Ab Origine wrote:
With the exception of 'Children of Men' from '06 which is just brilliant, imo.

He was creepy. it must be a bit harsh for actors like him, imagine going through your life looking like evil personified

The Orphanage was good (I cried) , have you seen that?

dawnbreak wrote:
Yeah...it was all right.

Ab Origine wrote:
Agreed

Dead Man's Shoes (2004) is also quality of the highest order. There are many exceptions actually...

dawnbreak wrote:
Was it The Devil Rides Out? If so, it's a classic.

Son watches horror films, he says the scariest ever is Salems Lot

Liked that, Dawn, and also The Shining.

It's a very atmospheric film Salem's Lot. It didn't stick that closely to the book really though. They remade it with Rob Lowe as Ben Mears, it was closer to the book, but lacked the creepy atmos of Tobe Hooper's version.

It's the one with David Soul that we have , is that the Tobe Hooper one?

Agree with you on The Shining Gilly, I remember watching that and then The Omen was on the week after.

I watched The Night Flier a couple of weeks back... based on the short story by Stephen King, about a vampire that flies from place to place in a plane, and draining the residents who live in and around the airports. It's a bit of a stupid sounding premise, but it kind of works. It's a dirt cheap film. Miguel Ferrer is brilliant as cynical as fuck reporter Richard Dees, who writes for a trashy supermarket shelf X-Files style rag.

Yeah dawny, the David Soul one is the Tobe Hooper version.

Stephen king is a bit off an odd one, I remember one story called 'The Langoilers?' found that disturbing

Stephen King's books are far better than the films made from them....more than in most cases.

What I mean is, any book is always better than the film version of it, inevitably. But in the case of King, the difference is quite extraordinary.

Some of those films are truly awful. Example, the Dead Zone. Brilliant book, terrible film. Even Christopher Walkden & Martin Sheen couldn't redeem it.

I quite like the tv show thing of The Stand and the film of Needful things. I don't really like any of the other films but It was scary

diamondgeezer wrote:
I think one exception is Fight Club - because the film has a different ending to the book which is IMO much better than the book's ending.

I don't really know what it is about adaptations of King's books, it's a strange one... they kind of read like films, the pacing, the way they unfold, they're ripe and juicy for film, but it never quite works out, except in rare cases. The scope and scale of some of his books makes it difficult though, I'm sure people want to turn them into a film, but it's fitting it all in, they'd be hours long, so they have to make cuts, and we end up with movies that pale in comparison to the books. That's why a lot of adaptations are mini series, so they can have a longer running time than a film, even then they more often than not manage to screw it up.
If they could change the format, turn mini series into 45 minute instalments, 12 episodes, something like that, even a couple of seasons if need be.
The Dark Tower: The Drawing Of The Three is one of the most thrilling, action packed books I've ever read, if they could only get it on film, it would be phenomenally good. It would take real skill, and people who truly understand the work.

The Stand was quite well done agreed....but perhaps thats because it is as you say a tv production and therefore made by different people than those at 'Castle Rock Films', the production company that make most of the King films.

The quality of their product comes across as that of some minor B movie company....why King uses them I really don't know.

American Evil is 'The Lifestyle Channel' shit...

diamondgeezer wrote:
Maybe ultimately, he doesn't want the films/mini series to outshine his books