Film adaptations of books, video games and the like are always a hard one to judge. In a critical sense, an adaptation can be a huge success, but if it doesn't please its fanbase, can it be considered a good film at all?
Authors often have their books adapted for film: the largest franchises in the world are based on books, such as Harry Potter (2001 - 2011), Lord of the Rings (2001 - 2003) and The Hunger Games (2012 - 2015). One of the largest influences, ranging from the late 70s up to recent years, is writer Stephen King. Some of his films, such as It (1990) and Carrie (1979) are not only true homages to the original source material but are also considered both important within our culture and amazing forms of entertainment.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every single adaptation. In this list, I will be reviewing some of the larger names and the smaller, less-recognised pieces of work, and reviewing whether they stay true to their respective books. Yea, nay or neutral (hey, some have both pros and cons).
The Stand (1994)
Now, the devout King fans amongst you may immediately call me out for including this one, as it's not technically a film. It was actually a TV miniseries that aired in the mid-90s and has a collective runtime of six hours. Yep, it's a long haul. However, my defense for its inclusion is that It (1990) is often considered a feature-length Stephen King film when it is, in fact, also a miniseries from the 90s. So I'm including this one too.
Premise
The basic plot of The Stand (1994) is relatively simple: a viral pandemic (a form of influenza) kills around 99% of the world's population. Amongst the 1% are a few survivors, primarily Stu Redman (played by Gary Sinise), who acts as the main protagonist for the most part.
The survivors begin to have visions that either steer them down the path of good (towards Mother Abagail, played by Ruby Dee) or evil (towards Randall Flagg, played by Jamey Sheridan, who is a character that is also featured in The Dark Tower (2017) film, also written by King).
The outcome is predictable, having good triumph over evil, but the main bulk of The Stand is following these various characters and watching them make conscious decisions to either help their fellow survivors or hinder them completely.
Book accuracy
Relatively spot-on. The book captures the innate instincts of humans to survive but also their willingness to be manipulative or compassionate in the face of a crisis. A few characters in particular, namely Nick Andros (played by Rob Lowe) and Tom Cullen (played by Bill Fagerbakke), truly convey the voice of the author through the film's dialogue and acting: ironic, really, when you consider that Nick Andros is a mute character.
Verdict
The Stand holds a special place in my heart, mainly due to nostalgia, but I recognise that it's very outdated in comparison to today's standards. Randall Flagg's character comes off more charismatic than threatening, and the special effects are confined to the technological era of the 90s. Did I mention that it's also six fucking hours long?
So, in conclusion, this blogger thinks it's in need of a reboot. Verdict? Neutral.
The Shining (1980)
Alright. I might get some hate for this one. The Shining (1980) is recognised as one of the most famous King adaptations, directed by Stanley Kubrick at the start of the 80s, and has an enormous following, from both horror fans and fans of film in general.
Some may disagree with me, then, when I say that this film is not a perfect example of a book-to-film piece. The Shining is a difficult one because I am a fan of it, but I don't like to consider it as a King film: it's really just a Kubrick film at this point.
Premise
If you've been living under a rock and somehow don't know the plot of this considerably lengthy horror film, then it's as follows: Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) is hired to be the caretaker of a hotel for the winter, and so his wife and child move with him to temporarily live there.
Unfortunately for Jack, isolation and the disturbing spirits that roam the hotel do not make a great combination for the psyche, and eventually he goes insane, murdering a fellow caretaker (and attempting to murder his own family) in the process. Luckily for the wife and child, they make it to the end of the film relatively unharmed: the same cannot be said for Jack.
Book accuracy
To the avid reader's eye, yes, there are some similarities between book and film. The very foundations of the story are the same, but the main issue I found with The Shining is that it lost key elements of the book through its adaptation: for example, one of the biggest plot points is that the hotel is somewhat sentient, and it corrupts Jack in the first place to go on a murderous rampage. In the film, it's simply a matter of a man manipulated by a ghost butler and the claustrophobic loneliness of being in a large hotel in the winter that finally drives him to pick up the axe (side note: it was a roque mallet in the book, so that's also different as well).
Jack's son, Danny (played by Danny Lloyd) was also far more intelligent in the book, which is later expanded upon in the book's sequel, Doctor Sleep. Tony, the "little boy that lives in [his] mouth", is actually personified on a bigger scale and acts more as his own respective character. Jack actually regains his sanity for a brief interval and manages to warn his family to flee before he turns again. The hotel blows up at the end of the book.
I'm not completely stupid: I know that films cannot include every single aspect of a source material (e.g. the omission of the orgy scene in both versions of the It film, for obvious reasons) because the runtime would be tremendously long and sometimes it's not necessary in order to capture the true essence of the book.
However, that being said, the true horror of the original book lies in its corruption of character via malevolent spirits. It was far more paranormal than psychological, which made it an interesting book in the first place. Kubrick's film cut out the middle man completely and just focused on a man crazed by isolation.
Verdict
In my opinion, a big part of having one's book adapted is to give it your seal of approval. So it speaks volumes that King himself has openly shown his disdain for The Shining, calling it "cold" and completely unlike his book. He also criticised Wendy's character (played by Shelley Duvall) as being "[...] one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film, she's basically just there to scream and be stupid, and that's not the woman that [he] wrote about".
I recognise The Shining as one of my favourite horrors, and I genuinely believe it to be a terrifying and scary piece of cinema, but it loses something in translation from book to film. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake, which is a very unpopular opinion.
Verdict? Neutral.
Cell (2016)
Forgive me, reader, if I end up smashing my keyboard in a fit of unbridled rage whilst attempting to talk about this one. Out of all the book to film pieces I have seen, I have never been as let down as I was the day I watched the abomination called Cell (2016).
I waited nine years for this wonderful novel to be made into a film and you know what I got? Director Tod Williams spitting in my face and delivering me this shoddily made "thriller".
Premise
So, the plot of this film is actually rather interesting (albeit executed horribly): a virus spread through cellular networks turns people into homicidal maniacs akin to genetically mutated zombies, and they bring forward a new-age apocalypse.
The main protagonist, Clay (played by John Cusack) goes searching for his son amidst the chaos, recruiting people along the way to help.
Book accuracy
Virtually none. The characters in the books, complex and tragic in their portrayals, are made to be two-dimensional and unnecessarily stupid in the film. Clay, Tom (played by Samuel L. Jackson) and Alice (played by Isabelle Fuhrman) are characters you are meant to empathise with and understand: not even SLJ could save his character from becoming completely artificial and useless in the end.
Important scenes, such as the first outbreak of the virus, show Clay interacting with the affected people. It conveys his horror and confusion and his need for survival. This is omitted from the film, instead showing him to be a coward, and nowhere near as virtuous as his character should be.
For a film produced in 2016, the special effects are, to put it as politely as possible, abhorrent. I'm not entirely sure what the budget for this film was supposed to be but it certainly wasn't enough. Let's not even mention the fact that they unironically used the Trololol song (you know, the meme from 2010 of the Russian baritone singer?) in one of the more serious scenes: wasn't serious for long, I'll tell you that.
Verdict
I really don't think I even have to flesh my opinion on this one out any longer. Acting: garbage. Screenplay: garbage. Sfx: garbage. Entire movie: fucking garbage. I want a do-over and I want it soon. The kicker? Eli Roth was originally set to direct this movie. I want to see that film, not whatever the hell this dumpster fire was.
Verdict? Nay.
Misery (1990)
Ahem. Now that I have Cell out of the way (and to be honest that's probably the most offensive one on this list), let's get back to basics.
King is renowned for his ability to create the scariest villains: Jack Torrance, Pennywise the Clown, Kurt Barlow...the list goes on. You may recognise the character here (or perhaps in her old-fashioned blouses and the ugly, wooly dress she dons) as Annie Wilkes (played brilliantly by Kathy Bates), who is the protagonist of Misery (1990). Now this is what you call a Stephen King movie.
Premise
A nightmare to any budding writer, especially a successful one like King; an author crashes his car after completing his latest manuscript and is rescued by none other than his biggest fan, who coincidentally happens to be a nurse and is able to treat his injuries and help him recover. However, when she realises that he has recently killed off her favourite character in his books, things turn sour.
Annie Wilkes is basically the original 'stan' stereotype, taking a form of media (in this case a specific book franchise) so seriously that she's become entirely obsessed with it. She demands that the author writes a new book to resurrect her favourite character and keeps him under house arrest, as well as physically and emotionally torturing him.
Book accuracy
The opening chapter of Misery describes the uncomfortable and frankly disgusting sensation of the author, Paul (played by James Caan in the film) receiving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation from Annie: like so many other scenes that follow, it's striking in its visceral descriptions of action and internal monologue, something that the film adaptation captures wonderfully. In both film and book, we experience Paul's trauma and it makes us uneasy in every sense of the word.
It should also be noted that Kathy Bates' portrayal of Annie is downright terrifying, validated by the fact that she won the Academy Award for Best Actress the following year for it. Her performance is intense but also believable: the character is a complete maniac but she also feels like a real person, which is arguably the scariest aspect about her.
Verdict
Misery is one of the very few King novels that his been done justice in its transference to the big screen and I honestly cannot fault it, other than the fact that its a little bit dated now, but that's not a bad thing.
Verdict? Yea!
Secret Window (2004)
Some of you passionate Johnny Depp fans may remember this film from the early noughties but may be unaware that this was actually based on a story by Stephen King called Secret Window, Secret Garden in a collection of novellas called Four Past Midnight.
Though I cannot say that I'm particularly infatuated with Depp as a person (due to the numerous allegations he has been faced with in recent years), I can admit that he is an astonishingly talented actor. His performance in Secret Window (2004) wasn't the main problem with it, in fact, I'd say he did rather well, considering what he was working with. However, I'd argue fault lies with a majority of people who worked on this adaptation, and that includes him too.
Premise
After catching his wife having an affair, a writer named Mort (played by Johnny Depp) retreats to a cabin where he delays the divorce proceedings and struggles with writer's block (as a writer myself, I can sympathise with this a great deal). Whilst there, a man named Shooter (played by John Turturro) visits him and accuses him of plagiarism, threatening to take action if he doesn't recall the piece from publishing.
A series of cat and mouse ensues, with Mort trying to find evidence of his story being published before Shooter's, mysterious disappearances and arson happening at the same time with no obvious connection (other than the assumption of Shooter being out to ruin his life) and Mort succumbing to madness towards the end.
The plot twist (spoiler alert) is that Shooter and Mort are the same person, and Mort accepts his alter ego at the end to murder his wife for her betrayal.
Book accuracy
I wouldn't say that the film and book go hand in hand particularly well. On the one hand, most of the source material is used, and acts as a relatively true adaptation. However, the ending of the film drastically deviates from the original.
In the book, Mort is shot before any harm can come to his wife, and he reverts back to his 'sane' or 'normal' state long enough to express his lament for putting her in harm's way. It's quite a bleak yet touching ending, reminding the reader that Mort's character is a victim of his own tragedy and I think it's a very unusual insight into a character's cognitive understanding of their actions.
However, in the film, Mort assumes the role of Shooter and ends up murdering his wife. It's implied that the local police suspect him of the murder, but he's never shown to be convicted nor show any sign of being "Mort" again, therefore suffering no real consequences. Secret Window writes itself off as just another thriller film with the cliche of a menace to society hiding among us. In my opinion, it felt more like a half-assed ending than a clever plot twist.
Verdict
Much like The Shining, the problem with Secret Window is that, in its own right, it's a very entertaining film. I admittedly see it as a guilty pleasure: not one that I would watch often but one that I wouldn't rule out of watching again. I think it's a successful thriller, as long as you don't associate it with Stephen King.
Verdict? Neutral.
Gerald's Game (2017)
If you've stuck around this long, then congrats! This is the last post, I promise. I decided to end it on a strong note and with a more recent adaptation, one that has probably been seen by the majority of you who are Netflix users, devout Stephen King fans or (like me) both. It is rather unfortunate that Gerald's Game (2017) is exclusive to Netflix because much like Misery, it's a fantastic version of the source material.
Premise
Your love life has, for better words, gone to shit. What do you do? Well, in this case, protagonist Jessie (played by Carla Gugino) decides to spice up her love life by indulging in her husband's fantasy to use handcuffs in the bedroom.
This would be kind of sexy, if it weren't for the fact that whilst they're staying at their isolated home away from home, Gerald (played by Bruce Greenwood) not only criticises her when she panics and wants to be removed from the handcuffs but he also suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving his poor wife locked against the headboard.
Jessie then suffers paranoia, anxiety and experiences the visitations of a boogeyman-esque figure referred to as the Moonlight Man (or the Space Cowboy in the novel), played by Carel Struycken. The entrapment, though, is seemingly a blessing in disguise, as Jessie also begins to unearth repressed memories of child abuse that she later on uses her deceased husband's life insurance to fund a charity for.
She does eventually escape and we also find out that the Moonlight Man is not a figment of her imagination but in fact a grave robber with a penchant for eating the faces of male corpses. Yummy.
Book accuracy
Out of all the films on this list, I'd say this is the closest to being almost 100% accurate to the original source material (with the exception of a few minor details). In that regard, I have a lot of respect for Gerald's Game, as I understand the difficulty of staying true to a novel and trying to fit absolutely everything into a film version of it: director Mike Flanagan pulls this off with tremendous success, which makes the idea of a Doctor Sleep adaptation even more promising when you consider that he will also be directing that as well.
The film provoked the same intense and visceral reaction I had watching it as I had done reading it, something similar to my first time reading and watching Misery. I was able to visualise the horror clearly through text but it was even better than I could have imagined on screen, conveying a real sense of dread and panic. Casting Struycken as the Moonlight Man was also an exceptionally good call, as his character in the book is absolutely terrifying and the actor, known for his portrayal of Lurch in The Addams Family (1991), is definitely capable of amping up the creep factor.
Verdict
It's not flawless but it's certainly one of the most impressive Stephen King adaptations I have seen in a long time. The cinematography is stunning, the acting is spot-on and the fear it evokes is equal only to the original source material.
Verdict? Yea!
Honourable Mentions
As always, there are too many films to mention in one post (this one itself is entirely too long but worth reading if you like Stephen King), so here are some other adaptations that I consider to be either worthy of a 'yea' or a 'neutral' rating.
- Carrie (1976)
- Christine (1983)
- Stand By Me (1986)
- Pet Sematary (1989)
- The Tommyknockers (1993)
- The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
- Apt Pupil (1998)
- The Green Mile (1999)
- The Mist (2007)
- K
No comments:
Post a Comment