Editorials
The Top 10 Stephen King Adaptations!
Fox Home Entertainment is bringing several horror classics to hi-def Blu-ray as part of their Feed Your Fear campaign, with most of them already at a store near you. We’ve joined forces with them to bring you four top 10 lists related to one or more of the titles. In lieu of the classic Stephen King adaptations Misery and Carrie now available on Blu-ray, we present to you “The Top 10 Stephen King Adaptations.” Watch for another two features in the coming weeks leading up to Halloween.
Dont forget to also check out:
The Top 10 Claustrophobic Horror Movies
The Top 10 Rock ‘n Roll Horror Movies!
The Top 16 Oscar-Worthy Horror Performances
A ‘Thirst’ For Redemption: 12 Movies They Won’t Show You At Bible Camp!
The Top 20 Horror Science-Fiction Films of All Time
The Top 13 Slashers in Horror Movie History
The Top 13 Kills in Horror Movie History!
The Top 10 Obscure Horror Gems For Halloween
The Top 10 Made-for-TV Horror Movies of All-Time
The Top 10 Horror Comic Adaptation
The Top 10 Worst Horror Director Collapses!
The Top 10 ‘True-Story’ Horror Movies of All-time!
The Top 10 Hottest Vampire Babes of All-Time
The Top 10 Most Unusual Zombie Occupations
The 10 Lamest Days of Horror the World Has Ever Known
The 10 Stupidest Motives In Slasher Movie History!
The Top 10 Most Batsh*t Crazy Horror Movie Doctors
The Top 10 Worst Things That Could’ve Been in Brundle’s Machine… Besides a Fly
The Top 10 Best Horror Remakes of All-Time
Top 10 “Doh” Moments in Horror History
15 Reasons FOR Remaking A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET
The Top 10 Reasons Why Bela Lugosi Still Rules
Top 10 Non-Zombies in a Zombie Film
Okay, can we just be real here? Most Stephen King movies kinda suck. But when you think about it, so do most movies in general. I mean, hardcore King fans are just being unrealistic when they expect a top-shelf adaptation of every single one of his stories. Of course, as with any author who has captured the popular imagination, King’s followers feel his work deserves a screen treatment to match the vivid, skin-crawling nightmares that he brings to the page. To that all I can say is: welcome to Hollywood, where the grandiose, unrealistic dreams of optimists everywhere are shattered daily. Thought of that way, it’s actually a minor miracle that we’ve had as many truly good, or at least decent, King adaptations as we have. Following, my list of the ten best. P.S.: I should note here that I set a few ground rules: 1) It had to be a straight horror/thriller (i.e. Shawshank, Dolores Claiborne, etc. don’t qualify); and 2) It had to be a feature film (i.e. no TV miniseries) that was a direct adaptation of one of King’s novels or short stories (i.e. no Sleepwalkers or one of those horrid Children of the Corn sequels). And now, as Stephen himself would say – enjoy the list, Dear Reader. And happy nightmares.
Christine is by no means a John Carpenter classic, or even a particularly good movie (how’s that for a ringing endorsement?), but there’s still some solid stuff here. And in his defense, Carpenter was up against a doozy of an obstacle from the start. Namely: cars aren’t scary. My advice? Don’t go in expecting to be frightened out of your wits, and you’re in for a relatively diverting 110 minutes. Actor Keith Gordon makes Arnie’s nerd-to-stud transformation surprisingly believable, and Carpenter gives the film a visual slickness that suits the material well. Two added bonuses: an excellent soundtrack, and a pre-stardom, pre-Scientology Kelly Preston in a minor role.
This mostly forgotten 1985 adaptation of King’s novella “Cycle of the Werewolf” is surprisingly decent. It features a pre-hot mess Corey Haim as a disabled kid living in a small town plagued by a series of grisly unsolved murders. After he encounters a werewolf on a bridge late one night, Haim enlists his lovable, alcoholic uncle, played by a pre-bat shit insane Gary Busey, to help solve the mystery. Busey has some great lines, and he and Haim share an easy-going chemistry that’s a pleasure to watch. The werewolf effects are okay, if a little rubbery-looking, but overall Silver Bullet has a sense of humor about itself (Stephen King scripted) that helps make it better than you’d expect.
Admittedly Pet Sematary is kind of a cheese-fest, but it still holds up as one of the better King adaptations due to a few genuinely creepy moments. This is mostly due to not only theose uber-disturbing flashback scenes, but the performance of young Miko Hughes, whose sweet, high-pitched voice and cherubic features come to serve as an ironic counterpoint to his murderous acts in the last third of the film (“Now I wan-too pway wiv you!”). Just prepare yourself for a few unintentional chuckles, not to mention one of the most grating performances by a child actor (the young girl who plays Miko’s older sister) ever.
Including this David Cronenberg adaptation of King’s fifth novel (if you don’t count the Bachman titles) comes dangerously close to violating the rules I set forth in the beginning – namely, the one about the films having to be straight horror/thrillers in order to qualify. But at the end of the day, The Dead Zone does possess enough thriller-centric qualities to make the cut. This is a really solid, if rather dry adaptation, with a strong central performance by Christopher Walken (despite that hideous, fit-for-an-80-year-old grandmother hairstyle he seems to sport in every movie). It’s no masterpiece, but it’s deeply felt; and if you haven’t read the book you’re in for a pretty nifty little ending.
Dee Wallace Stone is a perfect example of a really terrific actress who, over the course of her career so far, has never been given the opportunity to fulfill her sizable potential as more than just a terrorized genre-film heroine. This is due in large part to the enormous success of E.T., which pigeonholed her into the “frantic mother” role in seemingly every single film she appeared in thereafter. I just had to say that, because Stone really anchors Cujo, which could have been just another lame King adaptation, and makes every hysterical moment in that demonic-St. Bernard-battered Pinto entirely believable. Kudos also to Jan de Bont, who provided the cinematography that proved so effective during those heart-in-the-throat attack scenes.
Ok, so if Michael Bay directed a King adaptation, it would probably look something like this, except with more super-hot, blouse-busting ghosts, bigger explosions, and minus all the nifty build-up. But if you take it for the market-tested, slot-filling big-studio product that it is, 1408 is a surprisingly decent little horror flick, with some inspired special effects and a truly creepy hotel-room setting. Of course, director Mikael Halfstrom also helmed that Jennifer Aniston snooze-fest Derailed. Given the cringe-inducing enormity of that debacle, he’s still got a long road to hoe before he repays his debt to society.
Funnily enough, Misery occupies the exact same spot as it did on my “Top Ten Claustrophobic Horror Movies” list, and it ranks so high on both simply because it’s such a solid, enjoyable little entertainment. Unlike the previous three entries, Misery doesn’t harbor any grandiose ambitions, which shouldn’t be a surprise given that Rob “Big-Studio Cocksucker” Reiner helmed the thing. But as a slick, modern-era Hollywood thriller, there are few as good as this one. Bates’ alternately hilarious and disturbing performance alone makes this worth a second viewing.
Frank Darabont, the director responsible for the terrific Shawshank Redemption and the overlong, if nearly-as-good Green Mile, delighted Stephen King fans everywhere when it was announced he would be tackling King’s grim, apocalyptic short story “The Mist”. For a horror-fiend like me, it was particularly welcome news that the man behind two of the best King adaptations would be taking on one of his more straight-ahead horror yarns. Needless to say, I wasn’t disappointed. Darabont hews miraculously close to King’s vision (save for that love-it-or-hate-it ending) while also managing the feat of making a truly scary horror film that functions equally well as a queasy, post-9/11 satire of American life.
What misfit teen didn’t wish for telekinetic powers after Carrie, Brian De Palma’s near-perfect adaptation of King’s first novel, was released in 1976? True story: during my freshman year in high school, a Volkswagen Bug caught fire during a “Stuff the Bug” competition in the quad. Everyone inside (all of them associated with the popular crowd) escaped without injury, except one: a cheerleader in the back seat suffered first-degree burns on her ass. The unfortunate incident was blamed on a lit cigarette, but I liked to think that there was a mousy girl nearby, something like Carrie White, who started it all.
Yeah yeah, so I freaking love The Shining, alright? But what true horror fan (at least one who doesn’t hold movie directors to unrealistic standards of literary faithfulness) doesn’t? This was made back in the heady early days of Stephen King adaptations, where arty, top-shelf filmmakers were taking a crack at his work, rather than the hacks that mostly took over later on. For the record, I actually like the Kubrick version of the story better than King’s version, which includes the just-okay ABC miniseries with which he was officially involved. Sorry, but Steven Weber is no Jack Nicholson. So there. – Chris Eggertsen
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.