Long Live the King! The Stephen King's movies Thread.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Xtroid

And then in the 2002 sequel, Malcolm McDowell played Rainbird. lol

Haha
I didn't even know they made a sequel.

[Xtroid]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

Haha
I didn't even know they made a sequel.

It was a TV miniseries and aired on the Sci-fi Channel.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Xtroid

It was a TV miniseries and aired on the Sci-fi Channel.

Thanks for the info.

[childeroland]

Best
--easily Stanley Kubrick's film of The Shining
--Stand By Me
--Brian de Palma's Carrie

Worst
--The Children of the Corn films except maybe the first one. Pick any one of them, save the first.
--not a theatrical release, but The Tommyknockers almost manages to be worse than the book. And that's an amazing feat.

[Xtroid]

--not a theatrical release, but The Tommyknockers almost manages to be worse than the book. And that's an amazing feat.

Yeah, the book isn't great, but the miniseries plays like a parody of it. I can't believe Lawrence D. Cohen (Carrie!) wrote this and someone actually green lighted it. Speaking of green, the filmmakers uses green light to scare you. The special effects are goofy - a typewriter glowing green is not scary. You know you're in trouble when the best actor is Jimmy Smits, and the biggest name is Traci Lords and it isn't a porno. It's quite difficult to take Traci Lords seriously, even when she's not using a tube of lipstick that shoots a green death ray to kill people...

Actually with Traci Lords, doesn't it sound like a porno? I mean, Tommyknockers?

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Xtroid

Yeah, the book isn't great, but the miniseries plays like a parody of it. I can't believe Lawrence D. Cohen (Carrie!) wrote this and someone actually green lighted it. Speaking of green, the filmmakers uses green light to scare you. The special effects are goofy - a typewriter glowing green is not scary. You know you're in trouble when the best actor is Jimmy Smits, and the biggest name is Traci Lords and it isn't a porno. It's quite difficult to take Traci Lords seriously, even when she's not using a tube of lipstick that shoots a green death ray to kill people...

Actually with Traci Lords, doesn't it sound like a porno? I mean, Tommy knockers?

Lol
The book might not have been as great as other King's novels, but it still probably deserved a better adaptation. I kinda liked the concept of ghosts of dead aliens, possessing people. A scifi/horror type of story.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by childeroland

Best
--easily Stanley Kubrick's film of The Shining
--Stand By Me
--Brian de Palma's Carrie

Worst
--The Children of the Corn films except maybe the first one. Pick any one of them, save the first.
--not a theatrical release, but The Tommyknockers almost manages to be worse than the book. And that's an amazing feat.

The Children of the Corn might deserve another adaptation. The book was pretty scary.

[Bruce Banner]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

The Children of the Corn might deserve another adaptation. The book was pretty scary.

I believe the syfy channel already did a version of the original story. I do remember that instead of the character being a doctor he was a former marine.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Bruce Banner

I believe the syfy channel already did a version of the original story. I do remember that instead of the character being a doctor he was a former marine.

I was thinking more about another movie version, but thanks for the info.

[Bruce Banner]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

I was thinking more about another movie version, but thanks for the info.

I figured you did, just thought I would throw it out there.
I have to say the main kids in that version are more annoying than the original ones.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Bruce Banner

I figured you did, just thought I would throw it out there.
I have to say the main kids in that version are more annoying than the original ones.

Haha. I wish they would stop making worse versions of the original ones for syfy and make better versions for the big screen.

[jonathancrane]

I am excited about the IT remake.
Since it is going to be going for an 'R' rating,
it should hopefully amplify the scares...not necessarily gore, but scenes of terror that would not be passed by the television censors. I hope that they could have Tim Curry or someone of the same caliber. 'course, I am trying to figure out how they can condense the book to two hours, without going the route Zack Snyder did for "Watchmen."
We shall see.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by jonathancrane

I am excited about the IT remake.
Since it is going to be going for an 'R' rating,
it should hopefully amplify the scares...not necessarily gore, but scenes of terror that would not be passed by the television censors. I hope that they could have Tim Curry or someone of the same caliber. 'course, I am trying to figure out how they can condense the book to two hours, without going the route Zack Snyder did for "Watchmen."
We shall see.

Yeah, I'm excited too and wonder how they will condense the story as well, without damaging it or changing it too much.
I'm also very curious about who they'll cast as Pennywise. I think Curry is too old now.
People were mentioning the name of Paul Giamatti on the Hype. It's a good idea because he is a great actor, but my first choice would still be Jim Carrey. He can do funny and dark (as proven in Eternal Sunshine, # 23, Philip Morris etc...) has great physicality and an imposing stature.
I personally think he'd be great for the role. But like you said, we shall see.

