Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Stephen King Adaptations


Luckylyn
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Doctor Sleep is a much better book than it had any right to be, but the book's single scariest scene (books really don't scare me often, and this was legit terrifying) is about 

Spoiler

9/11

and while I don't know if seeing it onscreen would be on poor taste or not (I lean toward yes), I would be VERY uncomfortable seeing it dramatized.

Edited by starri
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 9/28/2015 at 2:18 PM, paramitch said:

I agree with you on Dolores Claiborne, which is a movie whose atmosphere kind of wraps around itself like a fog. The actors are all just superb and it stays with you.

For me, Dolores Claiborne is one of the best adaptations of a Stephen King book.  They excise some of the sillier aspects of the book, and while all the actors give sensational performances, the scenes between Judy Parfitt and Kathy Bates are a freaking masterclass.  You know these women, you know their lives and you see how they ended up where they are.  I can watch this movie anytime it is on.    

 

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I watched the new Firestarter on Peacock. It SUCKED.

Spoiler

They completely changed the ending, making John Rainbird into a fellow mutant and sort-of good guy even though HE KILLED CHARLIE’S MOTHER. And she goes off with him after torching the Shop. I am not even making this up.

A creepier Charlie does not work. It never was who she was. Oh, and she apparently is telekinetic and telepathic instead of just a firestarter. Not to mention the movie completely fails to replicate her close relationship with her father, which was only THE HEART OF THE WHOLE STORY. 

schitts creek comedy GIF by CBC

  • Useful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

It was trash. It was like the budget ran out halfway through the shoot schedule. I mean, the '84 version with Drew and a phoning-it-in George C. Scott as Rainbird was no masterpiece, but compared to this dreck it was Godfather I & II combined.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, AimingforYoko said:

It was trash. It was like the budget ran out halfway through the shoot schedule. I mean, the '84 version with Drew and a phoning-it-in George C. Scott as Rainbird was no masterpiece, but compared to this dreck it was Godfather I & II combined.

I just rewatched the original, and yeah it was cheesy AF but Drew elevated it. Her Charlie was a child that was put through the wringer, yet her kind heart, her love for her father, and the fact that she never wanted to hurt anyone until she was absolutely pushed to the brink is what got audiences to root for her. And the remake screwed up all three of these thinks. Original Charlie saved horses while torching the Shop, but Remake Charlie couldn’t stop herself from burning a stray cat just because it scratched her?! BULLSHIT.

Oh and 

Spoiler

Andy mind-raping Charlie into burning him and that lady together?! UGH.

 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
(edited)
1 hour ago, MaggieG said:

I lost interest in Firestarter after the mom died and they didn't seem to care. I stuck around to watch Zac though 😍

True, Zac was a very hot dad. I just wish their relationship was as close as it was supposed to be.

Did anyone else think Keith David (from the original) looked like a grown-up version of Georgie in Young Sheldon? I swear he does.

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 5/14/2022 at 9:07 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Original Charlie saved horses while torching the Shop, but Remake Charlie couldn’t stop herself from burning a stray cat just because it scratched her?! BULLSHIT.

Once I saw that scene I should have just followed my instincts and turned it off right then. She never would have done that. 

I also hated the situation with Irv and his wife. The whole thing was such a mess!

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 5/14/2022 at 3:53 PM, Spartan Girl said:

A creepier Charlie does not work. It never was who she was. Oh, and she apparently is telekinetic and telepathic instead of just a firestarter. Not to mention the movie completely fails to replicate her close relationship with her father, which was only THE HEART OF THE WHOLE STORY. 

I'm listening to the audiobook of Stephen King's version because it's been so long since I read the book and I was curious. In the book she does have a touch of the other two abilities, but nowhere near a significant power. Although he does explain that the fire and telekinesis are sort of related. Which, if you think of the original movie, makes sense as Charlie steals the coins from the pay phones. The fire wouldn't have made the machines give those up. This was also how she knows the shop was coming to the farm.  The book also hints at Charlie liking the power but being terrified of it as well, but not in the way updated Firestarter showed. The funny part is that now that I'm revisiting the book, it is impossible for me to imagine Charlie as anyone but Drew and her dad as anyone but David Keith.  

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...