The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Stephen King, as I'm sure most of you know, is a very popular horror writer. He has been writing bestselling novels for over twenty years now, and he is hugely popular.
Due to his popularity, many of his books have been turned into movies, as always seems to be the way!
Some years ago a Radio 1 DJ argued that Stephen King novels make terrible movies, but do you agree with this?
Personally, I think that some of his novels have made remarkable films! Misery is an outstanding movie, the tale of a writer who is involved in a crash, and nursed back to health by his number one fan. It just so happens that she's more than a little deranged!
The Green Mile, when first released, was done so in six parts. As such each book ended on a bit of a cliff-hanger, leaving readings wanting more, but having to wait for the next part to be released. The movie lacked this suspense, but the wonderful story was still present. It seems odd calling it a wonderful stor, given that it's set on death row, but this tale of the remarkable John Coffey is quite amazing.
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. This was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Of course every coin has two sides, and 'Sometimes They Come Back' and it's sequels are just that. The original was just a short story, in a collection of a dozen or so, and as such, didn't have enough to it to turn it into a full movie, but someone tried to. It was mildly entertaining, but there was so much 'padding' to it, that it became dull. Somehow it spawned 2 sequels!
Sleepwalkers is another terrible movie. It's about shape shifting creatures that don't like cats. The main problem with this is that cats can't act. I'm sure in text this was impressive, but when you watch it, it's a bunch of cats sitting on a patch of grass licking themselves, them being thrown at the shapeshifters!
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. Again this was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Then there are the epics.
The Stand is at least 6 hours long in movie form, and still has to leave things out that are present in the book. It's a great story about a desease that wipes out most of the world, leaving only a small number of people, some heading towards a good they saw in a dream, some heading for evil.
'It' is another lengthy one, with an evil confronted by children, then again when they grow older. The length of the movie is quite necessary to tell the story as it was intended to be.
I can't mention every film that has started out as something penned by King, (though I should have given The Shinning and The Shawshank Redemption at least a paragraph each!) but I believe that pretty much anything he writes could make great film, it just depends on how the director interprets it, the budget they have, and whether they can get the actors to portray the characters in the way we see them. Some people can take a short story, and develop t into a movie that's really worth seeing, and others will take a fantastic novel, and turn it into a great huge poo.
Due to his popularity, many of his books have been turned into movies, as always seems to be the way!
Some years ago a Radio 1 DJ argued that Stephen King novels make terrible movies, but do you agree with this?
Personally, I think that some of his novels have made remarkable films! Misery is an outstanding movie, the tale of a writer who is involved in a crash, and nursed back to health by his number one fan. It just so happens that she's more than a little deranged!
The Green Mile, when first released, was done so in six parts. As such each book ended on a bit of a cliff-hanger, leaving readings wanting more, but having to wait for the next part to be released. The movie lacked this suspense, but the wonderful story was still present. It seems odd calling it a wonderful stor, given that it's set on death row, but this tale of the remarkable John Coffey is quite amazing.
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. This was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Of course every coin has two sides, and 'Sometimes They Come Back' and it's sequels are just that. The original was just a short story, in a collection of a dozen or so, and as such, didn't have enough to it to turn it into a full movie, but someone tried to. It was mildly entertaining, but there was so much 'padding' to it, that it became dull. Somehow it spawned 2 sequels!
Sleepwalkers is another terrible movie. It's about shape shifting creatures that don't like cats. The main problem with this is that cats can't act. I'm sure in text this was impressive, but when you watch it, it's a bunch of cats sitting on a patch of grass licking themselves, them being thrown at the shapeshifters!
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. Again this was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Then there are the epics.
The Stand is at least 6 hours long in movie form, and still has to leave things out that are present in the book. It's a great story about a desease that wipes out most of the world, leaving only a small number of people, some heading towards a good they saw in a dream, some heading for evil.
'It' is another lengthy one, with an evil confronted by children, then again when they grow older. The length of the movie is quite necessary to tell the story as it was intended to be.
I can't mention every film that has started out as something penned by King, (though I should have given The Shinning and The Shawshank Redemption at least a paragraph each!) but I believe that pretty much anything he writes could make great film, it just depends on how the director interprets it, the budget they have, and whether they can get the actors to portray the characters in the way we see them. Some people can take a short story, and develop t into a movie that's really worth seeing, and others will take a fantastic novel, and turn it into a great huge poo.
Page:
Stephen King can think of an excellent story (they're all good) but then he makes the STUPIDEST endings that it completly spoils the whole film. Some are classics but i think theyres to much false hype around him.
Yeah.
Didnt think too much of King's Dark Tower books.
Reeked of Tolkein.
Didnt think too much of King's Dark Tower books.
Reeked of Tolkein.
When I saw The Stand it was in 4 parts!
The Dead Zone was cool, but I saw that well over 10 years ago, so I don't overly remember it.
I haven't seen or read Apt Pupil either.
I did see the movie version of The Dark Half, and it lacked the suspense of a typical King novel. I started to watch Needful Things once, but only whilst waiting for something else to come on, so didn't see it all, but I bought the book theother day.
Dolores Clairborne wasn't a bad watch, but I kept thinking that it would have been a better read.
Cats Eye wasa decent movie, combining 3 King short stories, one about a firm that helped you to stop smoking, one about a man walking around the edge of a building, and one about a strange little creature that tries to steal your breath.
Firestarter is another which I vaguely remember seeing years ago. And Cujo.
Salems Lot wasn't a bad movie.
TommyKnockers reeked of 'made for TV'ness, but was watchable.
The Creepshow movies were entertaining, especially as one ofthem had Leslie Neilson in.
Geralds Game would only make a good movie if they concentrated more on the last 10% of the book rather than all that comes before it.
Now Desperation, that could be a damn fine film.
The Dead Zone was cool, but I saw that well over 10 years ago, so I don't overly remember it.
I haven't seen or read Apt Pupil either.
I did see the movie version of The Dark Half, and it lacked the suspense of a typical King novel. I started to watch Needful Things once, but only whilst waiting for something else to come on, so didn't see it all, but I bought the book theother day.
Dolores Clairborne wasn't a bad watch, but I kept thinking that it would have been a better read.
Cats Eye wasa decent movie, combining 3 King short stories, one about a firm that helped you to stop smoking, one about a man walking around the edge of a building, and one about a strange little creature that tries to steal your breath.
Firestarter is another which I vaguely remember seeing years ago. And Cujo.
Salems Lot wasn't a bad movie.
TommyKnockers reeked of 'made for TV'ness, but was watchable.
The Creepshow movies were entertaining, especially as one ofthem had Leslie Neilson in.
Geralds Game would only make a good movie if they concentrated more on the last 10% of the book rather than all that comes before it.
Now Desperation, that could be a damn fine film.
Misery and Christine were very good films, The Stand was quite good as well but was too long taking into account both parts (or were there 3?) I haven't seen the Green Mile and didn't realise it was written by Stephen King. As for other King films I have seen most of them and with the exception of Carrie which was terrible I have found them not bad but again either to long or to difficult to understand, although my age may have had something to do with that at the time of viewing.
Shining: Good in a Kubrik way
Misery: Good in a Rob Reiner way
Green Mile: Good in a Tom Hanks way
Shawshank: Awesome in every way
Christine: Pants, but John Carpenter can do no wrong
The Stand: Rob Lowe. End of story
Tommyknockers: Jimmy Smits. Nuff said
Carrie: John Travolta with big fat head
And some others.
So, in answer to your question:
Sometimes
Misery: Good in a Rob Reiner way
Green Mile: Good in a Tom Hanks way
Shawshank: Awesome in every way
Christine: Pants, but John Carpenter can do no wrong
The Stand: Rob Lowe. End of story
Tommyknockers: Jimmy Smits. Nuff said
Carrie: John Travolta with big fat head
And some others.
So, in answer to your question:
Sometimes
Stephen King, as I'm sure most of you know, is a very popular horror writer. He has been writing bestselling novels for over twenty years now, and he is hugely popular.
Due to his popularity, many of his books have been turned into movies, as always seems to be the way!
Some years ago a Radio 1 DJ argued that Stephen King novels make terrible movies, but do you agree with this?
Personally, I think that some of his novels have made remarkable films! Misery is an outstanding movie, the tale of a writer who is involved in a crash, and nursed back to health by his number one fan. It just so happens that she's more than a little deranged!
The Green Mile, when first released, was done so in six parts. As such each book ended on a bit of a cliff-hanger, leaving readings wanting more, but having to wait for the next part to be released. The movie lacked this suspense, but the wonderful story was still present. It seems odd calling it a wonderful stor, given that it's set on death row, but this tale of the remarkable John Coffey is quite amazing.
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. This was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Of course every coin has two sides, and 'Sometimes They Come Back' and it's sequels are just that. The original was just a short story, in a collection of a dozen or so, and as such, didn't have enough to it to turn it into a full movie, but someone tried to. It was mildly entertaining, but there was so much 'padding' to it, that it became dull. Somehow it spawned 2 sequels!
Sleepwalkers is another terrible movie. It's about shape shifting creatures that don't like cats. The main problem with this is that cats can't act. I'm sure in text this was impressive, but when you watch it, it's a bunch of cats sitting on a patch of grass licking themselves, them being thrown at the shapeshifters!
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. Again this was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Then there are the epics.
The Stand is at least 6 hours long in movie form, and still has to leave things out that are present in the book. It's a great story about a desease that wipes out most of the world, leaving only a small number of people, some heading towards a good they saw in a dream, some heading for evil.
'It' is another lengthy one, with an evil confronted by children, then again when they grow older. The length of the movie is quite necessary to tell the story as it was intended to be.
I can't mention every film that has started out as something penned by King, (though I should have given The Shinning and The Shawshank Redemption at least a paragraph each!) but I believe that pretty much anything he writes could make great film, it just depends on how the director interprets it, the budget they have, and whether they can get the actors to portray the characters in the way we see them. Some people can take a short story, and develop t into a movie that's really worth seeing, and others will take a fantastic novel, and turn it into a great huge poo.
Due to his popularity, many of his books have been turned into movies, as always seems to be the way!
Some years ago a Radio 1 DJ argued that Stephen King novels make terrible movies, but do you agree with this?
Personally, I think that some of his novels have made remarkable films! Misery is an outstanding movie, the tale of a writer who is involved in a crash, and nursed back to health by his number one fan. It just so happens that she's more than a little deranged!
The Green Mile, when first released, was done so in six parts. As such each book ended on a bit of a cliff-hanger, leaving readings wanting more, but having to wait for the next part to be released. The movie lacked this suspense, but the wonderful story was still present. It seems odd calling it a wonderful stor, given that it's set on death row, but this tale of the remarkable John Coffey is quite amazing.
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. This was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Of course every coin has two sides, and 'Sometimes They Come Back' and it's sequels are just that. The original was just a short story, in a collection of a dozen or so, and as such, didn't have enough to it to turn it into a full movie, but someone tried to. It was mildly entertaining, but there was so much 'padding' to it, that it became dull. Somehow it spawned 2 sequels!
Sleepwalkers is another terrible movie. It's about shape shifting creatures that don't like cats. The main problem with this is that cats can't act. I'm sure in text this was impressive, but when you watch it, it's a bunch of cats sitting on a patch of grass licking themselves, them being thrown at the shapeshifters!
I think that Children of the Corn is great. The story of a bunch of kids that murder all of the adults. Again this was just a short story, but whoever adapted it has kept with the original theme, and taken it on to draw it to it's Hollywood conclusion. Again this spawned sequels, but watch (or read) the original first!
Then there are the epics.
The Stand is at least 6 hours long in movie form, and still has to leave things out that are present in the book. It's a great story about a desease that wipes out most of the world, leaving only a small number of people, some heading towards a good they saw in a dream, some heading for evil.
'It' is another lengthy one, with an evil confronted by children, then again when they grow older. The length of the movie is quite necessary to tell the story as it was intended to be.
I can't mention every film that has started out as something penned by King, (though I should have given The Shinning and The Shawshank Redemption at least a paragraph each!) but I believe that pretty much anything he writes could make great film, it just depends on how the director interprets it, the budget they have, and whether they can get the actors to portray the characters in the way we see them. Some people can take a short story, and develop t into a movie that's really worth seeing, and others will take a fantastic novel, and turn it into a great huge poo.
Page: