Suspect Takes on Stephen King

The man has dozens of books to his name and just about as many movie adaptations. While being known as the King of Horror, some of his more acclaimed film adaptations are from different genres.

Here I am going to tackle every single Stephen King adapted film. Good or bad, I'll watch it. The man has a wide list of movies to dive into, perfect for this October season and beyond.

I believe there to be around 40 or so films in total that are in one way or another associated with King. So let's start:

*Since, Gerald's Game, The Dark Tower and It are recent viewings, I'm going to include my reviews of them here for this list.


1. Gerald's Game
2. It
3. The Dark Tower
4. Dreamcatcher
5. Christine

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

For a film about a woman tied up for 85% of the movie, Gerald's Game does a pretty good job of not letting you get bored. There are moments of slowness that are tied to character interactions, but as a whole, there is a surprising amount of tension and creepiness to have in this Stephen King adaptation.

Jessie and Gerald go to a secluded get away cabin in the middle of the woods to reinvigorate their sex life. Gerald decides to bring some handcuffs to spice things up. Jessie goes along with it at first, but quickly becomes uncomfortable and wants it to stop. Unfortunately for her, this is when Gerald has a heart attack and dies. She is now stuck, handcuffed to a bed with no way of getting out. To make matters worse, there is a stray dog nearby who is getting really hungry.

King adaptations are always hit or miss and this year has seen an explosion of King adaptations hitting us. Again, some good (It) and some bad (The Dark Tower). Gerald's Game is one that I suspect will be barely remembered, but if it is, will be remembered of fondly. There is nothing spectacular with Mike Flanagan's adaptation here, it merely serves as a faithful adaptation of a quick and short story.

Jessie's sanity starts to slip and she sees her husband walking and talking, despite his dead body lying on the floor at the foot of the bed. This offers up some breathing room and character interaction for our lead actress, Carla Gugino. Eventually we are treated to some traumatic flashbacks of Jessie, that helps explain why her sanity slips so easily. She is a broken person to begin with and Gugino manages to sell that in her facial expressions due to her lack of ability to move.

What would a King adaptation be without a bit of crying worthy horror, right? Gerald's Game has bits of gross sequences, mainly involving the dog or her attempts to get free from the handcuffs. I cringed a bit at the latter. There is also a bit of mystery added in with a third character; The Moonlight Man. Is he real, or is she imagining him?

I think a leaner run time would have helped this film, losing a segment here or there where her husband is just talking nonsense to her. Also, maybe one more sequence with her trying to outsmart her current situation. I feel like she could have thought her way out a bit more, whether that would have been successful or not didn't matter, it should have been the effort. Yet, the film is a success in my eyes and another well done genre picture from Flanagan.

I've still to see all 3 so didn't read your review yet but I'm hoping to catch all 3 real soon.

__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

Stephen King terrified people with IT, his second longest novel next to The Stand. Bringing kids fears to life with the embodiment of Pennywise the dancing clown. In 1990, the 'epic' story was turned into a two part TV-Mini series starring Tim Curry and John Ritter. As a kid, that film was terrifying due to the performance of the friendly clown with a sinister undertone. Looking back now, it's incredibly cheesy and 'of the time'. So an update was needed and Stephen King has had a huge year; with The Dark Tower, Netflix's Gerald's Game and a new tv series The Mist, he's back in the spotlight.

In the town of Derry, Maine, kids go missing. So much that the rate is six times the national average. One of those kids is Georgie, a little boy who disappeared down the sewers. His brother Bill, has never stopped looking for him. Along with his friends, he plans to search the sewers, hoping to find at least a body. Along with his friends, known as The Losers Club, they make it their mission this summer...but when they find out the answers lead to a child killing clown, their nightmares become a reality.

IT was going to be a big success, but no one anticipated how big a success. After a massive weekend at the box-office, people are looking to be scared again, in R-rated territory no less. The road to the finish line was a long one for the film, with Cary Fukunaga wanting to write and direct. Those plans fell through and his reasons were that the studio wanted to make a generic 'jump scare' film, where he wanted to tell a deeper story about the kids. The finished film, courtesy of Mama director Muschietti manages to balance those two aspects quite well. The decision to split the film in two and use the first half to focus on the kids only was an interesting move and one that let the story breathe a little bit more. We're already being pulled in plenty of directions with the numerous characters, to have to be pulled into their adult version too would be too much.

