Stephen King´s film

#9: The Mist
Tragically unappreciated on both sides of the pond, Frank Darabont?s film perfectly captures the B-movie atmosphere of the original Stephen King novella, which pits a group of supermarket shoppers against a mysterious fog teeming with tentacle bug monsters from Dimension X. Marcia Gay Harden steals the show as a looneytunes evangelist with human sacrifice on her mind, and the Twilight Zone-style twist ending is breathtakingly cruel.

Pop quiz. Tell me, what do you consider to be the most successful Stephen King adaptation, made for film or television? "Carrie"? "The Dead Zone"? "Salem's Lot"? "Stand By Me"? No! Not "Maximum Overdrive"!! (And if that is your choice, may God forgive you, because I won't.)

All of the above, except "Maximium Overdrive" of course, are great pieces of work. But my choice as the benchmark Stephen King adaptation would probably be "The Shawshank Redemption", directed by Frank Darabont.

Stephen King has been very good for Frank Darabont. "The Shawshank Redemption" has become a modern classic and "The Green Mile" was nearly as good. I am glad to say that "The Mist" is nearly as good again.

"The Mist" is a great film, perfectly structured, but a film that requires patience. It is a film of the slow build and of a gradual getting to know the characters, their obsessions, their fears and prejudices. It was nice to see a King horror film where his great talent of touching on the reality of a small town, has been exploited. It makes it all the more horrific when all hell does break loose, because the people who are getting hurt are ones that you know.

Thomas Jane is faintly wooden. Personally I would not have cast him, but all of the other performances are top notch. Marcia Gay Harden's possibly psychotic, fundamental Christian, Toby Jones' short, pudgy, perfectly ordinary hero, Andre Braugher's uptight, big city lawyer and William Sadler's scared, malleable blue collar worker. All excellent.

"The Mist" is not "The Shawshank Redemption" in one crucial way. Whereas "The Shawshank Redemption" was about hope and life, "The Mist" is about hopelessness and death. One thing that they have in common is an astonishing ending. The ending of "The Mist" is wonderful, horrific, twisted and shocking. Not anything that I saw coming.

"The Mist" is marvellous. Must see.


Best bit: A really, really, really big beastie, glimpsed briefly through the mist.

Please note that this review refers to the theatrical version, and not the Director's Cut DVD release which features a completely different ending.

Mike Enslin is a cynic. He is the author of books that detail and debunk popular ghost stories and haunted hot-spots, and it quickly becomes obvious that he is somewhat disenchanted with the life that he leads. That is, of course, until he receives an invitation to Room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel, a room in which lies his and arguably John Cusack's biggest challenge yet.

It soon becomes apparent that 1408 is not your standard horror movie, as what follows, after an enjoyably creepy encounter with hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L Jackson), is essentially 90 minutes of John Cusack in a room. On his own. Save for, of course, whatever lurks inside 1408. It is a challenge that Cusack rises to expertly; we all know he's a good actor and a brilliant everyman (I don't remember a film in which I've wanted to see him crash and burn), but 1408 allows him to display his range to great effect as the room confronts him with the physical dangers of the present and the emotional tragedies of his past.

While it's relatively light on big scares, 1408 instead creates a powerful sense of unease that combines wonderfully with Cusack's portrayal of a man enduring his own private hell. Each challenge thrown up by the room takes the movie somewhere new and unexpected, ensuring that the movie never really gets tired or repetitive, and as a result each scene in the room is tense, surprising, and very, very creepy. However, that's not to say that it doesn't lose its way occasionally. Some of the CGI usage is quite ineffective, and about two-thirds through the movie it feels like it's about to go the wrong way, but it recovers well for the final act, and its haunting ending ensures that you'll remember it long after you leave the theatre.

A brilliantly acted, well developed version of King's short story, 1408 is a different type of horror movie, but in all the right ways. Very good!

I liked this Stephen King adaptation of his short story taken from 'Everything's Eventual', the author's most recent collection. Mick Garris ('The Stand', 'The Shining (TV)') has not strayed too far from the path with this macabre tale of a hitchhiker who is offered rides from a handful of weird and wonderful characters one Halloween night.

The year is 1969 and Alan Parker (Jonathan Jackson) learns that his mother (Barbara Hershey) is dying of cancer, so instead of going to see Lennon and McCartney, the troubled teenager is forced to hitchhike back to his hometown. He is eventually offered a ride by a young man with a sinister secret. Parker is then forced to confront all the demons from his past if he is to survive what could be the last ride of his life.

Like the original story, the film has all the makings of a campfire tale. There are lonely stretches of highway flanked by tall pine trees - roads that are interspersed with graveyards and other dark places one shouldn't venture into after the sun sets. There are carnivals and rollercoasters. There are plenty of laughs as well as scenes that will chill your soul to the bone. Even Death himself makes an appearance.

Terrifyingly entertaining, 'Riding the Bullet' will also make you question what really is important in life.

Also stars David Arquette and Cliff Robertson.

I have always wanted to see Secret Window; when a movie has such varied and mixed reviews it is always intriguing to see the movie itself and find out which side of the line you sit on. I recently viewed Secret Window with a friend from the safety of my own home. It's only a short movie, which in itself has appeal, and if it were any longer the suspense element would have most definitely fizzled away. The first hour or so nothing much happens, the story line just plods along and you wait and watch to look for anything you have missed and wonder whether the story is going to go anywhere. The first portion of the movie is not a complete failure, however, as Johnny Depp once again shines in his role and keeps the viewer somewhat interested. Once the twist kicks in, the movie takes the viewer to a whole new level. My friend and I were simply intrigued in horror. It simply is brilliant and I would recommend this to anyone who loves being taken on a journey through their imagination.

As Stephen King fans should probably know, there are a lot of things in Stephen Kings books that make sense only where they are - that is, in Stephen King books. Translating them to film is usually a bad idea, as many filmmakers who had adapted King's books before probably figured out. But along comes Lawrence Kasdan, a talented and acclaimed veteran director, who, with the aid of a no less acclaimed screenwriter William Goldman, decides while writing a script for Dreamcathcer that it would be better to bring along all the trademark King's weird goings-on - and voila! We have a movie filled with telepathy, butt-ripping aliens, crazy military types keen on killing everyone, telephone-guns, indian symbols and even a lot of CGI thrown in for a good measure. Of course, it all fails - but oh how gloriously! I'll go as far as to state that Dreamcatcher is absolutely the best unintentional B-movie trashfest in years! It was totally amusing that such a bunch of undoubtedly talented people (Morgan Freeman, Tom Sizemore, Thomas Jane, besides aforementioned Kasdan & Goldman) were able to make this film without a single smirk - while the material is pure trash'n'cheese. That was the whole beauty of it, for me, at least - the level of money, work and talent that went into creating this film. I would like to personally thank all the people involved with Dreamcathcer - they made my year! Thank you, Lawrence Kasdan! Thank you, William Goldman! Thank you, Morgan Freeman - your eyebrows rocked! And most of all, thank you, Jason Lee - the bathroom scene involving Beaver and an alien worm under the toilet lid is pure classic!

Having read the short story by Stephen King , the film is fairly true to the book and like the book it leaves you with a feeling of "that was good but is that it?" I have a theory that when King wrote the story he hoped it would lead to a novel but for some reason or another it was cut short much like the film and book. In the film you are left with no doubt that the Lowmen are real but in the film you never know if it is part of the boy's imagination or if they are police and the old man is on the run from them. The book also focuses on the Supernatural side of the story the film does not and i would suspect makes it feel quite slow for some viewer's. Hopkins is great as usual , as is the boy , Anton Yelchin and the latter has a great career ahead of him. One thing that does come from this is that i usually always enjoy Castle Rock productions is this is no different

Stephen King is one of the greatest Horror writers of all time. With stories like "The Shining", he has become categorically associated with the spine chilling. Ironically however, he is responsible for two films which are not as much spine chilling as moving and to a degree inspiring. The first of these is 1994's "Shawshank Redemption" and the other is 1999's "The Green Mile".

Staring Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan, "The Green Mile" is the story of a prison during the depression. In charge of the Electric Chair, Paul Edgecomb (Hanks) and his group of guards, run a tight operation where often the guards have a close relationship with their prisoners. One day a prisoner is sent to them in the form of the gigantic John Coffey (Clarke Duncan). Coffey is sentenced to death for the brutal murder of two young girls, but as the guards begin to interact with Coffey, they begin to realise he isn't quite what he seems.

With multi-Oscar winner Tom Hanks in the leading role, King and director Frank Darabont, have chosen a well seasoned professional who can put in the outstanding performance often needed. In "The Green Mile" however, Hanks is outperformed by the surprising Michael Clarke Duncan. Used to more blockbuster based roles (1998's "Armageddon" and 2003's "Daredevil" for example), Clarke Duncan shines as the sweet giant with a heart of gold. Worthy of his nomination for best supporting actor at the Oscars, it took a questionable win for Michael Caine for him to not win.

Aside from Hanks and Clarke Duncan, the remainder of the cast provide equally sound performances. Patricia Clarkson is perhaps underused, whilst Sam Rockwell is perhaps overused, but all in all, the cast perform effectively.

"The Green Mile" is a brilliant film. It's perhaps slightly too long, running in at a hefty three hours, but the majority of it runs smoothly and effectively. It might not be as good as films like "The Godfather" (1972) or "Casablanca" (1942), but it's definately a film which everyone should watch. It's a film which inspires us to think, and simultaneously causes us to shed a tear. Three hours it might be, but make the effort and you won't be disappointed.

'Quicksilver Highway' is the collaboration of two of the world's most talented literary horror writers, Stephen King and Clive Barker. It is a rather short anthology of two terrifyingly twisted tales, with an inset story featuring Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future). But do they terrify the average film-goer? A wandering storyteller, Aaron Quicksilver (Lloyd), narrates the tales in two strikingly different locations: Stephen King's 'Chattery Teeth' along a deserted stretch of desert highway and Clive Barker's 'The Body Politic' within the carnivalesque setting of a funfair.

The more interesting of the two tales is 'Chattery Teeth', which tells of a psychopathic hitchhiker who falls prey to a relentless and dangerously-sharp set of chattering teeth owned by the travelling salesman driving the car. 'Chattery Teeth' is taken from a short story written by King and first published in 'Cemetery Dance' magazine in the nineties. Similar to the stories found in 'Creepshow' and 'Creepshow 2', it is a bizarre and disturbing story with a twist in the tail (think 'Twilight Zone' and the 'Ray Bradbury Theater').

The lesser of the two is Barker's 'The Body Politic'. Here, a hand comes alive, goes completely out of control, and eventually attacks its owner. The story is taken from Clive Barker's 'Books of Blood: Vol 4' and is actually quite an entertaining and intelligent story ... in print. However, attempting to re-create this story on film just doesn't work. The effects are nothing short of laughable, which inevitably ruins a good tale.

'Quicksilver Highway' is directed by Mick Garris, who has collaborated with Stephen King on more than one occasion (see 'Sleepwalkers', 'The Stand', 'The Shining' (TV), and the forthcoming 'Riding the Bullet' and 'Desperation'). He is also the man behind some of the 'Twilight Zone' episodes and 'Freddy's Nightmares', the latter explaining his less than efficient effort with 'Quicksilver Highway'.

Nevertheless, the cast is well chosen - Matt Frewer (The Stand), John Landis (dir. 'An American Werewolf in London'), Bill Nunn (Kiss the Girls), and Clive Barker - and although the movie does have its tedious and ridiculous moments (check out Lloyd's fetishistic leather garb), it is watchable. Fans of 'Tales from the Crypt' and 'Tales from the Darkside' will certainly want to give this film a look-see.

You can say what you want about Stephen King-movies, but there's always just enough talent and budget involved to not make 'em look cheap. In THE NIGHT FLIER this talent mostly comes from actor Miguel Ferrer and SFX-artists Kurtzman, Nicotero & Berger. Ferrer is an often overlooked actor who most of the time only gets supporting rolls. But he'll always be edged in my memory as go-getter Bob Morton in Paul Verhoeven's ROBOCOP. Now he gets the chance to star in the leading roll in THE NIGHT FLIER, and he proves that he can carry a film. He was just perfect as the arrogant sleaze-reporter Richard Dees.

There's a mysterious figure flying in a black airplane and landing on small airports at night. He leaves behind him a trail of mutilated, blood-drained corpses. Richard Dees, reporter for the cheese & sleaze magazine "Inside View", is put on the case. So he gets in his airplane and starts following the same route as the vampiric murderer. Meantime, a rival reporter (the rookie Katherine Blair) is also assigned to write a story about it...

The plot is nothing too complicated, but it's built up nicely and even manages to be a bit scary from time to time. It all leads to the enjoyable final scenes at the last airport. The vampire is mostly kept in the dark throughout the movie, which helps to build-up a little tension. But don't worry, you'll be satisfied when you see it's ugly scary face in the end. Which brings us to the work of our beloved KNB-crew. The special make-up-effects are very decent and quite gory too. And I also liked the fact that the vampire is able to mess with peoples minds.

Okay, there are some improbabilities concerning some events in the plot, but lets not make a big deal out of it. Just take it as it is: It's a decent Stephen King-adaptation and a good vampire-movie, nothing more nothing less. So switch off the lights and fly with it.

I have to say I enjoyed this film a lot. I hadn't heard of it before but I found the film interesting. This film provides an interesting take on time travel not depicted in other time travel movies.

To be perfectly honest I did not see this as a scare film. It was not remotely frightening to me, but that did not prove to be a negative part to it. The story is brilliantly told, and the sfx weren't that bad. It was clearly an unreal format of effects, but this added to the unique structure.

Overall I enjoyed the Langoliers, a story of mystery and adventure crammed with plot twists.

If there is one thing I always fear, than it must be movies about bad marriages, an abusive husband, child abuse ... How often do you get a good movie with such subjects. Not very often, because most of the time these are awful TV-movies that seem to be written at a rate of at least one an hour. Always following the same concept, always trying to make the poor viewer cry his eyes out while saying that that poor woman / child didn't deserve to be treated that bad. Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying that it should be tolerated. Men who do such awful things can't be punished hard enough, but the movies that are made about this subjects are complete crap most of the time.

"Dolores Claiborne" tells the story of a woman who is accused of murdering the wealthy woman she worked for as a maid in Maine. When her daughter Selena finds out that her mother is accused of this crime, she immediately returns home from New York, leaving her job as an important reporter behind for a while. But she doesn't return to support her mother as you might expect. No, she's almost certain that she did it and she seems to try to get a good story out of it. But gradually she finds out what really happened and in the meantime some awful things about Selena's troubled childhood, the awful family life,... come floating at the surface again.

I know that I said in the beginning of this review that most movies with such a subject are plain crap, but there are always expectations to every rule and "Dolores Claiborne" certainly is one of those exceptions. It was written by Stephen King and it shows. The man knows how to build up suspense and certainly can give you an uneasy feeling while reading his books or watching one of 'his' movies. And "Dolores Claiborne" has a lot more depth than you might expect at first. The only thing is that they have managed to disguise it, not giving away too much information at a time. Only at the end of the movie you'll fully understand what has happened and what the reason was for both women to react the way they did.

