Stephen King has said that he is the literary equivalent to "a Big Mac and fries". I'd like to say that he's more of a three course spectaculathon filled with high end desserts and a major meal only Emeril Lagasse could whip up. The classics of horror that he's written have been labeled as the inspirations for many screenwriters, and he's probably the most iconic horror writer next to H.P. Lovecraft. Many of us might not even be fans of the genre if it wasn't for his work. I remember walking into my parent's bedroom as a child and trying to sneak reads of the Stephen King novels on my mother's bedside. He's one of the most published authors of all time, has sold over 350 million copies of his books sold, and has had more of his stories turned into films or tv miniseries than any other author of all time with 86 adaptations. One would believe that this magnitude of talent would produce some of the greatest horror films to go along with it, right? WRONG. Out of those 86 adaptations, I'll go along to say that 10 or less are anything to bat an eyelash at. The rest...garbage. In defense, the films that ARE good aren't just good...they're monumental.
The Shining goes to be one of the scariest films of all time and IMO, Jack Nicholson's best work to date. All of the films are impacting, but it doesn't necessarily mean the films are anything of worth. Stephen King is by far the author most likely to get screwed in a film adaptation.
Witness the iconic train wreck,
Children of the Corn. While the film is praised for having Isaac and Malachi, the two creepiest amish kids ever on screen, it is also noted to be one of the crappiest films ever made. The COTC franchise is a joke in the horror industry. It's honestly what the Duggar kids would be doing if TLC didn't keep them on track. The story the film is based on, was a short story Stephen King published in Penthouse. Really? PENTHOUSE!? That should have been a sign right there that this is a story left best on paper and not on the silver screen. It has spawned six sequels and a made-for-TV remake. The Children of the Corn is the horror equivalent to The Land Before Time. It never ends and the first one wasn't even good. The first film received two thumbs down by Siskel & Ebert and currently reps a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, ouch.
Stephen King's
The Dark Half was the second highest selling novel of 1989. When George A. Romero, king of the f'ing zombies signed up to direct the film, it seemed as if this would be the saving grace of the novel turned film work of Stephen King. Romero was just so stifled making a studio picture, that this just became so bland and drab. I've read The Dark Half. I find it horrific and brilliant, I've seen
Dark Half, I wish I couldn't admit to that. The film is watchable, but it's not something I'll ever care to see again. The only admirable thing about the film is the suspense that goes along with not knowing the story, once you've seen it once...there's nothing to the film to keep you entertained. It's a one view film at best. I think the reason I dislike it so much, is because of the drastic contrast between the book and the film. At least with films like LTROI or even Harry Potter, the movies are STILL good despite having monumental books to live up to, the same cannot be said for this one.
TV mini-series seem to be the absolute WORST culprits.
The Tommyknockers, Rose Red, Kingdom Hospital, and yes,
IT are some of the worst adaptations of King's novels to date. The first three can easily just be explained as "god awful with bad CGI, bad acting, and bad interpretations".
IT however, is something people fight me with tooth and nail about. Do you want to know why people say IT is so scary? BECAUSE HE'S A FREAKING CHILD KILLING CLOWN WITH SCARY TEETH THAT COMES THROUGH YOUR PIPES. The storyline is compelling, the length is unnecessary, and the scenes from the book they chose are the most "family friendly" of any of them. The film has no balls, and is a complete JOKE compared to the novel. The series is just lucky that Pennywise as a character is going to freak people out in general. Of course he's going to be scary. I'm not denying that Pennywise is frightening, but I am denying that
IT is a quality adaptation. The series is incredibly slow, the ending is so bad I turn it off before it happens, and the only redeeming qualities of the series is when Tim Curry is on screen. Anything else is laughable, dull, and a waste of time. The book is downright disturbing, and
IT is just sort of bland. The only reason it reached any sort of success is because there is an overwhelming amount of people with phobias of clowns, and because Tim Curry is a genius. If Pennywise had been played by anyone else, that film wouldn't be anywhere near as iconic and Pennywise would have been written off as just another creepy clown like Bozo without the buckets.
It is true that there was a HUGE SK obsession in the 70's, 80's, and 90's...but even his films made in the 2000's are dreadful (with the exceptions). 1408 is a freaking joke. I'm a John Cusak fangirl and even I watched the film with the same expression I have when I see fat women in Wal-Mart wearing spandex with crimped mullets. It's a trainwreck and nothing more than wasted potential. This isn't to say ALL Stephen King film adaptations are crappy. His non-horror films are widely successful.
The Shawshank Redemption and
Stand By Me are two films that are
almost universally accepted as good films. The man has got talent for writing, if only filmmakers could properly capture it. *sigh*
