I'll second Apt Pupil. I am one of the few (at least according to what people wrote in the other thread) who liked the story, but I thought the film left a lot to be desired. The casting was well-done, the script and the direction not so much.
I'll also one-up the 1997 mini-series version of The Shining. That thing was awful.
I nominate Cat's Eye.
And wholeheartedly second Thinner.
Last edited by Ves'Ka Gan; 12-02-2008 at 02:53 PM. Reason: blindness.
YOU MUST CHILL. I HAVE HIDDEN YOUR KEYS.
I must add The Langoliers to this list.
Kingdom almost can't be considered a King mini series. Unlike most King stuff this was his adaptation of another persons work.
Insert witty comment here.
Agreed. I read the story for the first time when I was about 12 and it really took my mind to a place it had never been before. Its the evil potential of human nature at face value that is the most terrifying for me. Squashing a dove with a basket ball (movie) isn't the same as placing homeless people in ovens (book). Plus the ending was nothing like the book:
Spoiler:
I'll third Dreamcatcher!
Only the gentle are ever really strong.
I wish I could use my nomination to remove Maximum Overdrive from the list. I liked that movie. I think this is the only one that King directed himself as well.
'Salem's Lot Miniseries. It could have been really good (Rutger Hauer and Rob Lowe *swoon*), but what they did to Father Callahan's character was unforgivable.
The Tommyknockers, The Shining (TV series), Graveyard Shift, Storm of the Century, Kingdom Hospital, The Running Man.
I would have put in The Langoliers for nomination if there weren't so many abominable Stephen King-related films in existence.
There are probably a dozen or so I've neglected to mention simply because I've either forgot them, or never watched them. But rest assured, they probably blow just the same.
no she's completely serious. and i forgot to second it so i'll do that now.
second cat's eye.
I'm quitting this vote. While there are plenty that aren't comparable to the stories/books they came from. I can't think of one that didn't entertain me.
I have to agree with Brice, If there are so many abominable SK films, why do we all still watch every one that comes out. More than that we discuss how good/bad it will be for months before it comes out, and then discuss how good/bad it was for the next couple months.
The Tommyknockers 4
Maximum Overdrive 3
The Mist 2
Dreamcatcher 3
The Stand miniseries 2
Thinner 2
The TV Miniseries of The Shining 4
The IT miniseries 5
Kingdom Hospital 2
Christine 1
Apt Pupil 2
The Shining (1980) 1
Cat's Eye 2
The Langoliers 1
'Salem's Lot Miniseries 1
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps we watch them because we are hoping that since the source material is often so good that the adaptation will be worthy of our time. Perhaps we watch them because the good ones like Shawshank and Stand By Me show us that making adaptations of King's works can be done correctly.
I don't see what the problem is with legitimate criticism. I criticize King's source material (and yes, I read every one that comes out) so why wouldn't I criticize adaptations of it. That I read it or watched it doesn't automatically make it good.
That I'll agree with. My statement was just personal opinion; I haven't found one I didn't like...although I gave up comparing the movies to their sources long ago. There are some I don't like as much as others, but none I don't like.
That's completely fair Brice. Of course, I could probably still take a list of movies I like and rank them in terms of which I liked more than others, but I think it's apparent by now that I am a bit obsessed with analysis.
Well, I could rank them as average; or above or below average, but what I can't do is say I liked this one BEST or WORST because I do truly enjoy them all. If I'm comparing two I probably could most of the time, but not comparing them all.
I'm with Brice. I do not compare the cinematic versions to the books more than casually. I watch the movie versions and base my judgement on their merit alone. Some are OK, some Good, some Great. I don't understand why some people seem to make it a mission in life to bash every adaptation that doesn't strictly follow the book. I do not know of a single movie that totally follows the written word it's based on. Just not possible IMHO of course. :-)
So no vote for me! :-)
DT Spoiler - Enter at your own risk!
Spoiler:
For me it's not a matter of how strictly they follow the source material. I love Kubrick's The Shining though it differs greatly from King's. Coversely, I am one of a very small group of people who didn't care for the movie version of The Green Mile which didn't differ from the book in any perceptible way.
In my analytical model it's not a matter of how closely an adaptation mirrors the source material but how effectively it uses the crux of the source material. What I'm saying is that I judge them in part on their own merits, and in part on their effectiveness as adaptations. I think that's perfectly fair.
That's why I won't second The Shining (1980). But there have been some dreadful movies made from King works.
I nominate Desperation and second Christine.
Heng Dai