Without question, Stephen King is one of the most prolific and talented writers of the past century. With many classic novels and short stories to his name, King’s literary oeuvre has been ripe for filmmakers to pluck from since Brian de Palma made the 1976 supernatural horror flick Carrie. Since then, King’s works have served as the basis for some great films: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, and Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep. Just to name a few. 😊
With the release of Rob Savage’s The Boogeyman this weekend, more than fifty cinematic adaptations of King’s fictional works have been made. As such, I wanted to celebrate the best of them by giving my thoughts on (some of) my favorite films based on the works of Stephen King. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Dead Zone (1983) Admittedly, I’m not the biggest fan of David Cronenberg as a filmmaker. However, there are a handful of gems in his filmography that I really enjoy. One of them is the sci-fi thriller The Dead Zone. Based on Stephen King’s 1979 novel of the same name, the film is a grounded & gripping character study of a man who develops precognitive abilities upon waking up from a five-year coma that he entered following a car accident. The man in question, Johnny Smith, is played by the eccentric and enjoyable Christopher Walken. And, in my humble opinion, Walken gives his best cinematic performance to date (yes, even better than his Oscar-winning turn in Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter). Why? Well, if you ask me, Walken sometimes relies too heavily on his outwardly quirky personality to carry his performances. But, The Dead Zone came out before Walken was a major name in Hollywood which I think partly explains why he works so well in it. In contrast to his more eccentric side, Walken makes his character relatable and empathetic by relying more on the way he carries himself to convey the psychological toll that Johnny’s “condition” takes on him. In a way, Johnny is a realistic and dark take on the character of Spider-Man if the web-slinger was a fully-grown man (instead of a teenager). Otherwise, there are some interesting parallels. The most notable of them that having such abilities makes for a lonely existence. In the case of Johnny, however, he chooses to isolate himself because of the impact that using his psychic abilities has on his mental and emotional health. However, doing so means essentially severing his relationship with his ex-girlfriend Sarah (Brooke Adams). This is the crux of Johnny’s tragedy. He realizes that he can use his abilities for good to stop the political ascent of megalomaniac Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen) but must sacrifice everything—including his life—to do so. This makes him a compelling reluctant hero, and Walken excels at pulling off this arc. While much of The Dead Zone rests on the backs of Cronenberg’s direction and Walken’s acting, I think the screenplay by Jeffrey Boam (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2) deserves some praise. For one thing, it’s no easy feat to adapt an (approximately) 150,000-word book into a screenplay that lasts under two hours. And, in my humble opinion, Boam very much succeeds at this task (with some uncredited help from Cronenberg). To his credit, he manages to strip down King’s original novel to its essence and works in tandem with the editing of Ronald Sanders (a frequent Cronenberg collaborator) to maintain the narrative’s deliberate pace without it ever feeling slow. Furthermore, he builds tensions well in both the second and third acts revolving around the subplot of preventing the death of a young boy he tutors and stopping Stillson from becoming president, respectively. Needless to say, by the film’s end I feel satisfied in how Johnny’s story came together. Simply put, that doesn’t work without the writing serving as a solid foundation for the filmmaking. One other creative of The Dead Zone that I want to shout out is composer Michael Kamen (Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Mr. Holland’s Opus). While never oppressing the visual aspects of the film with his music, Kamen subtly injects some unsettling vibes for a tinge of horror while also enhancing the more suspenseful scenes with music that complements what’s happening on screen. Again, Kamen’s work is not the most obviously positive aspect of the movie, but it’s one worth noting nonetheless. Go watch The Dead Zone if you haven’t yet. It’s not an overly long film, and has some great storytelling on display that will please fans of science-fiction, psychological thrillers, and Christopher Walken alike. Stand by Me (1986) When he agreed to direct a cinematic adaptation of Stephen King’s 1982 novella “The Body,” Rob Reiner (The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally…) had only begun his directing career. By the mid-1980s, he was known more as a comedic filmmaker with