The story has been "updated" and takes place in the 80's. Hot off the heels of Strangers Things, IT plays into some nostalgia here and it works.The kids look and act the parts very well and all have great chemistry. I was particularly impressed with Sophia Lillis who plays Beverly. She looks like a young Amy Adams and has enough charisma to have a career in the industry. With just enough sass, but obvious fear lurking under the surface, she has the most to engage with. Her nightmare sequence in the bathroom might be a tad bit of overkill and doesn't feel as sinister as the 1990's tv version. Something about the father touching the blood on the sink irks me more from the tv version than him simply not noticing the room completely covered in it in this film. It also makes the 'clean-up' part a little bit less believable here. Bill, our defacto lead character, is tormented by the loss of his little brother, this is his defining characteristic. These two characters get the most attention while we just float around the rest of the kids stories. The one with the least amount of screen time has to be Mike, who is the outsider of the group. These kids made me laugh and made me believe in their friendship, which makes the film work and connect.

Skarsgård had the difficult task of following in Tim Curry's footsteps. He does a really good job with Pennywise though. His otherworldly eyes were not CGI, he managed to move them in different directions himself and his creepy voice added to the sinister feel the character needs. One look at him and some audience members gasped. There are plenty of jump scares and the audience fell for almost every single one. Surprisingly enough, I didn't. I'll fall for a good jump scare any day of the week, but IT failed to get even one out of me. I don't know why, maybe it was the obvious horror beats leading to each one but the film didn't 'get me'. It felt scary, but not once was I scared, if that makes sense. Maybe because the whole film takes place during the daytime it adds a sense of security? I don't know, but plenty of people in the theatre seemed frightened.

Muschietti has a creative eye for the unnatural. Looking over Ben's shoulder in the library and seeing an old lady stare him down without him knowing is effective, as is the use of the stabilizing camera effects on Pennywise's face while everything else shakes wildly. Small camera movements, such as straightening a picture, are done creatively here and add to the immersive feel the film wants. Even though the film feels predictable in the horror beats, with each scare simply leading into more anticipation for the next one, the film as a whole works. IT does a great job of me wanting to see the next chapter.

Great idea for a thread. Haven't seen any of those three either. I actually watched a Stephen King adaptation earlier this month: Needful Things. Hated it. He has plenty of good stuff though and they are all at least interesting.

This film, which was inspired, not adapted from the Stephen King novels of the same name, takes a sweeping epic, dumbs it down, loses the focus and lazily tries to make it look cool for a younger audience. This film is bad and I went in with an open mind, hoping to find some redeeming qualities about it. While there are some good ideas, I can't help but feel that this will be somewhat heartbreaking for fans of the books who were actually excited to see it.

Jake Chambers is a young boy who suffers from horrific nightmares. In those nightmares, he sees The Man in Black, who kidnaps children and uses a device to suck their minds right out of their head. All in an effort to destroy the Dark Tower. The Dark Tower is the centre of the universe, protecting all worlds from the evil that lies beyond, out in the darkness. Roland, the last of the Gunslingers, soldiers sworn to protect the tower, is on a mission to kill The Man in Black. When Jake discovers a portal that leads to their world, he jumps in and finds Roland. Together they must stop The Man in Black, or their world and all worlds, will end.

I couldn't help but think to myself, that people would never want to see a film that was loosely inspired by The Lord of the Rings. They would much rather see that literary masterpiece adapted to the big screen. Imagine Peter Jackson used the same characters and made a different story, but still slapped the title on it? So I can't help but wonder why they thought it would be a good idea to loosely adapt The Dark Tower and not do a straight adaption from the books. I kind of get the idea they were going for, in regards to how the book series ends, but they missed the mark and by a wide margin.

I'm sure fans of the series would pick up numerous nods to the books here and there, but that is not enough. Graffiti on the wall of Hailing The Crimson King will get a knowing nod from people, but that's it. I'm sure they would rather see the actual story from the books on the screen. Arcel and writer Goldsman, oversimplify an epic story into a 90 some odd minute shoot em up. Sure, it looks cool when Elba reloads his guns, but I want something more than that. It doesn't help that the film essentially has two and a half action sequences, which might look neat to those who haven't seen a film like John Wick.

Elba does his best with the clunky dialogue, but he can't save it. McConaughey chews up the scenery, as expected. His character is "worse than the devil". He can kill people by simply telling them to stop breathing. He does this numerous times. He can catch bullets, incinerate people, basically force anyone to do anything. Mucho powerful. But here's the expository dialogue part "Roland, you've always been immune to my magic, haven't you?" So there you have it, he can't hurt our hero in the "stop breathing" category. He can still use the force to hurl objects at him and watching McConaughey move his hands around to control items like broken glass or rocks is unintentionally comical.

