to read the novel or story again.

'Salem's Lot - 2004 Mini-series

I finished watching the 2004 ’Salem’s Lot TV mini-series last night. I watched it over two nights due to its almost three hour runtime and wanting to make sure that had some time on both nights to keep on going with The Shining.
Before I started this project, I was speaking about it to a friend who has read a lot of Stephen King and we got on to the point of the film and TV adaptations and he said he hoped I wouldn’t be wasting my time with some or most of them. Of course, I have pretty much ignored his advice.
I know some are better than others and some, as films in themselves, without the reference point of the novels or stories, are dire. I am prone to accommodating my obsessions, though, and can already see myself going against my better judgement and adding any adaptations to my LOVEFiLM online DVD rental list soon after closing the book.
One of the things that steered me towards not considering it to be a massive waste of my time to watch these adaptations is an interview I heard with Neil Gaiman. When asked why he subsequently wrote a novel of the TV series Neverwhere he said that he saw the book as a ‘movie without a budget’ (I’m a little reticent to put that in quotation marks as I can’t remember the exact wording and haven’t got the interview to hand). Anyway, this idea rings true with me. It’s part of why I love books and reading. Your enjoyment of a book is a subjective thing. Regardless of the quality of the writing, it’s the depth of your imagination that brings the words to life and injects vividity into the black and white of the type. And imagination isn’t bound to or restricted by how much you’ve got to spend on special effects and how advanced these technologies are. Stephen King’s a great writer, so he puts a great movie into your head. It’s a comparative interest, then, to see someone else’s imagining of the story, the characters and the action.
It’s interesting to see what they include and omit, what they alter or invent and to consider the reasons, obvious, less so or purely cynical, for doing so.
So, the ’Salem’s Lot as imagined by Mikael Salomon and Peter Filardi…
Of course, it was hampered by budget, strange performances from Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer and, of course, Rob Lowe was is it. And not forgetting, it’s always nice to see that my teen crush, Samantha Mathis, is still working. They also changed quite a bit of the book. But it wasn’t horrible.  (By the way, I can't be bothered hyperlinking anymore.  You know how Google, Wikipedia and IMDb work.)


My main enjoyment came from reliving my imagining of the book while seeing someone else’s. Having just read and enjoyed the book, it’s a shame that, due to my need to keep things going with this project, I have to put it down and pick up the next one. There isn’t a lot of time to dwell on it, consider it and let the whole thing sink in. With some of the books, The Shining in particular, I plan to reread at some point. It will be a long time in the future, but it’s on my ‘to do’. At least with Kubrick’s film and the mini-series whose script he oversaw, I can stay in the world of the book while I move on to Night Shift.


I seem to have forgotten to say that anyone who says that a film isn’t as good as the book on which it is based is a tool. It goes without saying. The two are incomparable.