[Sawyer]

Fun as It and The Stand (my two favorite King novels) may have been, they weren't very strong adaptations at all. I'm glad to hear that they're both going to be done once again and hope that they'll be much improved over their previous adaptations. Same goes for Salem's Lot. I'd love to see that done correctly.

As for those already done well...
The Shining (not a great adaptation, but a great film. So good that it almost makes you forgive Kubrick for throwing the baby out with the bathwater)
Stand by Me (couldn't possibly be more perfect)
Misery (Reiner does it again)
The Green Mile
The Shawshank Redemption
The Dead Zone
Carrie

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Fun as It and The Stand (my two favorite King novels) may have been, they weren't very strong adaptations at all. I'm glad to hear that they're both going to be done once again and hope that they'll be much improved over their previous adaptations. Same goes for Salem's Lot. I'd love to see that done correctly.

As for those already done well...
The Shining (not a great adaptation, but a great film. So good that it almost makes you forgive Kubrick for throwing the baby out with the bathwater)
Stand by Me (couldn't possibly be more perfect)
Misery (Reiner does it again)
The Green Mile
The Shawshank Redemption
The Dead Zone
Carrie

I agree. They were maybe limited by the TV Format back then.
They are such massive, epic books that they are probably also hard to pull off on the big screen though.
Maybe something like a HBO miniseries could do them justice. They would be able to show everything (contentwise and lengthwise) and involve top notch talents in front and behind the camera.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing them remade closer to the books, in some form or another.
And speaking of King's epic novels, I think someone should do "The Talisman."

[Xtroid]

Like I said, Salem's Lot is one of my favourite horror movies, if not, my favourite. At least my favourite vampire flick.

Yes, it's a made-for-television miniseries, but Hooper made cinema for television in this case. It's also the perfect example of how to make a horror movie, the sense of dread and despair; loads of atmosphere, suspense over gore, a Bernie Herrmann type score, blood thirsty (un-erotic) vampires, a haunted house, dark humor... it has everything you would want from a horror movie. It's mesmerizing, masterfully directed by Hopper, and featuring strong homages to Psycho and Nosferatu.

As Salem's Lot starts, we are introduced to a man and a boy. We don't know who they are, nor what/who is after them, but the viewer is hooked. This is how you set up a three-hour long film. The opening titles are something special; a house in pitch darkness with one lit window, a full moon in the background with a wolf howling. As the cast and crew credits roll, it slowly changes from night to day. Perfect intro to a horror movie. The opening credits to John Carpenter's Halloween are probably most renowned, but Salem's Lot surpasses them.



The vampires here are pure evil, creatures of the night with eyes that glow in the dark, like animals. Another thing I like is the role reversal of the master vampire and the human servant. Typically in fiction, and King's book, the master is a sophisticated and intelligent seducer who charms his way through the story and the servant (The Renfield) is a repellant, vile freak. In the Salem's Lot film, the roles are switched, with Barlow as the ugly one and Straker as the charming one.

It makes more sense. If you're a vampire, wouldn't you want your servant to be an intelligible, reserved, average looking person capable of blending in with society, someone who doesn't eat bugs and doesn't get thrown into the loony bin?

In the book, Straker, while not Renfield-like crazy, behaves terribly against everyone. He's evil, and doesn't hide it. He's not very subtle. Barlow in the book is essentially interchangeable with the literary Count Dracula. Barlow and Straker are the same in the book. Boring. The 1979 film improves upon the book by switching the roles. More screentime is given to James Mason as Straker who befriends the people in town, giving them practically treasures from all over the world, and gleefully will tell someone "You'll enjoy Mr. Barlow. And he'll enjoy you." Great line, and Stephen King didn't write it. James Mason invests the role of The Renfield with elegant menace instead of gibbering insanity.

Visually, Reggie Nalder's Kurt Barlow is a recreation of Count Orlock. In terms of demeanor, Nalder's Barlow most closely resembles Christopher Lee's non-speaking performance in Dracula: Prince of Darkness. The total effect is one of the grander achievements of horror on the small screen, and Barlow seems like he really could make the room fifteen or twenty degrees colder just by stepping into it. By dehumanizing him, the filmmakers made a monstrosity that is something to be feared, not romanticized.

Mason's worldliness and good breeding are the perfect counterweight to Nalder's animalistic, wild-eyed viciousness, making for a very well-rounded partnership of evil.

Tobe Hooper on Salem's Lot, "This film is very spooky - it suggests things and always has the overtone of the grave. It affects you differently than my other horror films... A television movie does not have blood or violence. It has atmosphere which creates something you cannot escape - the reminder that our time is limited and all the accoutrements that go with it, such as the visuals."