What I also liked, next to the story, was the way everything is shot. All the scenes in the present are shot in those cool blue tones, but these blend seamlessly into the flashbacks that were shot in vivid colors. This gives an extra touch to the story that certainly works. You know exactly what is the present and what is the past, but those colors also add a lot to the drama.

But the way a movie was shot alone doesn't make it good of course. That's what good actors who do some excellent things are for. And that's also exactly what you'll get from Kathy Bates, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Christopher Plummer... Jennifer Jason Leigh is nice as the daughter, but it's Kathy Bates and Christopher Plummer who give away the best performances in my opinion. Bates is stunning as the tormented woman who's personality seems so strong, while in reality she is a broken soul who wishes for nothing much but to die as soon as possible, so all her misery can end. And I also loved Plummer as Detective John Mackey who's hate against Dolores is so big, because she is the only spot on an almost spotless career. He has solved all his cases except for one and he'll not rest until he can send Dolores to jail.

All in all this is a very good and suspenseful movie that never tries to become a tearjerker, despite the heavy subject. It offers some great acting, nice photography and a good story

"And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark Satanic mills? "

William Blake, "Jerusalem", 1795

"We all have to make sacrifices!" --from the Mangler-screenplay, 1995

Coming from Stephen King's 1978 collection of shorts, "Night Shift", Tobe Hooper brings us his very different-take: a parable of 19th Century, proprietary-capitalism and the nightmare of the American-workplace. This film is what labor-conditions were 100-years-ago, and what they could easily become again if we aren't too-careful. Since the discovery of a slave-sweatshop in El Monte, California a few-years after the release of this film, it isn't so fantastic. Maybe some of us were too-comfortable to "get" this film in the Clinton-era. Most people don't get this film at-all, even just watching it on its surface-levels. It's a real hoot! Yep, you can watch it with a beer, and you can watch it with an open-mind thinking about its deeper-meanings, or you can do both. And--shocker!--ALL of them are FUN.

Tobe Hooper has said for-decades he wanted to do comedy, and he comes close here, which helps this film from being too-oppressive. Ithink Hooper understood the story better than Stephen King--it seems King worked in a clothes-pressing plant like this one in the 1960s, which gave-rise to it, but Hooper has always struck me as politically-radical in his approach-to-horror. The best horror usually has a real subversive-edge, and this is what makes this a good one. Sure, it's hokey, but it has its tongue firmly-planted in its cheek, it is jokey. It also has some sub-themes in the lines, "There's a piece of me in that machine--and a piece of it in me." It speaks well of how people are spiritually-contaminated by our system. The disease is greed.

If it wasn't for Ted Levine ("Buffalo Bill" in Silence of the Lambs) as the bedraggled town-cop John Hunton, Robert Englund would literally steal-the-show here. Tobe uses some great low-shots and wide-angle lens compositions (ala "Citizen Kane") that lend the film a great comic-book look, and make Englund shine as a despicable-villain. The irony is, mill-owner Gartley is also a victim of the machine, even robbing him of the ability to walk. He's also half-blind, which makes-sense. The characters are pretty well-drawn, and we learn that Detective Hunton has some baggage left-behind from the death of his wife in a car-accident, years-earlier. The town is run like a virtual-dictatorship by Gartley, who basically represents the "robber-barons" of the 19th century (as well as today), completely-uncaring about the safety and welfare of his employees. A man who has lost his humanity. Sound familiar?

Eventually, an accident occurs where the niece of Englund's character spills her own blood on the "Mangler", a clothes-press that must be 100-years-old. Another shop-employee spills her belladonna-laced antacids into the guts of the machine, and it begins taking-victims...and parts. Oddly, all the people Bill Gartley "owns" (the Mayor, the Police Chief, Doctors, etc.) have missing-fingers. Of course, the premise of a demoniacally-possessed machine is fantasy, which is what makes the story a parable, but it's fun. Over-time, Detective Hunton finds that the Gartley dynasty has been-sacrificing their own young to the infernal-machine for a century, and now they're "spreading-the-love". Don't all employers? Some require the blood of a virgin!

So, people have been wrong about this one. It's a minor-classic of a bad-decade for horror. The genre has its fallow-periods where interest isn't as-high, and 1995 wasn't exactly a banner-year for horror-buffs. And quit-comparing every film a director does to their most well-known ones, it's emotionally-retarded. This is a solid horror-film, and if it had been presented in the proper-context, would have been better-appreciated. The short-story is good, but this is better, and Stephen King sure isn't Edgar Allan Poe or Lovecraft ferchrissakes. The New Line DVD is great, it has a perfect widescreen-transfer, and even includes the gore that was cut with split-screen comparisons to the theatrical-version. A great horror-film, and a respectable one for Tobe Hooper. Now you can all go and rewatch the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"--just don't touch-yourself so-much this time. We all have to make sacrifices, after-all. Ignore the other reviews, those people are snobs.

In this review I'm not going to give a plot synopsis of this film because I'm sure everybody else who has commented on it has. However, I will express the positive effect it can have on the viewer if they let it.

The acting is uncommonly magnificent. Morgan Freeman delivers the greatest performance of his brilliant career as the seasoned life-serving prisoner Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding, Tim Robbins holds his own against Freeman as Andy, the central character, James Whitmore's portrayal of the institutionalized Brooks provides the backbone of the story, Bob Gunton is wonderful as the corrupt Warden Norton, and Clancy Brown's commanding performance as Captain Hadley, the sadistic head prison guard, almost makes him steal the show from Freeman.

Frank Darabont's restrained direction of the delicate story is critical for the film to not become sentimental or clichéd, and his beautiful adaptation of the Stephen King story on which the movie is based is a real breath of fresh air. On account of Darabont, the film shows that special effects are not needed to tell a great story in film. As a teenager, I love special effects movies as much as the next person, but they get boring after a while. Plus many people forget that there was a time in cinema when the blockbuster didn't exist, when they made movies that just told great stories and gave the audience a chance to be uplifted by those stories without the creators having to resort to special effects. I applaud you for having the guts to make a non-commercial film that reminds people of that in this day and age, Mr. Darabont.

SPOILER ALERT!

As with all truly great films, 'The Shawshank Redemption' is full of scenes that have become entrenched in the public's collective consciousness. There's the scene where Andy plays the opera record over the loudspeaker for all the inmates in the prison, Captain Hadley bashing "Fat @$$" to death for crying during his first night in prison (a very powerful scene), Red giving his "Rehabilitated?" speech to the board of parole officials, the Warden getting his final judgement, and of course, Andy crawling to freedom through what Red in his narration calls "500 yards of s**t-smelling foulness I can't even imagine,", the scene which for me is perhaps the greatest movie scene of the '90s.

END OF SPOILERS!

I thoroughly recommend this cinematic masterpiece, which has earned its place in my humble top ten films of all time list, to anybody. Whatever gender, age, religion, nationality etc. you are and whatever language you speak, I guarantee it will change your life, or perhaps even save it. Movies like 'The Shawshank Redemption' only come along once every decade, if that. Unforgettable.

