The Quarantine Movie Marathon - Part 6

 [For the previous parts, click below. As mentioned before, spoilers ahead!]

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

The People Under the Stairs (1991)

T to U

• Teeth (2007) - It's a great feminist horror but it's still somewhat lame: I'd be more on board with it if the editing weren't so shite. [5/10]
• Terrifier (2016) - Some good quality gore and an iconic, uniquely horrifying villain. [8/10]
• The Amityville Horror (1979) - I wouldn't even say this is a particularly scary horror film but it's certainly well-edited and tense. [7/10]
• The Blue Skeleton (2017) - Confusing, boring and anticlimactic. [4/10]
• The Bunker (2001) - It's not bad...not great either. [6/10]
• The Cabin in the Woods (2011) - I mean, there are no words that will do justice to how good this film is. [9/10]
• The Children (2008) - Guilty pleasure: a lot more fun at parties with friends. [5/10]
• The Dead One (1961) - It's nice to see the 'voodoo' origin used within this era but it's horribly racist: definitely didn't age well. [3/10]
• The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) - Surprisingly balanced and better than your average exorcism film. [8/10]
• The Eye (2002) - The elevator scene gets me every time. [8/10]
• The Giant Spider Invasion (1975) - The spider is actually kind of cute and all of the men are perverts. [2/10]
• The Grudge (2002) - America could never. [8/10]
• The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - Gnarly deaths and decent jump scares! [7/10]
• The Hole in the Ground (2019) - Films like this validate my need to never have children. [7/10]
• The House with 100 Eyes (2013) - Sound editing is abysmal but it's definitely a disturbing watch. [5/10]
• The Lighthouse (2019) - WHY'D YA SPILL YER BEANS? [9/10]
• The Ordeal (2004) - I'll never look at rural pubs the same again. [7/10]
• The People Under the Stairs (1991) - White capitalists get their asses handed to them, so you know it's good. [8/10]
• The Quiet Ones (2014) - The pacing is bad and the storyline doubly so. [4/10]
• The Shining (1980) - I don't have much to say on this other than, despite it being a decent film, it is overrated. [7/10]
• The Silence of the Lambs (1991) - Best of the Hannibal films. [8/10]
• The Sin Eater (2003) - Yet another religious fanatic film with a somewhat interesting concept yet a terribly executed storyline. I miss Ledger, man. [5/10]
• The Stand (1994) - The stereotypes have aged poorly but I have such a nostalgic love for this film...even if it is six hours long. [7/10]
• The Stepfather (2009) - Predictable, terrible, awful...other synonyms for bad. [4/10]
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - A true horror classic. Also can we talk about how fucking fast Leatherface is? That's goddamn terrifying. [9/10]
• The Thing (1982) - Other horrors wish they have the level of practical fx this film has. [9/10]
• The Thing (2011) - I know they used a mix of both but I wish they'd stayed as far away from CGI as possible because it makes everything look tacky. [5/10]
• The Void (2016) - I have no idea what's happening but it looks amazing. [7/10]
• The Witch (2015) - A baby gets mashed in the first 10 minutes...delicious. [8/10]
• Thir13en Ghosts (2001) - If you ignore the racist stereotypes, you can enjoy Matthew Lilliard in one of his most underrated performances. [6/10]
• Thoroughbreds (2017) - Olivia Cooke is an absolute superstar and this film just illustrates how damn talented Anton Yelchin was. [8/10]
• Train to Busan (2016) - Yon-Suk? More like Yon-SUCKS, am I right, lads? [8/10]
• Underground (2011) - What a forgettable and boring film. [2/10]
• Us (2019) - One of my favourite film soundtracks of all time; Lupita is a powerhouse. [9/10]

Next week: V to Z

- K

The Gore Scale

[Reader disclaimer: this piece may contain spoilers and material of a sensitive nature].