The tagline for Salem's Lot is "The ultimate in terror!" Indeed it is.

[Figs]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Fun as It and The Stand (my two favorite King novels) may have been, they weren't very strong adaptations at all. I'm glad to hear that they're both going to be done once again and hope that they'll be much improved over their previous adaptations. Same goes for Salem's Lot. I'd love to see that done correctly.

As for those already done well...
The Shining (not a great adaptation, but a great film. So good that it almost makes you forgive Kubrick for throwing the baby out with the bathwater)
Stand by Me (couldn't possibly be more perfect)
Misery (Reiner does it again)
The Green Mile
The Shawshank Redemption
The Dead Zone
Carrie

No love for The Mist?

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Xtroid

Like I said, Salem's Lot is one of my favourite horror movies, if not, my favourite. At least my favourite vampire flick.

Yes, it's a made-for-television miniseries, but Hooper made cinema for television in this case. It's also the perfect example of how to make a horror movie, the sense of dread and despair; loads of atmosphere, suspense over gore, a Bernie Herrmann type score, blood thirsty (un-erotic) vampires, a haunted house, dark humor... it has everything you would want from a horror movie. It's mesmerizing, masterfully directed by Hopper, and featuring strong homages to Psycho and Nosferatu.

As Salem's Lot starts, we are introduced to a man and a boy. We don't know who they are, nor what/who is after them, but the viewer is hooked. This is how you set up a three-hour long film. The opening titles are something special; a house in pitch darkness with one lit window, a full moon in the background with a wolf howling. As the cast and crew credits roll, it slowly changes from night to day. Perfect intro to a horror movie. The opening credits to John Carpenter's Halloween are probably most renowned, but Salem's Lot surpasses them.



The vampires here are pure evil, creatures of the night with eyes that glow in the dark, like animals. Another thing I like is the role reversal of the master vampire and the human servant. Typically in fiction, and King's book, the master is a sophisticated and intelligent seducer who charms his way through the story and the servant (The Renfield) is a repellant, vile freak. In the Salem's Lot film, the roles are switched, with Barlow as the ugly one and Straker as the charming one.

It makes more sense. If you're a vampire, wouldn't you want your servant to be an intelligible, reserved, average looking person capable of blending in with society, someone who doesn't eat bugs and doesn't get thrown into the loony bin?

In the book, Straker, while not Renfield-like crazy, behaves terribly against everyone. He's evil, and doesn't hide it. He's not very subtle. Barlow in the book is essentially interchangeable with the literary Count Dracula. Barlow and Straker are the same in the book. Boring. The 1979 film improves upon the book by switching the roles. More screentime is given to James Mason as Straker who befriends the people in town, giving them practically treasures from all over the world, and gleefully will tell someone "You'll enjoy Mr. Barlow. And he'll enjoy you." Great line, and Stephen King didn't write it. James Mason invests the role of The Renfield with elegant menace instead of gibbering insanity.

Visually, Reggie Nalder's Kurt Barlow is a recreation of Count Orlock. In terms of demeanor, Nalder's Barlow most closely resembles Christopher Lee's non-speaking performance in Dracula: Prince of Darkness. The total effect is one of the grander achievements of horror on the small screen, and Barlow seems like he really could make the room fifteen or twenty degrees colder just by stepping into it. By dehumanizing him, the filmmakers made a monstrosity that is something to be feared, not romanticized.

Mason's worldliness and good breeding are the perfect counterweight to Nalder's animalistic, wild-eyed viciousness, making for a very well-rounded partnership of evil.

Tobe Hooper on Salem's Lot, "This film is very spooky - it suggests things and always has the overtone of the grave. It affects you differently than my other horror films... A television movie does not have blood or violence. It has atmosphere which creates something you cannot escape - the reminder that our time is limited and all the accoutrements that go with it, such as the visuals."

The tagline for Salem's Lot is "The ultimate in terror!" Indeed it is.

Good Post and awesome poster (*right clicks saves*)
I agree with everything you said. I like how you describe the dynamics between master and servant, Barlow and Straker, and how it differs from the book and vampire literature in general. James Mason was an amazing actor and this is another one of his great performance.
The only thing that I thought could have maybe been enhanced was the casting of David soul. But maybe it's because to me he was irremediably linked to the role of Hutch.
Anyway, it's probably one of the best TV movie I've ever seen (definitely film quality level), certainly one of the scariest and it really scared the s#@t out of me when I saw it at a young age. That vampire kid floating outside the window was the stuff of nightmare and a very powerful image.
It'll be hard to top if anyone wants to remake it, but I'm not completely against it as I like to see great stories retold through a different artistic eye. But thanks to Tobe Hopper, I saw it done great once already.