Aside from the odd exception, Stephen King has rarely transfered well to the big or small screen, and along comes this little mini-series which is a by-numbers example of what actually gets lost in translation. Firstly: when these novels are adapted for the screen, fundamental elements of the plot are excised or replaced, and this is true of even the better King-flicks ("The Shining" and "Carrie" are just as guilty as pulp trash like "Needful Things" and "Cujo"). "The Tommyknockers" begins as if it's going to buck the trend, establishing the majority of the usual King misfits early on, and actually adds a little suspense by not showing its hand too early - for example, this adaptation does not make clear what's buried out back in Bobbie's farm straight away. But as the town begins to be affected by said item, it's off into it's own world, and toss the novel out the window. Granted, some of the more imaginative gimmicks the township dreams up cannot be translated to screen with the appropriate panache, especially with the meagre budget allocated to this project - but does everything need to look so cheap? Much of the dialogue at best doesn't ring true, at worse stinks. Witness the actually quite good Marg Helgenberger delivering some awful lines ("Gard, let's experience it together!") but in an offhand way that suggests that she's really aware that she's not in a Mamet play, but, Hell, let's make the best of it anyway. Any good points? Well, Joanna Cassidy is always worth watching, but an actress of her class still can't make a thrown together middle-age romance look realistic. Helgenberger and Allyce Beasley come out of it with the least mud sticking. Worst crimes? Jimmy Smits completely miscast, terrible dialogue, cheap effects, complete massacre of the source material, Traci Lords all at sea outside of a John Waters movie or skinflick ... the list goes on.

This is a true so-bad-it's-good movie. It's right up there with Death Race 2000 and Nine Songs (only joking, I think) as one of the great after-pub films. To its credit it doesn't try to be meaningful or intelligent, but concentrates on the more important business of killing off the characters (mainly the rural cops) in imaginative ways. There's a longer-than-usual cameo by Stephen King, and Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper also make appearances. The real heroes, though, are the cats. They are consistently more resourceful than the human characters and, unlike the cops, have mastered the important skill of entering and leaving buildings. The climax is a riot of silliness. Great fun!

As you've probably seen, a lot of people have have seriously slagged off this film. In most cases, its because of the unusual plot. But I think that this is what makes this movie.

Your also bound to be confused with what the plot is, but its not complicated. Pierce Brosnan (Known as 'Angelo')is a scientist who works for a company that specialise in virtual reality and computer generation. Brosnan has been working on a project which enables people to become smarter, but has had tough luck finding volunteers. However, his luck changes when he realises that his friend 'Jobe', a lawnmower man who is slightly backwards could be the perfect specimen. Angelos tests prove successful, and things go great. But as in all films, there's a downside.. Jobe becomes too smart and takes revenge on people as his life becomes estranged with computer generation.

It would be cruel to tell you any more - the film is marvellous in the directing department. Jobe's frustration is well screened an some of the ideas are great. Even Brosnan plays a great part in this film and makes us forget he is 007 in years to come.

The CGI in this film is what makes it. OK, I have to admit, Terminator 2's special effects are in a different league, but the effects in this film are not supposed to be super realistic. They are supposed to be a vision (in most cases) of virtual reality - how a computer generated world would look. They are engaging, but dated. Still, I think there effective and entertaining. some people say this film is a thriller, an in ways their right. But don't get mis led and think this is a horror film - it isn't, its more psychological.

So, the final verdict. If your into films that are certainly different than the usual s**t we get these days, I would recommend this definitely. However, if you have no idea what virtual reality is or have no patience, then don't bother. Classic stuff!

This film is a classic 'Stephen King' film. The scenes from this film I mostly enjoyed was Jimmy Normans flashbacks from his childhood memories 27 years before as well as very cool and brutal Nick Sadler (Vinnie Vincent) and Richard Lawson(Robert Rusler) while slaying Jimmys students one by one until they got they're own personal revenge on Jimmy for when they were killed 27 years before. A performance well done! What I liked about this film was the grimness/ darkness of the movie, which brings a shiver in my skin every time I watch it. This feeling brings upon me a sense of realism, as though what happened to Jimmy Norman as a child when his brother was murdered by the 4 gangsters and when they came back to haunt him years later has actually happened in real life; Which is amazing because all this would never happen in real life, other than the part when Jimmys brother was murdered.

I found this film both scary and humorous (in one) for there were scenes that I didn't know whether to laugh at or scream at (ie. when the 3 gangsters turned into burnt corpses in their car just before they killed Chip Conway/ and the way Billy Sterns body was positioned and the way his face looked when he fell off his bike and landed in the ditch under the bridge. If you haven't seen this film, I suggest you should, as you'll be laughing and screaming all the way through it.

Based on the novel by him, 'Misery' is a real Stephen King film. It is a drama film, but also a thriller and sometimes even a horror. In one scene the horror is very clear, you will know what scene I mean.

Writer Paul Sheldon (James Caan) gets in a car accident. He is helped by Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) who claims she is his number one fan. In his latest novel Sheldon has killed the favorite character of Annie making her a little mad. She keeps Sheldon in her home; he has to bring the character back to life in his next novel.

Bates, who won an Oscar, is terrific as Annie, one of her finest performances. James Caan who is in bed or a wheelchair most of the film is very convincing. The room he is living in is one of those spaces in the movies you will not forget very soon. Directed by Rob Reiner this is a great film, although it could be a bit slow for some from time to time.

It" it's possibly the best TV adaptation of a Stephen King novel. Ok, that does not mean anything, because TV adaptations from King's novel usually leave a lot to be desired (Langoliers, The Stand...); but it is the one I've enjoyed the most.

This is an story about the fear itself. Your fears as a child, and your fears as a grown man. It's kind of a parable: when you're an adult and you think everything is under control, that monsters and ghosts doesn't exist, that they can't scare you anymore... Well, you're wrong: as "It" clearly shows, adults are much weaker than children when it comes to face your fears. At least that's my interpretation of this story of seven friends who had to fight against some kind of evil pressence in their little town when they were kids, and have to do just the same 30 years later, when they had almost forgotten of each other and what it happened.

The first part of "It", in which the children are protagonist, is way much more exciting that the second one (with the adult characters). That first part has reminded me (in some way) of another Stephen King's adaptation: Stand By Me. Definitely it is much more entertaining. I haven't read the novel, so I don't know if they've made a good work adapting it (if it's exact enough), but I suppose that other reviewers will have talked about it.

And there's not much more to say. The special effects are a little better than in Langoliers (no big deal, anyway), and though there're lots of ups and downs in the script, "It" achieves it objective: to entertain.

PS: Pennywaise's character is the most histrionic and crazy performance of Tim Curry since Frank N'Further.

In Gates Falls,Maine,an old textile mill that has been closed down for many years is reopened.The place is dirty,run down,and overrun with huge rats.The graveyard shift is operated by a skeleton crew,just enough to keep it going.This is where we meet John Hall,a young drifter who gets hired on to work with the crew.The plant which is infested with rats also harbors something much larger,deep in it's cotton filled bowels,something that wants to come up to the surface.The crew of the graveyard shift are about to come face to face with what's underneath the factory."Graveyard Shift" is loosely based on Stephen King's short story.The film is fast-paced and entertaining and offers some gore plus a few shocks.Many people trashed this horror film,but I don't care."Graveyard Shift" is still much better than bloodless and politically correct horror garbage produced today.The cast is decent and the production design provides plenty of eerie atmosphere.Give this one a look

Tales from the Darkside: The Movie starts with an ordinary looking woman named Betty (Deborah Harry) driving home, once there it is revealed that she is keeping a young boy named Timmy (Matthew Lawrence) locked in a cage in her kitchen & intends to kill, cook & eat him. To try & stall for time Timmy offers to read some stories from a book called 'Tales from the Darkside', Betty reveals that they have plenty of time & tells him to go ahead. Timmy's first story is called 'Lot 249'...

Andy (Christian Slater) & Lee (Robert Sedgwick) are university students & best friends. They discover another student named Edward Bellingham (Steve Buscemi) has won an auction for 'Lot 249' which happens to be an Egyptian sarcophagus with it's Mummy still inside. Edward finds an ancient scroll stuffed inside the Mummy which when recited is able to bring the Mummy back to life...

Betty liked 'Lot 247' so lets Timmy tell another one, this time called 'Cat from Hell'...

A hit-man named Halsten (David Johansen) arrives at the large mansion owned by the billionaire owner of a pharmaceuticals company named Drogan (William Hickey) who offers to pay Halsten $100,000 to kill a mysterious black cat which he believes has been sent to kill him. Drogan thinks the cat has already killed three people & thinks he is next. Halsten thinks Drogan is crazy but accepts nevertheless, however he soon discovers that killing this particular cat isn't as easy as it first would appear...

Betty also liked 'Cat from Hell' & says that Timmy can tell one more story, Timmy chooses 'Lover's Vow'...

Preston (James Remar) is a failed New York artist whose apartment is overlooked by a stone Gargoyle. One night after he is told by his agent Wyatt (Robert Klein) that he is being dumped Preston gets so drunk the bartender Jer (Ashton Wise) has to take him home. While walking down some back alleyway Jer is decapitated by a large creature with wings & sharp claws, the creature goes up to Preston & says that it will spare his life if he never tells anyone about it. Not having much choice Preston agrees & the creature disappears in the New York night. Shortly after this unnerving encounter Preston meets & falls in love with a woman named Carola (Rae Dawn Chong) whom after being together for 10 years have two children, Margaret (Nicole Leach) & John (Daniel Harrison) but Preston is finding it harder to keep his secret but surely after all this time it wouldn't matter if he told his wife, would it...?

Betty now decides enough is enough, there will be no more stories & it's time for Timmy to become dinner...

Directed by John Harrison who also composed the score for the 'Lover's Vow' Segment, I thought Tales from the Darkside: The Movie was a good horror anthology that isn't the best this sub-genre has to offer but it is by no means the worst either. I like anthology films & I look for quick fast paced stories with a nice twist at they're end. Unfortunately Tales from the Darkside: The Movie didn't quite manage to surprise me with two of it's twists which were actually pretty obvious while the story that has the strongest ending is the slowest to sit through. 'Lot 247' was written by Micheal McDowell based on a story by Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & is a good opening story featuring the familiar faces of Christian Slater, Steve Buscemi & Julianne Moore but I found the ending of this segment weak & predictable which spoilt what had gone on before. The second story 'Cat from Hell' written by George A. Romero based on a short story by Stephen King (his name just had to be here somewhere didn't it?) is the weakest of the three stories but is the most stylishly filmed with some cool fades & transitions between shots, blue tinted flashbacks & the spacious, spooky darkly lit mansion provides some real atmosphere which is wasted on this segment as it's ending didn't do anything for me as it turned out exactly as I expected with the cat appearing to succeed in it's quest for revenge. The third story written by Micheal McDowall is generally considered the best & for good reason, although it's slower than the previous two it has impact & a good ending twist which I didn't actually see coming. I'm not saying the other two stories are bad, far from it but I was maybe hoping for a few more surprises. I won't bother commenting on the wraparound story as I found it very poor. The film as whole moves along nicely & since each story only runs 20 odd minutes none of them outstay their welcome. It's well made throughout with nice production values especially during the 'Cat from Hell' segment which looks very nice. The acting is good too with some familiar faces. One thing Tales from the Darkside: The Movie does have going for it are some wonderful special make-up effects by K.N.B effects with Dick Smith credited as a consultant. Each story seems to have it's own little special effects showpiece, 'Lot 249' has the Mummy being chopped up with an electric carving knife, 'Cat from Hell' has a cat bloodily enter someones body through their mouth & then exit the same way & 'Lover's Vow' has the excellent & totally cool looking Gargoyle transformation & just about any shot that it's in really. It's a little light on the actual blood & gore front though, we do get a gorily realistic cool looking severed hand & decapitation. Overall I liked Tales from the Darkside: The Movie but I can't help but feel the endings of both 'Lot 247' & 'Cat from Hell' let those segments down somewhat. Still the film as a whole is a great watch & is good all round entertainment.

I am a big fan of Stephen King's work, and this film has made me an even greater fan of King. Pet Sematary is about the Creed family. They have just moved into a new house, and they seem happy. But there is a pet cemetery behind their house. The Creed's new neighbor Jud (played by Fred Gwyne) explains the burial ground behind the pet cemetery. That burial ground is pure evil. Jud tells Louis Creed that when you bury a human being (or any kind of pet) up in the burial ground, they would come back to life. The only problem, is that when they come back, they are NOT the same person, they're evil. Soon after Jud explains everything about the Pet Sematary, everything starts to go to hell. I wont explain anymore because I don't want to give away some of the main parts in the film. The acting that Pet Sematary had was pretty good, but needed a little bit of work. The story was one of the main parts of this movie, mainly because it was so original and gripping. This film features lots of make-up effects that make the movie way more eerie, and frightening. One of the most basic reasons why this movie sent chills up my back, was in fact the make-up effects. There is one character in this film that is truly freaky. That character is "Zelda." This particular character pops up in the film about three times to be precise. Zelda is Rachel Creed's sister who passed away years before, but Rachel is still haunted by her. The first time Zelda appears in the movie isn't generally scary because she isn't talking or anything, but the second time is the worst, and to be honest, the second time scares the living **** out of me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie, it is almost perfect. Pet Sematary delivers great scares, some pretty good acting, first rate plot, and mesmerizing make-up. This is truly one of most favourite horror films of all time.

In the near future, Arnold stars as Ben Richards, a wrongly convicted man coerced into playing 'The Running Man', a deadly TV game show where people have to keep moving to try and escape brutal deaths at the hands of the 'Stalkers'. Of course, people are expected to die eventually and its up to Arnold to prove the system wrong.

I haven't read the Stephen King book, but this is a great film regardless, one of Arnold's best. He does what he does best in the action man role, delivering death with unforgettable one-liners. Classics are probably the 'He was a real pain in the neck' after strangling a guy with barb wire, and 'He had to split!', referring to whereabouts he just chain sawed someone vertically. Dawson is perfectly irritating as the TV presenter, and all the 'Stalkers' are suitably camp. The action is violent, but its an action film. That's the point. The film is fast paced, and at 90 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome.

With Starsky and Hutch's Paul Michael Glaser at the helm, and made in the wake of the success of The Terminator, previously this film was probably seen as just another mindless action vehicle for Arnold, and very far fetched. But today, anyone who watches a lot of TV could see how the film is getting closer to reality. I wouldn't be surprised if I turn on the TV in the 'near future' and see a show not to far from this.

On that depressing note, I must however recommend 'The Running Man' to anyone who likes the 80s, Arnold, ridiculous acts or violence or just a good action film.

I find it hard to comment on this film without simply repeating what has already been said. It's not that I can't think of anything original, but that others seem to have felt the exact same emotions as I did when watching this film.

I saw this movie when I was about 12, 13, maybe 14 years old. So it didn't have the same nostalgic sense it had for so many. But what it did, was make me ache for those memories. I wanted (in the words of another reviewer) to be 12, and *that* cool. I wished I had been like that, that I had had friends like that, laughed like that, and had adventures like that.

The 'milk-money' scene was probably one of my all-time favourite scenes in movie history. Up until I saw this movie I had never held much regard for River Phoenix, but the poignancy and sincerity which River added to the role of Chris Chambers touched me to the point of tears. I read in yet another review that in this scene, River was asked to think of a time when he had been hurt by an adult, and that even after the cameras stopped rolling, River sat there still, sobbing and hurting. And I felt every tear and heard every word as though I were there with Chris.

This movie made me laugh, cry, rejoice and fear with Chris, Gordie, Teddy and Vern. I loved the campfire scenes, and today I look back on my own childhood, and remember with a laugh the amazingly similar things I used to laugh and wonder about with my friends. I remember dreaming about being a writer and an actress, I remember standing up to bullies, I remember walking or riding with my friends, I remember being afraid, and crying onto a friend's shoulder.

I guess what this movie does for everyone, is take them back in time, even though the situations may have been different, chances are you'll find the similarities, and remember with a smile that yes, your life was once *that* cool. In the words of Vern, "a great time"

I especially loved the ending. That they found out who was strong, and who just talked tough. I loved the last scene with Chris and Gordie, and the closing monologue.

"I never had any friends later on, like the ones I had when I was twelve...Jesus....does anyone?"

I really cannot understand why this movie has such a bad overall rating. According to me a movie doesn't have to have a great plot or so to be appealing. First of all I like the movie for the soundtrack by AC/DC. Actually, I learned to know the music of them by watching this movie. The 'Who made Who' theme song conducts the beginning of the movie excellent when a traffic bridge is starting to open beyond human control. The same goes for the other songs in the movie - they really add. Secondly I like the movie for the humor in it. It's not a comedy but some scenes made me laugh - like the bible sales man who gets mad when his car is hit by a truck and he runs outside the roadhouse - cursing like hell; the truck hits him into a sewer and his shoes stay behind. Or the beginning of the movie in which you see a guy withdrawing money from an ATM and on the screen the message appears 'you're an *sshole'. 'Sugar buns, this thing is calling me an *sshole !' If you watch closely you might also notice just before this scene a digital clock on the building on which the time changes into F*CK YOU. Maybe I'm just simple but I like the movie. Better than some not understandable romantic drama if you'd ask me.

I first saw this movie when I was ten years old, my uncle, a horror fanatic, showed this to me and my sister and it scared the living soul out of me (Not anymore).

Ten years later it still remains as one of my favourite horror films of all time and I consider it one of the best of King's work.

When a small town is being ravaged by horrible mutilations, townsfolks begin to think it may be a monster doing the killings. A small crippled boy comes in contact with the werewolf and confides in his older sister and uncle and they all set out on a search for the monster. What they discover will be shocking.

The film is very well directed and relies a lot on tension and atmosphere and solely on the acting which is performed well by Corey Haim, Megan Follows and Garey Busey who is immensely likable and memorable as the uncle.

The film itself as a horror movie is excellent with a lot of sheer tension and some great horror scenes in which we never see the werewolf until the end. That's an aspect that makes this film truly horrifying and the murders are gruesome and never pulls its punches. The mysterious identity of the werewolf is shocking and it leaves us on pins and needles until the exciting end of the film.

I highly suggest this among horror fans and think it's worth a look.

A movie divided into three parts, each separate story linked by the passage of a cat through it. The first two parts (Quitters' Incorporated and The Ledge) are well done adaptations of two short stories that are amongst Stephen King's best writing. Admittedly, they read better (you can find them both in the Night Shift collection) because a lot has to do with what the characters are thinking, which you can't really do on screen. However, they come about as close as possible here. The third part of the movie, I think is written specifically for the movie and wraps things up nicely. Well worth seeing.

Despite the fact that the films usually revolve around good and interesting stories, film adaptations of Stephen King's works are often not the best horror movies. Firestarter isn't the best known of his books, and that's slightly odd as this film adaptation is one of the best based on his stories. The film takes obvious influence from Brian De Palma's 'The Fury', as aside from the fact that this one is about a young girl that can start fires, and De Palma's film features a boy with psychic abilities; the way that both plots play out is very similar indeed. The plot has a number of problems, and the characters don't always act logically; but this is offset by the likable nature of the film, and characters that are easy to get along with due to their relatively simplistic nature. The film follows the aftermath of an experiment in which people were given an experimental drug. The ultimate result of this experiment was a child born of Andy and Vicky McGee; a child with a unique ability known as 'pyrokinesis' - the ability to start fires at will.

The film benefits from a range of cult stars. A young Drew Barrymore takes the title role, and although her acting skills hadn't been honed by the time this film was released, and she is more than a little bit wooden; she provides an interesting lead. David Keith and Martin Sheen back her up well in supporting roles, but the main acting plaudits go to the great George C. Scott who is good in what is probably the meatiest role of the piece. The running time is a little long for a film like this, but it's well used and the fact that the story doesn't get caught up with needless elements such as the girl's mother and father falling in love is definitely a good thing. The plot is very relaxed for most of the way through, and director Mark L. Lester seems content to just let things play out. That is until the last fifteen minutes; when the plot reaches its full potential and explodes with a fun and exciting finale. The film does feel more than a little bit like a TV movie at times; and the dumbed down techno soundtrack doesn't help this. Overall, the film definitely isn't perfect; but it's an enjoyable watch and King films have definitely been a lot worse!

Certainly one of the better adaptations of a Stephen King tale, Children Of The Corn, for me, was a goosebump film. But all the more chilling was an unseen, Evil Force who a group of murderous children happily calls "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" (Rows, meaning rows of corn in a corn-field) The image you get of this "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" character is simply Satan with a new nick-name. And why old Lucifer has chosen to possess a billion ears of corn in Nebraska {instead of the John Deere tractor sitting alongside of it} is beyond me. Whatever the reason, the fact that he's somewhere within that cornfield gave me the chills throughout this film. More chills than watching these children go on a killing rampage throughout the small town. Anyone over the age of 17 was quickly laid to rest at the beginning of the film, and any kid about to turn 18 happily sacrificed themselves to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows".

The film stars Peter Horton and Linda (Terminator 1 and 2's) Hamilton. By accident, they enter this small town and become the towns only two grown-ups. Once spotted, they are quickly labeled "Outlanders" and are pursued throughout the remainder of the film until they are finally caught, bound and prepared for sacrifice.

I love this film. Its had a special place in my heart for years. There is not a boring moment in this film that would put you to sleep. There are many jolts, winces and frights. And even though the "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" fella never shows his face, you will definitely feel it's presence. Trust me. Just knowing that he's somewhere in the midst of that cornfield will be enough to creep you out.

There are no words that can truly describe the power and passion of Christine.

Anyone who owns an older car will be able to associate with the obsession that takes over nerdish Arnie's life when he restores Christine, the beautiful Plymouth Fury.

John Carpenter's excellent directing brings the car to life to such a point where as you're watching, you become so entranced that you forget she isn't alive.

The actors are well chosen for the roles they play, and give excellent performances. This, accompanied by excellent photography, special effects, timing and musical score make Christine a definite must-see movie.

Please Note: The British TV edit cuts out some of the best scenes, so this movie is best seen on DVD or video.

What a fun movie! Stephen King as Jordy Verril was surprisingly good(considering he sucks at acting in almost everything he's ever done), Leslie Nielson and Ted Danson killing each other were brilliant (you've come a long way, Becker), and the rest of the cast is just fabulous. As for the writing, it mas simply masterful, and we would expect nothing less from King. Five original, striking vignettes of people killing each other, getting killed, going crazy, and getting the crap scared out of them. Best of all was the directing, easily. Romero did a great job creating the pulp comic feel, with comic book panel segues, goofy dream sequences and flashbacks, and best of all, the jarring zooms with the red and blue lighting. It sounds stupid, but it works superbly. Everything came together on this film, and it shows

A schoolteacher Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken) a survivor of a road accident awakes from a five-year coma to discover he has psychic abilities, which he gets visions of the past, present and the deadly future. And how he does it, is through the use of touch. But life has changed within that time with his girlfriend (Brooke Adams) being married; he's basically crippled and no longer having a job. So now he uses his abilities to help a sheriff (Tom Skerritt) solve a murder case, to save a child's life and predicting world's fate from an evilly corrupt politician (Martin Sheen) who plans to be president.

It's definitely one of my favourite King adaptations and you could say Cronenberg at his best. This time around Cronenberg has taken a more mainstream (even though depressing) approach with none of his grotesque and disturbing visuals evident, but that doesn't take away from the experience - as on show is good story telling, performances and film-making. Visually the film does hold strong imagery (especially the vision scenes) and also the picture truly captures the unsaturated colours of the wintry backdrop, which makes the bleak atmosphere such a dour affair. Though the sharp stabbing sounds when Johnny gets a vision truly knocks you, but it's the stinging outcome that made the film for me. Distinctive photography by Mark Irwin was beautifully constructed and pretty smooth in the detail of the settings. While, the driving score stood out and was particularly on the spot with capturing the right mood. Sound performances are given by the likes of the sympathetic Christopher Walken and the innocent Brooke Adams. Martian Sheen delivers a rather hammy performance and Tom Skerritt's performance is the total opposite, being rather toned down. Cronenberg's solid direction paces the film swiftly and also creates some well-staged sequences of tension that stick in your head. In all you can always expect dashing film-making by Cronenberg and that's what you get in this picture.

The story is what I had some gripes with. At times it felt like writer Jeffrey Boam was trying to squeeze too much into the story. Some interesting and intelligent sub-plots (murder investigation) felt hurried and rather contrived - it was like it was concentrating and building more towards the final act instead. But then again time is money and it didn't take away from my overall enjoyment of this film. The plot is basically a portrait of a man coming to grips with his pain and accepting the fate his been chosen and also throw in some social commentary into the mix. Also added is the occasional dabbing of dry/witty remarks, but for me it was uncomfortable humour. That being pretty much the state of the film. One thing I noticed, but don't know if this symbolism was intended but the way Johnny is always wearing the black coat reminded me of death (fate). Especially with touch his can see into the future and actually alter what can happen (say death). Perhaps it was just I?

It isn't gut wrenching stuff we've come to expect by Cronenberg, but still he nails down a well drawn up and gripping drama/thriller.

Cujo is a movie that will scare the hell out of dog owners, to say the least. It's very frightening and very underrated, and for most of the movie, there is no sign that it is a horror movie. However, Cujo is very frightening, mainly because these kind of things do happen, a lot of people (kids in particular) are bitten by dogs every day.

The leading lady of 80's horror movies, Dee Wallace Stone, plays a woman who is trapped in her car with her 5 year old son, as a rabid St. Bernard terrorises them.

The tension in Cujo takes a long time to build up, but when it starts, it never lets up. Under no circumstances should young kids watch this movie, they'll be wetting their beds for weeks.

The film is not very popular among King's screenings. The author said that it is based on his personal experience that took place with his mother. So the tragedy of cancer illness is that the death comes slowly and there is much pain inside the patient. The main character decided to release his mother's constant cancer pain by giving her poison in order she stopped suffering. Later on the horror of murder follows him in his nightmares. He is haunted by his dead mother spirit . Well, not for entertainment at all. Serious and hard to see life story. Another necro realism masterpiece. I would not recommend this for people with strong imaginative nature, as it gives serious thoughts , not those modern day computer effects and funny Gothic monsters.

Not because it's a college short film, but because:

a) it butchered possibly Stephen King's best short story &

b) as a film alone it doesn't really make any sense

the acting left something to be desired too and I really found the music annoying. The main protagonist (Lester Billings) was interesting but I was unsure if this was a good or bad performance, I want to say good but the direction was bad and the effects were cheesy thus bringing down the actor. Too bad.

Final verdict: Stay away from the film. Read the book.

What can I say about the scariest movie I have ever seen that has not already been said by others more articulate than yours truly? Do not view this film expecting to see a screen version of the Stephen King novel. Rather, this is a Stanley Kubrick film, and to fully appreciate it one should judge it within the context of Kubrick's entire body of work as a serious filmmaker. Thematically, THE SHINING relates most closely to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, though flourishes of PATHS OF GLORY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON do manage to figure prominently in the film's overall technique.

In a nutshell (no pun intended), Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall co-star with Oregon's Timberline Lodge - enlisted to portray the exterior of the Overlook Hotel - in a story that appears on the surface to be about ghosts and insanity, but deals with issues of child abuse, immortality and duality.

What the film might lack initially in terms of coherence is more than made up for in technique. Garrett Brown (the male voice in those old Molson Golden commercials), inventor of the Steadicam, chases young Danny Lloyd through hotel corridors and an amazing snow maze, providing magic-carpet-ride fluidity to scenes that ten years earlier would have been impossible to accomplish. If the film starts off too slow, remember who the director is. This man likes to take his time, and the results are well worth it: incredible aerial shots of the Overlook Hotel; horrific Diane Arbus-inspired twins staring directly at us; portentous room 237 and its treasure trove of terrible secrets; elevators that gush rivers of blood in slow-motion; Jack Torrance's immortality found via the hotel (akin to David Bowman's journey through the Space Gate); and some of the best use of pre-existing music ever assembled for a motion picture.

It would take a book to examine and defend the film's strong points and drawbacks. If you've never seen it, you owe it to yourself to watch it alone with the lights off, with no interruptions, and make sure that it's raining. This is a cinematic experience that changed my life at the age of 14. Makes a great double feature with Robert Wise's 1963 thriller THE HAUNTING.

Stephen King's repertoire of books turned into films isn't all that good on the whole, but the list does have a few solid entries; and Salem's Lot is one of them. The cut that I saw was the cinema version, which has been cut down from the three hour TV version. Because of this, the film is overlong in places and incoherent in others; but if you ignore that little fact, what you have here is a nice little vampire flick. The story takes place in the small town of 'Salem's Lot'. If I were to name a town, I wouldn't call it 'Salem's Lot' because with that name, something evil is bound to happen. It's like calling your town 'Werewolf Creek' or 'Demonic Possession Falls' - you just wouldn't do it! Anyway, Salem's Lot becomes a town of vampires after the local weirdo orders a strange package from somewhere. The plot follows a writer that has gone back to Salem's Lot to finish his book. Once murders start occurring, the inept police sergeant suspects the local weirdo, but the writer has more imaginative ideas about what's going on...and sees that it may be down to vampires!

The special effects in Salem's Lot are very cheesy - so cheesy, in fact, that I got the impression that they were like that on purpose. The way that the small town is presented is good, and it gives director Tobe Hooper lots of chances to create an atmosphere around the story. He handles the atmosphere side of the film with great skill, and that makes up one of the film's best assets. There's a reason why many fans consider this Hooper's only good movie besides The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the atmosphere is probably it. The story does take a while to get going, but the way that it introduces the characters is good and through it's atmosphere and the way that the story moves; the film never gets boring. I haven't read the book of 'Salem's Lot', so I cant comment on how the film relates to the writing; but I can say that it's nice to see the man that is probably the best contender to the crown of 'modern master of horror' handling a story about vampires in a traditional way. I loved the way that King didn't try to distance the story from the genre clichés, and it's nice to see a 'true' vampire film. Overall - good stuff and highly recommended!

