Kevin's Watch

I haven't seen that one.

I really like David Morse (I was a huge St. Elsewhere fan), but he's become hopelessly typecast as a bad guy (which is the polar opposite of his St. Elsewhere character).

The Dreaming wrote:I just IMDB'd David Morse, and was reminded of another FANTASTIC King adaptation. Hearts in Atlantis has to be one of the most underrated and under watched movies of all time. (It was brilliant!)

Hyperception feels Hearts in Atlantis is King's best and most literary work. I'll have to see if I can find the DVD, if the adaptation is that good.

i found hearts in atlantis to be dull, sorry.

For the Shining naysayer or two (was it just Lucimay), I had you this:

Exhibit One: Kubrick's artistic license in The Shining movie
Exhibit Two: The Shining miniseries considerably closer to the book

Compare.

I found the miniseries much more tedious than the movie. And it works a bit more in visual form to have an axe instead of a croquet mallet, in my opinion. And those freaky twins in Kubrick were considerably more chilling than anything in the miniseries.

Still, the miniseries could have used some editing and some different actors and might have pulled it off better. But there are a bunch of things in King's books that just don't work visually.

For instance, one of the scariest moments in the book It for me was when the photo album opens up, the picture of the dead brother winks, and blood comes pouring out of the photo album. They kept that intact from the book in the miniseries, and it just looked kinda stupid.

In other words, Kubrick may be overrated, but I think he made the right choices in The Shining. Except maybe for Shelley Duvall, who I actually quite like, except in that movie.

i like david morse too. and would have liked the green mile without hanks. (please don't let him do anymore movies with southern accents, please please please. ugh. atrocious)

anthony hopkins, tho i LOVE him, was NOT ted. hearts in atlantis was only passable. not great. i'm not sure what is meant by "his most literary work." does that mean his best writing? if so, i totally disagree with that too. but my disclaimer on that issue is that everyone who is a king fan has their own favorites. mine is Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. as far as reading king goes, that is.
altho the stand is the one i've reread most often. i love that sh!t!

regarding the shining...
sorry cag...i didn't like either one of them. both had their good points,
one had better actors, one was closer to the story, etc. but neither of
them worked for me.

Lucimay wrote:i'm not sure what is meant by "his most literary work." does that mean his best writing? if so, i totally disagree with that too. but my disclaimer on that issue is that everyone who is a king fan has their own favorites. mine is Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. as far as reading king goes, that is.

I acknowledge when I said that to Menolly, I never explained why I felt that way.

Hearts in Atlantis struck me as King's least genre-oriented work. It wasn't horror. It wasn't fantasy. It wasn't a thriller. Even with the Tower tie-ins, the language for me made it seem the most realistic of his stories, and that is what I meant by most literary.

I have not yet read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. Somehow Menolly missed that one when she brought home King's bibliography from the library for Beorn to submerge himself into. So, I may be mistaken that Hearts is his most literary work. With such a recommendation, I will suggest she try to locate it.

Thanks.

DUDE!! right on for coming online and posting!! you rock!! (i expected pammy to post your response!! )

i can appreciate your perspective. i liked Hearts very much and i really liked the pieces individually and as a thread. the characters in it were some of his best and i agree that it was an extremely well-crafted work.
very clever!! king is nothing if not clever!!

i have a connection to Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption that i can't explain. and to echo your sentiments, it was not a horror story. it was just a story about a friendship. and maybe thats my connection. the entire story just resonates for me.
and frank darabont did justice to that story on film as well. as far as i'm concerned (and loving the other king films i've mentioned) its the best adaptation of all his works to film. (too bad darabont wasn't able to repeat his sucess in the green mile)

btw, Rita Hayworth is in "Different Seasons", which also contains Apt Pupil, The Breathing Method, and The Body (which is my other favorite King film adaptation) and its WELL worth buying.

I loved The Graveyard Shift. It's probably in the 'worst' list for many but I love it as a cheap horror film, plus it has Brad Dourif! How can it be bad


Green mile great, shinning great, stand by me great, shawshank great.
the stand was great to see brought to life if slightly shoddily.

I'd really like to see the film of The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon made.

I forgot about Stand By Me. That would probably be my favorite of his adaptations, as it most reminds me of my childhood. While we never went in search of a dead body, we did have long walking adventures.

I'm going to stick in my $.02 and mention Unbreakable, but maybe I'm just a big Shyamalan fan as well. (And I didn't read the book, either.)

Kudos for mentioning such a great film, but Unbreakable was written by Shyamalan. King didn't have anything to do with it.

I would have to say Carrie was my fave. I also loved Misery.

OK, so I saw The Mist last night.

And hated it. Seriously, that movie really pissed me off.

At one point, I even jumped up and yelled at the screen. I have *never* done that before, so I was as surprised as my wife was!

Care to guess which single character pissed me off so much?

Anyway, I had a prof who told us that you should pay the most attention to the things that evoke the strongest emotions in you... by that standard, The Mist was an exceptional piece of art, in that it succeeded so well at pissing me off.

But I'm still not gonna watch it again.

Cagliostro wrote:For the Shining naysayer or two (was it just Lucimay), I had you this:

Exhibit One: Kubrick's artistic license in The Shining movie
Exhibit Two: The Shining miniseries considerably closer to the book

Compare.

I found the miniseries much more tedious than the movie. And it works a bit more in visual form to have an axe instead of a croquet mallet, in my opinion. And those freaky twins in Kubrick were considerably more chilling than anything in the miniseries.

Still, the miniseries could have used some editing and some different actors and might have pulled it off better. But there are a bunch of things in King's books that just don't work visually.

For instance, one of the scariest moments in the book It for me was when the photo album opens up, the picture of the dead brother winks, and blood comes pouring out of the photo album. They kept that intact from the book in the miniseries, and it just looked kinda stupid.

In other words, Kubrick may be overrated, but I think he made the right choices in The Shining. Except maybe for Shelley Duvall, who I actually quite like, except in that movie.

I agree with everything said here. Kudos.
The key word is "adaptation"...

in addition to "The SHining" is would add:

- Carrie
- Stand By Me
- Misery