the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap and the rom-com The Sure Thing under his belt. So, him signing on to make a coming-of-age drama was a bit odd. Fortunately for us, it paid off incredibly well. I’ll just say it: I love Stand by Me. It’s one of my favorite coming-of-age flicks, but it’s more than that. What the four main actors (under Reiner’s direction) pulled off in the movie remains some of the best onscreen chemistry that I’ve ever seen. Many movies like it try to match the dynamic between “Gordie” LaChance (Wil Wheaton), Chris Chambers (River Phoenix), Teddy DuChamp (Corey Feldman), and Vern Tessio (Jerry O’Connell), but often struggle to do even that. Needless to say, most films don’t top what was achieved between these actors (and may never will). The four lead actors here all do a great job in the roles they were given. Unquestionably, Wheaton is a lovable protagonist due to the underdog nature of Gordie’s story. While the narration from his adult self (Richard Dreyfuss) enhances the main story, Wheaton is the person we most relate to in this story as a kid who aspires to do more with his life than his father expects of him but needs the encouragement of his best friend Chris Chambers to feel confident enough to defy those expectations. Gordie also deservedly gets to be the hero in the film’s climactic moments, but Wheaton’s performance by no means outshines his fellow castmates. Both Phoenix and Feldman excel in their respective roles, with the former getting some genuinely emotional scenes talking to Gordie about their relationships with their fathers and about the future. The latter, meanwhile, perfectly encapsulates the superficial machismo of DuChamp while also pulling off the more relatable subtleties of a character with an obvious chip on his shoulder. Arguably, O’Connell does the least heavy lifting as Vern. While not adding to much of the emotional heart of Stand by Me, his presence helps the ensemble feel complete while also being appropriate comedic relief at important times in the move. Not to mention, he’s the center of one of the tensest scenes in cinematic history involving running away from a train on a bridge. 😊 Of course, the actors’ performances are only as good as the writing on the page. Without question, co-screenwriters Bruce A. Evans and Raynold Gideon did a fantastic job bringing these characters and this world to life through the written word. They strip down the narrative to its essence—a tale of four young boys who are friends that go on an adventure one summer—which helps the characters’ actions drive the action and emotion. By doing so, Stand by Me maximizes the audience’s investment in the journey of Gordie, Chambers, DuChamp & Vern within a lean, mean 90-minute runtime. Another notable creative voice I want to shout out is cinematographer Thomas Del Ruth (The Breakfast Club, The Running Man). For such a simply story, I appreciate how straightforward the shots in Stand by Me are. The atmosphere of small-town Oregon in the 1950s is captured vividly in its environments and realistically in its infrastructure. The desolate, post-industrial aesthetic serves the narrative well by showing that these kids have nothing better to do during their summer than head into the woods to find a dead body. While not the most obvious strength of the film (especially compared to the acting and writing), Del Ruth’s eye is unmistakably an important aspect of the magic that is Stand by Me. Which is just what this film is: magic. In terms of the genre it plays within and the story it tells, Stand by Me is one of the best of its kind. In many ways, it remains the standard-bearer for the coming-of-age dramedy (alongside another 1980s classic: John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club). It is funny. It is emotional. It is an endearing and enjoyable tale of growing up, learning, and moving on with life. In other words, it embodies the best of what cinema can be. Misery (1990) Four years after the release of Stand by Me, Rob Reiner took to adapting another Stephen King story for the silver screen. This time, the 1987 novel “Misery” about a successful novelist Paul Sheldon (James Caan) and his experience being the patient/prisoner of deranged nurse Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) who proclaims to be his biggest fan. Over the course of the film, Paul must play into the whims of his caretake/captor in order to not only survive but also find a way flee Wilkes’ home. In sharp contrast to the more lighthearted and charming Stand by Me, Reiner rises to the challenge of shifting genres with Misery. Rather than rely on the lovable chemistry of four child actors, he fully embraces the novel’s claustrophobic atmosphere and suspenseful narrative to adapt it into a textbook thriller flick. In many ways, it remains one of the go-to best examples of a psychological thriller that—unlike other famous King stories—is incredibly grounded and avoids any temptation to include supernatural elements in creating scares and chills. From start to finish, Misery finds its terror in how (sadly) possible this scenario is. As such, it’s still one of the more effective adaptations of King’s writing in cinematic fashion; Reiner understood the assignment and pulled it off. That being said, Misery is not my favorite movie based on a Stephen King story. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. And the main reason for that is the film’s antagonist: Annie Wilkes. Much in the same way that The Dead Zone leans heavily on Christopher Walken’s central performance, this movie simply wouldn’t work without Bates in the role of Annie Wilkes. No disrespect to James Caan as her co-star, but Bates grips your attention from the second she appears on screen. Simply put, she more than earned her Oscar for this performance by singlehandedly delivering what makes the movie as good as it is: it is so stressful to watch. Which is ultimately why I don’t love Misery or care to ever rewatch it. It’s not necessarily a fun time to watch. However, that in no way takes away from the quality of filmmaking on display. Even if you don’t love King’s more typical strain of horror but like thrillers, Misery is more than worth your time. And even if you don’t love the genre, check it out just once for Kathy Bates’ performance alone. Trust me; you won’t be disappointed. Dolores Claiborne (1995) Five years after delivering an Oscar-winning performance in Misery, Kathy Bates starred in another Stephen King adaptation: the psychological drama Dolores Claiborne. Based on the 1992 novel of the same name and directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer and a Gentleman, Ray), the film sees Bates playing the titular character who tries to reconcile a strained past with her daughter Selena (Jennifer Jason Leigh). All the while, Dolores deals with being the prime suspect in a murder investigation which Selena leaves New York City and returns to their home of Little Tall Island, Maine for. Together, they try to clear Dolores’ name and simultaneously heal the scars shared between them. Honestly, I don’t want to say much more about the plot of this film. If you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t be surprised. Unfortunately, in my experience it seems to be one of the lesser-known Stephen King film adaptations which (in my humble opinion) is a shame. It’s one of the most thematically rich films based on King’s stories that I’ve seen. While its main plot is a compelling mystery, it’s the relationships that Hackford and his actors rely on to ground the audience in the narrative. Through exploring the dynamics of these characters (primarily, but not exclusively, that between Bates’ and Leigh’s characters), Dolores Claiborne has something to say about the challenges of returning home to confront the truths of your childhood as well as the nuances of mother-daughter relationships. If you’re looking for the same gripping performance from Bates in this movie that she gave in Misery, you won’t find it. And you shouldn’t be looking for it. This movie is better served by her subtler portrayal of a middle-aged, working-class woman who finds herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply put, how different she is in this movie compared to Misery speaks to Bates’ sheer talent and command of her craft. However, when on screen with Leigh (who brings her own strong presence to Selena & her rapport with her mother), the two make a fantastic pair of leading women. That being said, I do think that the acting is elevated by the screenplay for Dolores Claiborne. Penned by Tony Gilroy (The Bourne Identity, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), the writing deftly balances drama, suspense, and mystery to create a genre-bending narrative. It is well paced in terms of the reveals while ensuring that the timing of said reveals offer impactful emotional punches (especially during the third act with regards to Dolores’ fate). At the same time, though, Gilroy’s writing never comes off as rushed or exploitative. Instead, it relies on deliberate storytelling to make these human stakes very high by investing us in the titular heroine and the immediate support system around her. I don’t want to say anymore out of fear of revealing too much. Go check out Dolores Claiborne if you haven’t yet. If you don’t, you’ll surely regret it. Needless to say, all four of these films are great movies in their own right while also being exceptional adaptations of Stephen King’s storytelling. They are all worth watching (even though I prefer some more than others), and luckily are just some of the great cinematic takes on King’s literary oeuvre. Don’t believe it? Then go check them out for yourself! 😊 What is your favorite cinematic tribute to Stephen King? Which of King’s novels or short stories would you like to see made into a film? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|