The Stephen King thread

Favourite book? (as of 2017)

  • Carrie (1974)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rage (1977 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Long Walk (1979 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Firestarter (1980)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cujo (1981)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Danse Macabre (1981, non-fiction)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Roadwork (1981 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Different Seasons (1982, collection)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Running Man (1982 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Creepshow (1982, comic book)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cycle of the Werewolf (1983)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Talisman (1984, with P. Straub)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Thinner (1984 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nightmares in the Sky (1988, non-fiction)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Dark Half (1989)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Four Past Midnight (1990, collection)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dolores Caiborne (1992)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rose Madder (1995)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Desperation (1996)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Regulators (1996 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bag of Bones (1998)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (1999)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Secret Windows (2000, non-fiction)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dreamcatcher (2001)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Black House (2001, with P. Straub)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • From a Buick 8 (2002)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Everything's Eventual (2002, collection)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wolves of the Calla (2003, Dark Tower)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Song of Susannah (2004, Dark Tower)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Faithful (2004, non-fiction)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Colorado Kid (2005)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blaze (2007 - Bachman)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Duma Key (2008)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Just After Sunset (2008, collection)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Full Dark, No Stars (2010, collection)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Wind Through the Keyhole (2012, Dark Tower)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joyland (2013)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Doctor Sleep (2013)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mr. Mercedes (2014, the Bill Hodges trilogy)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Revival (2014)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Finders Keepers (2015, the Bill Hodges trilogy)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • End of Watch (2016, the Bill Hodges trilogy)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gwendy's Button Box (2017, with R. Chizmar)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sleeping Beauties (2017, to be released)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
Salemslotthemovie.jpg


Salem's Lot (1979)

Wow. Shit is too good a word for this. I wasn't expecting much, but sitting through the whole three hours was pure torture. Where should I start? First of all, if you liked pretty much any character in the novel, forget it now. Ben became this sleazy, burnt-out, middle-aged weirdo, Matt is much more senile, "Weasel" Ed became a regular hobo, Straker became this doddering, weak and pathetic figure (more pitiful than unnerving), Sue looks more like someone's aunt than a girl freshly out of school (yet she still lives with her parents), Callahan appears for 2 minutes at most, Jimmy is completely gone (they merged his character with Sue's Dad) and Barlow is this Orlok-like insane ghoul who is mute. And yeah, pretty much everyone is at least 5-15 older than in the book. Weird, huh? But they still say the same lines in the same situations (well, apart from Barlow, obviously). They changed some characters around, sometimes only their names (Tibbit) for pretty much no reason at all.

The pacing is downright horrid - the series keep the exposition from the book (more or less) and then finish everything up in, like, ten minutes. There are about two scenes with Barlow, maybe three minutes altogether. The first half of the book is adapted pretty much scene for scene, yet the second half is gone in a blink. Makes absolutely no sense (well, budget-wise it does, but that's no excuse). Apart from maybe the kids behind the windows, no scene is even chilling, let alone scary. When it tries to be, it's pretty much laughable (the camera zooms in on a plastic face with the cheesiest sound effects ever invented). Most of the time you just watch these pathetic variations on the characters you once knew as they miserably recite the lines from the book, without passion or care. When it isn't boring, it looks like a parody, and an unfunny one at that.

Avoid at all costs. I'm not kidding. I actually happen to know for a fact there will be worse King adaptations in the future, but this one's really bad. I'd rather repeat any of the Carrie films thrice than this shite once. That's three hours of my life I'll never get back.
 
I didn't read IT the book. I saw the movie though:

OMG it was so fucking awesome. They didn't hold back or anything except for the orgy scene I heard of (that would've been way too much). Apart from the curly haired kid all the characters were awesomely developed and the actors completely nailed it. Too many awesome moments to count. It managed to be both scary and funny.

Also made me realize how much stuff Stranger Things copied from IT... Still love it though :P

Anybody else seen it?
 
I saw it three days ago and I wanted to let the feelings settle down before I'd write anything.

But I loved it.
First of all, either I'm getting desensitised (or deeee-hyumanised! Don't you realise?) or I know the story in question too well or the director is incompetent, but I wasn't scared at all. But yeah, that's coming from someone who spent a lot of his spare time watching and reading various horror stories, so it's possible I'm at fault there. Also, it's still hundred times scarier than the TV miniseries, but that's a given, I guess.

Second of all - I realise that some of the book fans will be disappointed, because - while staying very true to the novel - there were some changes in the movie in the end. I don't think anyone really misses the children orgy and having two versions of the Chüd ritual as in the book would probably make no sense film-wise (I guess we'll get the only "proper" version in the next part), but also the story as a whole is a bit streamlined, some shortcuts are made etc. That's expected and the film works well as a result. Still, some nitpickers (wifey :wub: ) might complain a bit. Yet I say "swell". Because the book is probably unfilmable as it is and a literal adaptation would be probably unwatchable, even for the fans of the novel, whether they realise it or not. Also, that being said, a lot of the stuff is lifted directly from the book and this adaptation is certainly much more accurate than the 90's version.

