I like it. I've outlined a lot of the reasons why elsewhere so there's no need to go into all of that.
I will say that for me, the visuals of a movie, even down to camera work, are secondary to whether the writing and story are good, as this to me is the main thing that holds even a half-way decent movie up.
For me, things like visuals in film are by their nature open ended, come see come si, in other words.
As for performance, when it's good, you know it, when it's great, you also know it.
I wouldn't call the acting the best I ever seen, yet I am willing to put it on the level of a well made X Files episode. That not make sense until you realize both are made on TV using a lot of the same shot set ups and the performances between TV series and mini-series are, to me, about the same and so therefore good.
I also think Cortland Meade captures aspects of Danny, like his resilience, in ways that are under-appreciated.
To be fair, I was amazed by how much Garris and I see eye to eye for the most part when it comes to films.
I also still believe what the miniseries offers is the "True" ending (all's well that ends well).
Count De-mor-nay. She was still hot. Wings guy was good. There is no tension in the whole movie that's what's kind of sad. I thought it was a faithful adaptation. It's not terrible like the Salem's Lot remake but it's not great. Yes, the little kid is terrible though. -mike
I don't know if what I'm about to say counts as nit-picking or not, so bear with.
In comparing and contrasting the two child actors to in their respiective adaptations and take on the character, well, Danny Loyd seem to show just two(count 'em) emotions. One is a look of fright, and the other seems to me to be just this literal blank slate that seems almost disaffected at times.
Cort Meade on the other hand emerges as three dimensional, and he's aided in this by several factors.
First off, he shows a range of emotions in the film, varying from fright, to caring for his parents, to anger and even wonder.
Also it helps that he actually has a motivation you can tell he's coming from, this of course is due to King's script, which I do count as some of his best work.
Also, when compared to Loyd, Meade just seems more calm, controlled (if scared spitless) and in the moment, with more variety than just whigged out or unplugged.
On the whole, I have to go with Meade as the more rounded performance. Just my opinion, though.
Wait, does this make me more like Gene Siskel? (shudders)
Stephen King wrote this screenplay because he didn't like the screen treatment Stanley Kubrick gave the novel.
I always say, Stanley Kubrick never told Stephen King how to write a great novel. Stephen King should never tell Stanley Kubrick how to make a great movie.
The remake is a mere shadow of the original which I rank as perhaps the finest horror movie ever made.
I get why King would want to remake the movie, and there was enough left in the novel that didn't make its way into the movie that I even consider it to have been a good idea. But the execution was poor, so what might have been a triumph is a mere footnote instead.
Apologies to those who enjoy the miniseries, of course. I wish I did!
In short, readers both familiar and unfamiliar with Stephen King's novels will find a motherlode of interesting information inside the pages of Brighton David Gardner's insightful and illuminating treatise.
I can't recommend it enough, so be sure to get it either for your Kindle or e-Reader of choice, or buy the print version because it's easily worth twice the cover price.
I think that the kid who plays Danny is so awful that even if I thought the rest of the miniseries was good -- and I don't -- it would be irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAgree! I just can't stand watching that boy. He is so annoying.
DeleteI like it. I've outlined a lot of the reasons why elsewhere so there's no need to go into all of that.
ReplyDeleteI will say that for me, the visuals of a movie, even down to camera work, are secondary to whether the writing and story are good, as this to me is the main thing that holds even a half-way decent movie up.
For me, things like visuals in film are by their nature open ended, come see come si, in other words.
As for performance, when it's good, you know it, when it's great, you also know it.
I wouldn't call the acting the best I ever seen, yet I am willing to put it on the level of a well made X Files episode. That not make sense until you realize both are made on TV using a lot of the same shot set ups and the performances between TV series and mini-series are, to me, about the same and so therefore good.
I also think Cortland Meade captures aspects of Danny, like his resilience, in ways that are under-appreciated.
To be fair, I was amazed by how much Garris and I see eye to eye for the most part when it comes to films.
I also still believe what the miniseries offers is the "True" ending (all's well that ends well).
ChrisC
Count De-mor-nay.
ReplyDeleteShe was still hot. Wings guy was good.
There is no tension in the whole movie that's what's kind of sad. I thought it was a faithful adaptation. It's not terrible like the Salem's Lot remake but it's not great.
Yes, the little kid is terrible though.
-mike
I don't know if what I'm about to say counts as nit-picking or not, so bear with.
ReplyDeleteIn comparing and contrasting the two child actors to in their respiective adaptations and take on the character, well, Danny Loyd seem to show just two(count 'em) emotions. One is a look of fright, and the other seems to me to be just this literal blank slate that seems almost disaffected at times.
Cort Meade on the other hand emerges as three dimensional, and he's aided in this by several factors.
First off, he shows a range of emotions in the film, varying from fright, to caring for his parents, to anger and even wonder.
Also it helps that he actually has a motivation you can tell he's coming from, this of course is due to King's script, which I do count as some of his best work.
Also, when compared to Loyd, Meade just seems more calm, controlled (if scared spitless) and in the moment, with more variety than just whigged out or unplugged.
On the whole, I have to go with Meade as the more rounded performance. Just my opinion, though.
Wait, does this make me more like Gene Siskel? (shudders)
ChrisC
Stephen King wrote this screenplay because he didn't like the screen treatment Stanley Kubrick gave the novel.
ReplyDeleteI always say, Stanley Kubrick never told Stephen King how to write a great novel. Stephen King should never tell Stanley Kubrick how to make a great movie.
The remake is a mere shadow of the original which I rank as perhaps the finest horror movie ever made.
Hear, hear!
DeleteI get why King would want to remake the movie, and there was enough left in the novel that didn't make its way into the movie that I even consider it to have been a good idea. But the execution was poor, so what might have been a triumph is a mere footnote instead.
Apologies to those who enjoy the miniseries, of course. I wish I did!