Originally Posted by Figs

No love for The Mist?

I really liked The Mist. The ensemble cast, the monsters, The B-Movie vibe. It's one of King's best adaptation imo.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Figs

No love for The Mist?

Haven't seen it yet.

[jonathancrane]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

Good Post and awesome poster (*right clicks saves*)
I agree with everything you said. I like how you describe the dynamics between master and servant, Barlow and Straker, and how it differs from the book and vampire literature in general. James Mason was an amazing actor and this is another one of his great performance.
The only thing that I thought could have maybe been enhanced was the casting of David soul. But maybe it's because to me he was irremediably linked to the role of Hutch.
Anyway, it's probably one of the best TV movie I've ever seen (definitely film quality level), certainly one of the scariest and it really scared the s#@t out of me when I saw it at a young age. That vampire kid floating outside the window was the stuff of nightmare and a very powerful image.
It'll be hard to top if anyone wants to remake it, but I'm not completely against it as I like to see great stories retold through a different artistic eye. But thanks to Tobe Hopper, I saw it done great once already.


I really liked The Mist. The ensemble cast, the monsters, The B-Movie vibe. It's one of King's best adaptation imo.

Of course, it's from Frank Darabont, has a good track record with adaptations of King novels. Only other director in this category would be Mick Garris.

[Figs]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

I really liked The Mist. The ensemble cast, the monsters, The B-Movie vibe. It's one of King's best adaptation imo.

I enjoyed it as well. I still haven't gotten around to watching it in black and white yet.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Figs

I enjoyed it as well. I still haven't gotten around to watching it in black and white yet.

I haven't seen the black and version either yet, but I like the idea and I'm sure it enhances the 50's feel of the movie. Also I really like black and white films. Old ones, but also modern day ones too like Ed Wood of course or The Man Who Wasn't There.

[nite-owl]

I remember how depressed me and brother felt after watching The Mist.

[LOBO3315a]

Yeah, it wasn't a happy ending. It wasn't supposed to be.

[Xtroid]

The Mist was good movie... up until that ending. As this review put it:

http://thestopbutton.com/2008/04/10/the-mist-2007-bw/

It’s rare and relatively modern to come across the film where the ending can ruin it. The surprise ending as opposed to the natural narrative progression. They rarely work. I’d read The Mist had a controversial ending, which, watching the last minutes of the film, I assumed referred to the incredibly bold thing Darabont does. Instead, he cops out at the last second. Well, not the literal last second, but close to… the last two minutes maybe. It’s one of those films, somewhat common these days, where cutting it a few moments before would make all the difference.

These idiotic endings, it seems, rarely happen in films I don’t care about. The closest comparison for The Mist, in terms of damage done to an otherwise excellent and–if it weren’t so cheap–important film, is Vanilla Sky. Both films endings make them more palatable to mainstream audiences, something The Mist–most of which is a condemnation of modern American–shouldn’t really have cared about. Darabont managed an incredibly different balance at the end between horror, science fiction, and wonderment at horrors. What he managed was very good, then he flushed it all down the toilet to be cheap. It’s funny there’s a reference to John Carpenter’s The Thing at the beginning. I just wish Darabont had watched that film and looked at how the ending there worked.

The acting is all stellar, with Thomas Jane turning in a singular leading man performance. Marcia Gay Harden is good as the religious zealot, a role another actress wouldn’t have been able to imbue with the occasional–and necessary–humanity. Darabont standard William Sadler, good as always. The real surprise is Toby Jones, who brings the film some wry humor and a lot of sensitivity. Both Andre Braugher and Frances Sternhagen, no surprise, excellent. Jeffrey DeMunn’s also quite good. Laurie Holden, who I guess Darabont’s been trying highlight since The Majestic, is also good. She has the least to do, but she does well with it. Sam Witwer, in one of the showier roles, is good too.

Darabont’s director’s cut doesn’t feature any additional scenes, but is in black and white (he couldn’t get the studio to go for black and white for theatrical). The light grey mist, the wash of emptiness across the frame, is perfect. Darabont’s got some great shots here (some where it’s clear he wasn’t composing for black and white and some where it doesn’t make sense he’d be doing it for color).

The majority of the film is very smart, which is another reason the idiotic ending hurts so much. It’s not an all-encompassing blunder, which is why it doesn’t tear the film down completely… but it comes real close.

Jane’s the one who saves what’s left.

I'm surprised Family Guy haven't actually spoofed it...

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!: