One of my friends from college once said that King's strength lay not in his plots or characters but in his writing style. It was for this reason that the movies based on King's work don't seem as effective. I agree, King is a master storyteller, though he can do a great job with characterization when he puts forth the effort. There's a perception that all of the movies based on King's work are watered down and inferior.
I don't think it's that cut and dry though. It's true there have been some bad movies based on King's novels (Cujo and Christine being a couple of the major ones). However, there have been some good ones made, especially in recent years. Even my previous statement saying that director Frank Darabont was the only one who could really handle King's work doesn't hold up once I thought about it. I enjoyed Secret Window as well as 1408. It's not just the newer movies that work well. Looking back, even some of the older ones stand out.
The original Carrie film was quite good. It's kind of dated, but like with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you can't really help it and it doesn't hurt the film in any major way. The SciFi channel did a modern tv miniseries based on the book as well which didn't fare quite as well.
Misery was another King film that translated really well to film. This is in no small part due to the performances of the two leads, but it was still a good, creepy movie.
Kubrick's take on The Shining was a poor adaptation but it was a pretty good movie in its own right. Flawed, yes, but still fun to watch if only for Nicholson's great performance.
There is also Stand by Me, based on King's short story The Body. This is one I still need to check out but I have heard very good things about it.
I think part of the problem is that there are so many King movies. I discovered that there were movies made that I didn't know existed. Riding the Bullet and Needful Things got film adaptations? I knew, The Dark Half was made into a movie but it's not a title that stands out. Same thing goes for Hearts in Atlantis. You've got Thinner, Apt Pupil, Delores Claiborne not to mention all the made for TV movies.
The TV movies are generally the subpar ones. It only worked because Tim Curry was so spectacular as Pennywise. The six hour miniseries based on The Stand was also pretty good. Storm of the Century was something that King wrote specifically for television and that was decent. The Tommyknockers on the other hand? Yeah not so good.
One major comment is that the movies aren't as good as the stories or books they're based on. I ask you though, is the movie ever better than the book? The general rule is that the book is better for every author so you can't really hold King's work responsible for that.
So basically, what it boils down to is that King's work is like all movies in general. There are a lot of decent and enjoyable ones, there are some godawful ones, and there are a few great ones. It's true that King's greatest strength is in his ability to tell a story and while the movies may not measure up to the books, they can still be worth watching.
I don't think it's that cut and dry though. It's true there have been some bad movies based on King's novels (Cujo and Christine being a couple of the major ones). However, there have been some good ones made, especially in recent years. Even my previous statement saying that director Frank Darabont was the only one who could really handle King's work doesn't hold up once I thought about it. I enjoyed Secret Window as well as 1408. It's not just the newer movies that work well. Looking back, even some of the older ones stand out.
The original Carrie film was quite good. It's kind of dated, but like with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you can't really help it and it doesn't hurt the film in any major way. The SciFi channel did a modern tv miniseries based on the book as well which didn't fare quite as well.
Misery was another King film that translated really well to film. This is in no small part due to the performances of the two leads, but it was still a good, creepy movie.
Kubrick's take on The Shining was a poor adaptation but it was a pretty good movie in its own right. Flawed, yes, but still fun to watch if only for Nicholson's great performance.
There is also Stand by Me, based on King's short story The Body. This is one I still need to check out but I have heard very good things about it.
I think part of the problem is that there are so many King movies. I discovered that there were movies made that I didn't know existed. Riding the Bullet and Needful Things got film adaptations? I knew, The Dark Half was made into a movie but it's not a title that stands out. Same thing goes for Hearts in Atlantis. You've got Thinner, Apt Pupil, Delores Claiborne not to mention all the made for TV movies.
The TV movies are generally the subpar ones. It only worked because Tim Curry was so spectacular as Pennywise. The six hour miniseries based on The Stand was also pretty good. Storm of the Century was something that King wrote specifically for television and that was decent. The Tommyknockers on the other hand? Yeah not so good.
One major comment is that the movies aren't as good as the stories or books they're based on. I ask you though, is the movie ever better than the book? The general rule is that the book is better for every author so you can't really hold King's work responsible for that.
So basically, what it boils down to is that King's work is like all movies in general. There are a lot of decent and enjoyable ones, there are some godawful ones, and there are a few great ones. It's true that King's greatest strength is in his ability to tell a story and while the movies may not measure up to the books, they can still be worth watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment