▼
Remakes Worth Considering
It's an era of remakes. Talk of remaking movies like Pet Sematary makes fans scratch their heads -- what was wrong with the original? Same with Carrie; though I do whole-heartedly embrace the TV version. Why did they remake Salem's Lot? And please, please, please Hollywood -- stop giving us Children Of The Corn remakes, sequels or any other media. The Children of the Corn is DOA by now!
If someone wants to remake King films, I have a few suggestions!
How about remaking Dolores Claiborne? The book was awesome; the movie stunk! There's a simple reason for the movie's downfall -- they deeply changed King's story. It worked the way it was written! Told in Dolores' voice, she moved naturally from past to present. The addition of her adult daughter was not helpful to the story's flow.
Needful Things was just disastrous! And I went into it with high hopes. I had fallen head over heels in love with the novel, buying each segment of the audio tapes with my 18th birthday money. (They released it in three parts to make purchasing more bearable!) I loved it all! The women killing each other in the middle of the street; Radar; Polly and her arthritis; the Sheriff and his shadow puppets; Buster and his race horses; the boy who takes his own life; the woman in love with Elvis -- all of that was wonderful!
The real engine in the book was the Sheriff's past. What happened to his wife? The novel becomes his own war with the devil. I had no idea King was writing about the 1980's and our desire to buy everything! To me, it was just a big, awesome brilliant novel.
But the movie lost most of that. Needful Things the movie started well, but failed to maintain the intensity that King's novel did. Instead of ending with a fight with the devil, it concludes with a sermon. This one needs a little room to breath. I don't know why it was never optioned as a mini-series, but I think it would work nicely. The plot drives it hard, even when King spends time focusing on characters.
Oh, how about Dreamcatcher ? Again, loved the beginning -- but I always lose interest in the movie midway through. Desperation falls in the same boat for me. It started good, but I just can't stay connected. I did like the novel, but something doesn't feel right on screen.
The Langoliers was bad from the start. Awkward acting, bad spacial effects and way too much screen time makes the movie a big yawn. In fact, it's laughably bad.
Firestarter was a big budget movie, big names and followed the book to the T. But still, something was very empty in that movie. I don't know what! I just know that the film isn't as much fun as it ought to be.
IT deserves a remake. I look forward to the upcoming movie, because I think that the mini-series dropped the ball in many areas. Special effects were bad. The only adult that really carried the movie was Tim Curry. The kids were great, I mean absolutely fantastic. But all of the adult scenes were embarrassing!
Oh, this one is good. . . The Running Man! Now that was an awesome book! It was not an awesome movie. In fact, other than the title and the game show, I'm not really sure what the movie had in common with the book.
Some King films weren't good, but there's no point in remaking them because the source material never really warranted a feature film! Take for instance, Silver Bullet. It started out as a calender, turned into a novella. It's a fun read, and I even like the movie a bit, but I do wonder if the book had been written by anyone else, would it have become a movie? Same with The Lawnmower Man -- though that can of worms oughta be left unopened!
There are some King movies that had no source material, since they were made for the screen. While Storm Of The Century was a home run, I'm speechless at Sleepwalkers. Just speechless. Can only say, "Please, no remakes!"
Now, some movies I just wish they would remake parts of them. The end of the Mist for instance! Some fans loved it. I know from his review that Lilja thought it was great, and King gave it his blessing. But it leaves my heart throbbing every time I watch that thing.
Remake we really don't need: Carrie, The Stand (but I'll be the first in line) and Pet Sematary. As the old man said, if it ain't broke. . .
I think when the movie adaptation is really good, it changes how you read the book! You fall more in love with the book having seen it on film. When a movie doesn't work, you think, "At least I still have the book."
I'm sorry, but...why does everyone love the Pet Sematary movie? The book was AMAZING, and I watched the movie and couldn't STAND it. I thought the acting was horrendous and I found myself laughing at it most of the time. I think I like The Langoliers more than the Pet Sematary movie, and that's saying something. Or maybe I'm just weird, which is very possible.
ReplyDeleteWell, here are some strengths of the Pet Sematary movie:
ReplyDelete1. It was fairly true to the tone and story of King's book. Even elements that I don't like in the movie (the ghost) are present in the book.
2. It doesn't try to be anything other than what it is -- horror. It is dark and plays its hand well.
3. I thought the acting was good.
4. But finally -- going with the Langoliers coparison (I shiver at the thought. . .), at least with Pet Sematary, if you didn't like it, it was over after an hour and a half. Langolier just would't let you go! It went on and on and on.
david
Dolores Claiborne was excellent. You're insane.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Dolores Claiborne is an excellent movie; I disagree that David is insane. He seems like a pretty cool dude to me!
ReplyDeleteI can see his point about "Dolores Claiborne." The movie DID deviate from the novel substantially. However, I enjoyed all the changes (to the extent one can use the word "enjoyed" when describing a subplot about incest), and felt that Taylor Hackford used King's source material to craft a solid semi-Hitchcockian drama.
But could someone else return to that source material and make another good movie from it, one which approached the material a bit more from the angle King came at it from? Absolutely.
I am insane; though I appreciate Bryants kind defense.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I again agree with Bryant that someone else could return to the source material and make a completely new movie. No real harm done to the original movie, it's still there for all you who love it. I just liked the flavor of the original.
David