The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009)

You decide to sit down and watch a horror film: what's your go-to? Some people are psychological fans, others want to see demons possess people, but some of you twisted bitches are like me and want to see body parts go flying. There are a few subgenres for that: splatter, banned, torture porn, body, Lovecraftian, even snuff horror. They're all good in their respective ways but how do you quantify how much gore you want to see on screen?

I looked at three categories of horror films and put them in ranking order. The classics, the modern marvels and what's known in most circles as "extreme horror", often depicted as the most depraved, disturbing and downright bloody iterations of the genre. A score of 1 to 4 is considered tame, 5 to 7 is moderate, and 8 to 10 would be extreme.

I'd like to point out here, though, that these are just my personal takes and not something to take as gospel. I am somewhat biased in that I prefer gorier films but I can objectively advise you on what is gorier than others: with that being said, let's jump in.

(I'd also like to note that none of the films included scored a 1, the lowest ranking, but there are films out there with minimal gore, such as It Follows (2014)). 

The Classics

The Thing (1982)

The Shining (1980): 2/10

This famous Kubrick classic might be one you haven't watched (I don't know why you wouldn't have) but, if you were considering giving it a go, you'll be surprised to know that The Shining isn't particularly gory at all. It has disturbing imagery galore with body horror interspersed, but the body count stands at a measly one person, and the crippling insanity that Jack Nicholson brings to the table will freak you out much more than the elevator scene. 

The Exorcist (1973): 3/10

Again, if you haven't seen this one, then where have you been? The Exorcist is regarded, perhaps, as the most famous horror film to boot but you'd be wrong if you thought this film was anything other than deeply psychological and rooted in the supernatural, as opposed to sitting comfortably in the gore section. There are some scenes (the crucifix scene in the bedroom is the one to watch out for) that incorporate gore but not hugely: this one will just have you paranoid that a demon is going to get you, not that your limbs are going to be cut off.

I Spit on Your Grave (1978): 5/10

One of the most famous rape-revenge films, I Spit on Your Grave is visceral, unnerving and badass. However, for a film that structures its entire premise on bodily violation and the physical revenge of such, there isn't a great deal of gore. Perhaps its most iconic scene is the "bathtub sequence" but, even so, we cut away before we see anything of real significance: this was more or less rectified in the remake but it's just a shame that the remake was nowhere near as good as the original.

The Evil Dead (1981): 6/10

Sam Raimi's magnum opus, other than clearly the fantastical Spider-Man 3 (2007), is a great summer flick to watch with your friends: it's a horror movie where blood runs like beer on tap and provides one-liners you'll be quoting for years to come. It's gory, yes, but leaps and bounds behind some of the other entries on this list: it also suffers from the 80s curse of fake blood cheapening the effect by becoming less and less realistic as the film ages. Still, a lot of bloody fun (pun intended).

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Day of the Dead (1985), The Fly (1986) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974): 7/10

These four films certainly stray into the moderately gory territory. A Nightmare on Elm Street is arguably the bloodiest of the seven installments, with blood geysers and ragdoll bodies solidifying itself in horror history forever. 

Day of the Dead, my personal favourite of the original Romero trilogy, has a wicked autopsy scene and features some pretty gruesome deaths throughout. 

The Fly is just straight-up disgusting, and body horror doesn't necessarily equal gore, but the acidic spit scene is something akin to the Nazis losing their faces in that equally disturbing part of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Although tragic, this film is most definitely and intensely graphic.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is, without a doubt, a horror masterpiece. A story of people terrorised by a family of murderous cannibals? One of which is based on real life serial killer Ed Gein, who wore his victims' skin as a makeshift mask? Gross. I love it. TTCM will make you avoid hitchhikers and meat hooks for the rest of your life, I'll tell you that.

Hellraiser (1987) and The Thing (1982): 8/10

Two horrors close to my heart, we close out the "classics" section with Hellraiser and The Thing, two films equally talented in evoking big reactions from its intended audience. 

Hellraiser successfully meshes physical gore with masochistic pleasure, providing us with not only one iconic villain (Pinhead) but two (Frank). Frank's reanimation sequence is still one of the most awe-inspiring things I've ever seen in a horror movie, despite its aged appearance: it'll have your skin crawling (if you have any).

The Thing is a film, much like Hellraiser, that you probably have never seen but don't have to because it's everywhere in pop culture. The deaths are gnarly, the creature is freakishly abnormal and terrifying but best of all, the suspense will keep you on your toes through the runtime.

The Modern Marvels

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Us (2019): 4/10

I adore this film. I adore both of Jordan Peele's films. However, horror in Peele's filmography doesn't derive from what's explicitly shown to us but by connotations woven throughout his narratives: for that reason, Us doesn't score particularly high on the gore scale. Although it is by far bloodier than Get Out (2017), the violence is not the epicentre of the story, moreover it is a gradual unravelling of shocking and fear-inducing events. A splash of blood here and there but nothing too gory.

Audition (1999) and Hereditary (2018): 6/10

One is a staple of j-horror, one is a classic before its time. Audition is a fantastically twisted psychological film that features some messed-up scenes involving some feet and vomit (don't ask) and Hereditary may as well be known as "that one film with all the neat decapitation", but both (despite the removal of body parts) are actually fairly tame when it comes to gore: it's moderate, and unsettling, but again, not really the main focus. 

The Cabin in the Woods (2012): 7/10

The best way to describe this film would be a loving homage to the 80s, placing a contemporary spin on what we love about creature features and good ol' slashers. There's blood aplenty but the true sentiment lies in what The Cabin in the Woods pays tribute to, as opposed to who or what they kill on-screen: that being said, there's a lot of gory fun to be had. It's a moderate amount, a respectable amount if you will, which will appease the average horror fan and intrigue the general movie-goer.

The Extreme Ones

Martyrs (2008)

Teeth (2007) and The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009): 3/10

Teeth is actually the lowest ranked of this section for a very good reason: although it's a wonderful portrayal of an empowered female character and a biting, satirical commentary on gender division and sexual control, it's surprisingly tame in terms of gore. We see a few *ahem* "members" being removed but, other than that, the gratuitous violence derives from male entitlement and the horrors of male patriarchy. Great flick, just not very gory at all.

Another film you might be surprised to see ranked so low is the first Human Centipede: it's undeniably vulgar and unsettling, but when we look at it through our red-tinted lens, the gore just isn't there. Bodily fluids, no matter how disgusting they are, don't really constitute gore and even if it did, we don't see much of it on-screen. The Human Centipede is a film founded entirely in its shock factor, rather than its visceral reimagining of horror. It's gross, yes. But gory? Not really.

Antichrist (2009): 5/10

Lars Von Trier: you either hate him or you love him. Maybe you just respect that he's a clever filmmaker yet an all-around terrible human being. Either way, his film Antichrist is up there with the other extreme legends for being one of the most eye-boggling movies to date, an impressive feat considering it's not even technically a "horror" film (I'd classify it more as a psychological thriller/horrendous fever dream). 

To say it's gory would be a misstep: it's not, as such, but the body horror that is there is pretty gruesome (you'll be crossing your legs and looking away from the screen on more than one occasion). 

Cannibal Holocaust (1980), Dead Snow (2009), Hostel (2005) and Ichi the Killer (2001): 8/10

These four films set the bar in the extreme categories: Cannibal Holocaust is legendary, Hostel helped solidify torture porn in the modern genre, Dead Snow gave us Nazi zombies and oodles of fun and Ichi the Killer, though not as well-known, is by far the craziest j-horror flick out there. 

Hostel and Ichi share similarities in their depravity: it's calculated, sadomasochistic and hard to watch. The gore wavers from a simple slash of the Achilles heel to a man's face being sliced off like a carrot through a vegetable grater. It's fun, it's mad and it's a lot. Dead Snow is similar to these two films, in that respect, but it's not calculated gore. There are buckets of blood, entrails pulled out and swung about, flesh-eating zombies tearing off body parts...if you want to just see people being annihilated, this film is for you. 

Cannibal Holocaust, though despondent and violent, is in a different league to the rest of them. It is indeed gory, you've probably all heard about the legal problems director Ruggero Deodato ran into post-release, but the more disturbing part is not the fictional deaths of on-screen natives but the documented murder of real animals that is left in the film (vegans and vegetarians should stay clear of this one, for sure). 

A Serbian Film (2010) and Braindead (1992): 9/10

Now, you might be wondering why on earth these two are paired together, seeing as one is a splatter-comedy and the other is just...beyond reason. But in all honesty, I'd argue that both sit firmly at a 9 when it comes to gore. 

A Serbian Film is, evidently, not for the faint of heart. Such themes shown explicitly on-screen are necrophilia, "newborn porn" and rape: this, plus a hearty douse of gore, is a lot for movie goers. I'd only ever recommend seeing this film if you're able to stomach it and the same goes for Braindead (or otherwise known as Dead or Alive). 

Braindead makes Dead Snow look pathetic in comparison to the sheer amount of guts, blood and pus that it thrown your way. The lawnmower scene at one time held the record for most blood used in a horror film, though I'm pretty sure the Evil Dead remake took the baton for that one back in 2013. Either way, both films are incredibly gross and feature gore only for the truly daring fans.

Martyrs (2008): 10/10

I know already that some people are going to disagree with me here. Surely, you must be thinking, A Serbian Film is worse than Martyrs. And in terms of depravity, I'd agree with you, but that's not what we're looking for today. 

Martyrs is an endurance test, flinging the viewer headfirst out of their comfort zone and into the world of New French Extremity, a shockingly raw and upsetting type of horror. It pulls no punches, spares no feelings and never relents on both the physical violence nor the psychological torment of its characters. 

Plasma doesn't gush like it does in The Shining, guts aren't pulled out like bunting up a magician's sleeve as it does in Dead Snow, but Martyrs is arguably unparalleled in its ability to chip more and more of its own humanity away to reveal its corrupted and bloodied nature. A Serbian Film is only there to shock you: Martyrs will make you question reality (and possibly vomit at the same time).

- K

Art vs Artist: Can We Separate Entertainment From Those Who Tainted It?

[Reader disclaimer: this piece contains material of a sensitive nature].

Roman Polanski on the set of Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Following the controversies surrounding Leaving Neverland (2019), wherein the documentary follows Michael Jackson's child abuse allegations, and recent war between actors Amber Heard and Johnny Depp (which has now alluded to both being victims and perpetrators of domestic violence), there has been a question and thought on everyone's mind: are we still allowed to like the films/music they've made?

I've talked with people in my life about this, some of which argue that you are indeed able to seperate a problematic person from their format, others that disagree and say that by supporting someone's film/song/product, you are complicit in supporting that artist as a person. 

For me, I find this to be a difficult question to answer. On the one hand, one person's actions should not condemn a whole film: one actor does not equate to an entire movie, there are directors, cinematographers, producers, camera technicians, special effects and makeup teams...the list is endless. They were not responsible for a leading man/woman's faults. 

However, that being said, I recently watched Moon (2009) for a review, and despite him not even appearing on screen, the sound of Kevin Spacey's voice made me feel incredibly ill. It didn't detract from the whole experience of watching the film but it certainly made me uneasy just hearing him be in it.

Stanley Kubrick and Shelley Duvall on set of The Shining (1980)

We as a society are not unused to hearing people in the film industry attempting to veil their sins off-screen, unfortunately. One of the biggest directors in Hollywood, and one of the most problematic ones, was Stanley Kubrick, who you will undoubtedly know as the man who directed such iconic films like The Shining (1980), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and A Clockwork Orange (1971).

His talents made for some of the most intriguing, awe-inspiring scenes we have ever seen in cinema, and I think that goes without question. But if we strip away his art, if we look at who he was as a person, Kubrick was a self-aggrandising bully on-set, an artist with an inflated ego and a short temper.

He is renowned for his mistreatment of leading actress, Shelley Duvall, who went on to have many mental breakdowns and was as recently as 2016 seen to be suffering from severe mental illness: that is not to say that I'm accusing Kubrick of inflicting Duvall with that but it certainly seems that his influence back in the early 80s left Duvall with arguably severe bouts of PTSD. That is, of course, just speculation...but I digress.

Victor Salva on set of Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Another director who has faced controversy is Victor Salva, which I wasn't aware of until recently (a few years back, I'd say) had been convicted of molesting a 12-year old boy and possessing child pornography.

Insane, right? Surely, then, he was blacklisted from ever making films again.

Wrong.

In fact, after a five year hiatus, Salva went back to being a fulltime film director, his latest project being as recent as Jeepers Creepers 3 in 2017. When I discovered his previous convictions, I was absolutely appalled to know that he was still praised in the inner circles of horror fandoms and still given the time of day to create anything. Then again, people still love Roman Polanski, and he's a straight-up rapist. 

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Lars Von Trier on set of Antichrist (2009)

Tobe Hooper. Lars Von Trier. Quentin Tarantino. Ruggero Deodato. 

The list is endless. And these are just horror/thriller directors, I'm not even mentioning the countless others that have committed pretty horrendous crimes within Hollywood.

So why do we still watch their films? Should we watch their films? 

From what I can gather, it's largely down to personal preference. Society claims to maintain a moral compass when it comes to this sort of thing, ready to blow the whistle on anybody willing to step out of line, but if we're being entirely honest here, some of us just...let things slide. 

It's hard, I guess, for some people to accept that their heroes or idols are problematic, indeed, sometimes even as far as dangerous, because we crave what they create. As a consumerist species, we thrive on new film releases, glue ourselves to the TV for the next episode, tune in to the radio or Spotify to hear the new top 40 because entertainment is made for everybody to enjoy. 

But recently I've found myself noticing that a lot of people make excuses to keep that influx of entertainment going, at a point where they will disregard fact and evidence of wrongdoings to ensure that those creative products keep coming out.

Ruggero Deodato on set of Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

This is, of course, not to shame anybody. I am guilty of this myself: whilst I refuse to buy it because I don't want to support distribution of it, I still enjoy Cannibal Holocaust (1980). It's a horror film. It was made to be consumed and enjoyed. Of course I can't stand that they murdered and filmed animals for the sake of their "art" but whether I watch it or not, it's still out there and it's still watched by others.

I think that we've come to a point in time where if we see behaviour that is unacceptable, regardless of your status, you need to be removed from the entertainment industry pending investigation. Kevin Spacey was no exception. Neither was Bryan Singer. Yet we allowed people like Johnny Depp (yes, I know that's a complicated one right now, don't @ me) and Chris Pratt to continue their work because...well...people love them and think they're pretty.

It's so strange to me that audiences will come to the defense of a genuinely shitty person, claiming that "I know he/she would never do that!" as if they have any real impact of their lives as celebrities. You don't know these people and, chances are, they don't know you: they're paid to dazzle you with their acting abilities, they're paid to entertain. Funnily enough, I don't want to pay to see a rapist or a paedophile or an abuser act for me because I'd rather see them rot in prison.

Gunnar Hansen and Tobe Cooper on set of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

So, what do you think? Can we separate art from their artists? Are we allowed to enjoy the creative product without praising the one who makes it? Or do we disregard art if it's created by someone who does not respect the law or the moral boundaries that humanity has set in place?

- K

Stephen King adaptations: Yea or Nay?

[Reader disclaimer: there will be spoilers discussed. This piece also contains material of a mature nature].

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