The setting change was also probably for the better. Well, maybe not for the better, but a wise choice anyway. Remember, the adult part of the novel was meant to be set in present time then and King's fond memories of growing up in the 50's are great and I love them, but as a whole it would probably resonate much less with audiences today, because, well, let's be honest - the Baby Boomers (and King himself) are nowadays the generation of our grandfathers - the update of the setting was done in a believable and sensitive way and I appreciate the choice. :yes:

Connected with the previous paragraph is the choice of "updating" the kids' fears. I mean, while understandable for the book's 50's setting, who nowadays is afraid of werewolves and mummies? Therefore making the Losers a late 80's club and changing some of the particular scares actually worked for the atmosphere of the movie, IMHO ... Wifey said that the "distorted" woman that haunted Stanley was a retread of Mama (the director's previous film, also excellent BTW), but I realised that only in hindsight. Her introduction (where she disappears from the painting) was particularly well done and I can't help but to like her much more than even the book's "dead boys".

Oh gosh, the actors. The chemistry between the youngsters (especially Richie and Eddie) was absolutely unbelievable - I could watch a fucking three-seasons TV series with them. All of them pretty much unknown, they captured the characters and the spirit of the book so well I could hardly believe my eyes. Skarsgard's Pennywise took a bit longer to truly appreciate (at first he reminded me some weird Burton-like version of Peter Pettigrew on speed), but I came to the conclusion he does him well in the end and he also managed to play the part in a completely different way than Tim Curry and so really made the role his own (pretty much like Nicholson's / Ledger's Joker - despite popular opinion, none of them is really superior, both are stellar performances by a talented actor that are pretty much incomparable). Beverly's Dad's actor plays the role in such a way it will make your skin want to crawl off you and jump on the next train to Poughkeepsie and Bev herself ... made me feel like a dirty old man at a tender young age of 25. I mean, after certain scenes I felt I should go to confession a bit too early this time, so I'll refrain from talking about her acting abilities at once, as it would be obviously way too biased and instead say that - while I miss the sociopathic side story of Hockstetter that really makes you feel you should wash your soul in bleach - his actor made him memorable even in the 2 minutes he had in this movie.

The biggest complain probably would be that by dropping some of the book's exposition and inner structure the film gets to some points way too quick, the scares are somewhat incoherently placed and as a result - for the people who have not read the book, at least - the film might probably seem a bit too phantasmagoric. Again, not a serious problem as such, but I've noticed there have been complaints. Also, since I know for a fact the director can create an atmosphere of genuine creeps (again, Mama), I think the film could have been scarier. I guess that with all the story and characters, there was no time to build some serious tension in certain scenes as not to stretch the "first part" out to three hours.
 
I think that, if you read the book and know what happens, the "It" movie isn't as scary as it would have been if you knew nothing about it going in. My wife, who hadn't read the book, thought it was pretty scary. I really didn't think it was all that scary--but then, I'd read the book. Still, the movie is quite good, and the child actors are outstanding.

But where was the Turtle?? :p @Maturin should be offended...
 
Last edited:
I've read some exciting reviews of that one. But I don't think I'll get to it before we get to Gerald's Game the book. So far I'm having trouble forcing myself to get to the Salem adaptation sequel. Since the original was abominable itself (and that one's even considered to be okay), man...

Also, I'm stuck in Rage. Some of the most boring and rudimentary stuff I've ever seen in King's work. But I'll try to pull through. :D
 
Gerald's Game is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read. Certain scenes are so deeply ingrained in my brain that thinking of them makes me almost physically sick. I'm not sure I want to see those moments on screen.
 
Oh, that's interesting. I almost don't remember it anymore, I wonder what will my opinion be after re-reading. Honestly, I had to skim through the synopsis now to remember how it actually ended. Any particular "highlights"? I remember only the
dog eating the husband.
 
Any particular "highlights"? [/SPOILER]
Of course
Jessie's sexual abuse by her father
was extremely difficult to stomach, but the thing that shook me the most was
the way she escapes the handcuffs by slicing her wrist open and peeling off the skin of her hand. :puke::puke::puke:
 
Oh yeah, I remember those. That's some heavy stuff indeed. -_-

I'd still take those over Apt Pupil, the sewer orgy and the various "improvements" in Tommyknockers. Especially since I've read the latter throughout the school night without getting any sleep. The next day was one of the weirdest, most surreal experiences I've had so far. :confused:
 
Back
Top