Bad special effects plague this film. There is a sequence at night where a demon, which apparently breaks through the barrier, attacks Roland and Jake. It's hard to make out what it looks like, or what the heck is going on. But in the end does it matter? Who know the Gunslinger will eventually put it out of its misery. I snickered at seeing how bad they rendered humans falling around or getting hit by cars. It only happens a few times in one particular sequences, but it's something that still hasn't been perfected and probably never will.

The entire film feels clunky, unexplained or unexplored. I never got a sense of Roland's world. There are abandoned structures all over and they have no idea what they were used for, but we clearly know they are carnival rides, as does Jake. How does anyone who never read the books have a clue as to what this means. Arcel seems uninterested in exploring that side of the story and instead streamlines it from point A to point B. This isn't a story to do that, especially if the goal is to branch it off into a series. I suspect this will be the only film they make.

With generic action sequences, oversimplification of an epic story, shoddy effects and some questionable performances (Jake's friend is the biggest offender), The Dark Tower is a big missed opportunity. Here is a series that could have been several films, sweeping multiple genres and taking viewers on a ride they probably wouldn't of forgotten. Instead we get this film that I already have forgotten. Ho-hum, despite a big budget, we have yet another King adaption failure.

Yeah, there are so really bad adaptations out there. But I think I have a reputation for watching bad movies so I 'should' be okay.

Revisiting this was a chore. I thought to myself, it's not as bad as I remember right? Well, it's not any better, that's for sure.

4 friends who saved a young boy in their childhood, are giving paranormal powers. They can communicate telepathically, create worm holes that lead you places and a bunch of other fun stuff. They were given these powers by the young boy they saved in an effort to save the world, years from now.

This is an alien invasion film. A book King wrote after he was struck by a van, which finds its way into this novel. It was most likely him venting out his own pain and frustrations through another character. What starts off as a weekend getaway, quickly turns when the alien monster pushes itself out of a strangers bum. What other hole are they going to come out of? Cue the fart jokes.

Look at the people behind this though; Lawrence Kasdan and William Goldman wrote the screenplay with Kasdan directing. James Newton Howard did the score and John Seale the cinematography. An impressive cast as well, makes this a win on paper....but a complete dud on the screen.

Zero tension, laughable dramatic elements and cheap effects. Dreamcatcher is a book that King hates...it's a movie we should hate too.

I wasn't entirely sure how a story about a killer car would be scary, or even entertaining, but the legend that is John Carpenter was able to transform this King story into an engaging tale about obsession and loss. Forget the killer car aspect, we all knew that wasn't going to be scary at all, but what is scary is how people are easily able to ignore or destroy the good things in life because of their obsession or addiction.

A 1958 Plymouth Fury is possessed by evil forces, don't ask me why or how, it appears to have happened right off the assembly line. It seems whoever is in possession of the car becomes entranced by the allure of Christine (the car). Arnold spots a dilapidated car behind a house and the owner quickly sells it to him and warns never to come back. Arnold works on the piece of junk, restoring it to the original beauty. But Christine has a mind of her own and starts taking out bullies that torment Arnold and tries to go after his girlfriend because she doesn't like the car. Can Dennis, Arnold's friend, save him in time or has Christine taken him too far away?

Arnold's obsession with Christine was to me the most interesting angle to this film. He changes as a person because of her. While he sees this as a positive, others tend to question it. He becomes more violent, quick tempered and defensive about his car. It begins to ruin relationships with his family, friends and his girlfriend. I wish Carpenter had spent more time developing the relationship between Arnold and Leigh. We don't see Arnold's attempts to 'woo' her, they basically show up together. We are then immediately thrown into a scene where she tells Arnold how much she dislikes the car. Yet we as an audience haven't had a chance to see his obsession with it yet, or how he acts around Leigh while with the car. So it comes a little out of left field and doesn't feel earned.

Likewise I wish we got to see more of Arnold's restoration job. I feel like the time and dedication put into the car would have had a bigger impact on the viewer if we saw the process and not just the end result. Since this was skipped over, we don't have a similar attachment to Christine like Arnold does. So when the bullies start their destruction of it, there is a disconnect.

Even with those and a few other missteps that usually accompany 80's horror films, Carpenter delivers a pure 80's horror picture and gives Christine a distinctive personality. The violent jealous girlfriend type who looks intimidating with their headlights shining directly at you in the dead of night. Precision driving, even while set aflame, there is no one who can hide from her. She is willing to destroy herself in an effort to get to you, she can just rebuild herself later, which Carpenter shows in one of the more famous sequences from the film. Christine works and is the better of the two films that revolve around King and homicidal vehicles.