Perhaps one of the only genuinely good Stephen King adaptations, ?Carrie' follows the tragic tale of Carrie White (Sissy Spacek), a young girl who is continually made to suffer at the hands of her bullying classmates and not helped by her overbearing, religious mother Margaret (Piper Laurie). Carrie, however, is not like regular teenagers as she has been blessed(?) with telekinetic powers and as the inner rage grows within Carrie so, it seems, do these potentially lethal abilities.

Brian De Palma directed this amazingly stylish adaptation of Stephen King's first novel which is arguably the best Stephen King adaptation ever to be made. Sissy Spacek's performance is one of the greatest to ever grace a horror film. Somehow managing to perfectly embody the typical school life of the usual high school outcasts, Spacek was able to bring to everyone the appalling life that so many teenagers are forced to tolerate. From the opening scenes where Carrie is utterly humiliated at the hands of her classmates after Carrie's hysterical reaction to her first menstruation, to the painfully wretched ending it becomes nigh on impossible not to sympathise with Spacek's character. Spacek was quite rightly Oscar-nominated for this performance. Spacek's performance was enhanced by fellow Oscar-nominee Piper Laurie in the role of the religious-nut Margaret White. In some ways the naivety shown towards Carrie and what is happening to her is amusing but at the same time it is terrifying to think that any mother could allow her daughter to go though such a generally horrendous life. Piper Laurie was able to make this all too abhorrent character her own with a thoroughly convincing and unsettling performance.

De Palma cleverly directs this movie. Instead of immediately introducing us to Carrie's powers he focuses on the torment (and the tormentors) of Carrie first. This allows the viewer to feel for Carrie and will her towards revenge while ensuring that she is not made into a one-dimensional killer. The movie is very well paced and is presented in a brutally clear fashion. De Palma refrains from using any visual effects with the exception of the infamous `Prom Night' scene which was incredibly well crafted and immersed the viewer in this horrifying display of rage. The final twenty minutes of Carrie are some of the most intense and gripping moments to have been portrayed in horror cinema. These scenes without a doubt helped to build one of the most artistic and and incredible climaxes in all of film.

?Carrie' is not for those who just want to see people sliced up or prefer fast-paced horror as it is presented as a heart-breaking drama with a horrifying twist. The magnificent cast (which features John Travolta in an early role) was also graced with fantastic performances from Betty Buckley as the kindly gym teacher and Nancy Allen as Chris, the deplorable ring leader of this atrocious bullying. In my opinion ?Carrie' is unquestionably worth a look for horror fans. 'Carrie' is very well directed, with a superb screenplay from Larry Cohen and featuring two of the greatest performances in horror.

When i saw the cover of the video jacket, i knew i was in for a cheesy but probably enjoyable flick. It is a watchable film, and follows the plot of the novel pretty well all told. The actors were adequate, but not noteworthy. Some people have commented on the fact that William Halleck does not seem like a likeable character, and this is true of the film, but the novel delves more into his relationship with his daughter, and gives us a far more rounded character who isn't just motivated by hatred and revenge; we see that this is a man who loves his daughter deeply, and is terrified by what is happening to him. All in all, forgetable but worth watching just to see King in a cameo as the pharmacist.

All the boys love mandy lane
This film really distinguishes itself within the slasher genre. It's that rare occurrence of a horror film that doesn't feel like a horror film, just a story.

The characters are all carefully portrayed by a mostly unknown cast who were allowed to improvise much of their dialogue. The characters are all well defined and form a totally believable and generally likable group of friends, despite their human weaknesses.

It's nearly a surprise when people start being killed off because the film feels so real and doesn't bear any of the tired trademarks usually associated with the genre. The grainy film stock and hand-held camera-work also help to further differentiate this film which is essentially a cross between an Indie movie and a slasher film.

Very original treatment of some well worn themes. Great to see this type of story taken seriously for once. Just what the horror industry needs.

Set in the small township of Castle Rock - a fictional location created by Stephen King - 'Needful Things' is the tale of an antiques shop run by Leland Gaunt, the Devil himself, played by Max Von Sydow. As the proprietor of the New England business, Gaunt gets his claws into the town, just as antiques dealer Straker did in the King masterpiece 'Salem's Lot'.

Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris, 'The Creepshow' & 'The Stand') does not buy the salesman's evil pitch. He sees straight through Gaunt's evil plan immediately.

Incidentally, Pangborn also turns up in King's 'The Dark Half' and is played in the subsequent movie by Michael Rooker. Ace Merril from 'Stand By Me' also appears in King's novel but is omitted from the movie. In fact there is much missing from the movie that can be found in the novel, but this is always the case with Stephen King adaptations. The movie does not let fans down, though ... the characters are well acted, dark and moody ...

Gaunt practically buys his way into the township, offering the residents antiques of their choice in return for payment of their souls. It is up to Pangborn and Polly Chambers (relation of Chris Chambers in 'Stand By Me' aka 'The Body') played by Bonnie Bedelia ('Salem's Lot') and schoolboy Brian Rusk to bring down Gaunt.

Typically 'Needful Things' is set in small-town Stephen King Maine --- a part of the world that will forever be associated with the horror author. The scenery is stunning, especially the coastline. There is plenty of action as well as a thriller feel and some very amusing moments too. Fans of 'Salem's Lot' will identify with this film, notably the similarities in story and characters. Evil invades a small town, slowly influencing its inhabitants, especially the obligatory young boy (related to King's own childhood escapades perhaps?) So enter 'Needful Things' and indulge your curiosity. But a little curiosity shop this is not. Probably one of the better Stephen King adaptations.

The Dark Half starts in '1968' where a young boy named Thadeus Beaumont (Patrick Brannan) has recently begun writing novels but is also suffering from some strange side-effects, he collapses outside his home & is taken to Hospital where Doctors discover that he has a deformed embryo growing inside of him... Jump '23 Years Later' & things are going great for Thadeus (Timothy Hutton), he has a wife Elizabeth (Amy Madigan) & two young babies plus a prestigious teaching job at a university. However, one day a man named Fred Clawson (Robert Joy) attempts to blackmail Thadeus when he discovers that Thadeus writes trashy novels under the pen-name George Stark. Instead of giving into Freds demands Thadeus decides to kill off George by going public, but not everyone his happy about the untimely demise of George Stark least of all George himself who will go to murderous lengths to make sure he stays alive, even if it means other's don't...

Executive produced, written & directed by George A. Romero I can't say that The Dark Half is a bad film because it clearly isn't but at the same time I can't but say I was disappointed. The script by Romero was based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King & is a fairly absorbing & engaging tale but didn't totally satisfy. For a start things are never explained, what is George Stark? How was he created? There are some vague suggestions such as the opening scenes of the brain tumour which is never mentioned or touched upon again throughout the remainder of the film to more supernatural reasoning such as Thad's alter-ego & literal dark half coming to life. Some may like this vagueness but personally I didn't think it did the film any favours & what's with the Sparrows? The character's are decent & it's well written for what it is but when I consider that Romero wrote the mighty Dead films which all included fantastic subtle social commentary superbly mixed together with wonderful horror & gore I couldn't help but feel something was missing in The Dark Half by comparison.

The Dark Half was made in 1991 but sat on the shelf for a couple of years because of the collapse of Orion Pictures & when it did finally see the inside of theatres it did nothing at the box-office. Somewhat surprisingly The Dark Half was one of only two film Romero directed in the 90's with the other being Two Evil eyes (1990) & he only directed half of that, it wasn't for another 9 years before he made another film with Bruiser (2000) which seemed a long time... He does an OK job here but the film drags in places & there isn't a great deal of style or gore, there's an exposed brain, a few splashes of blood & a fairly gory scene at the end in which someone has the flesh picked off their bones by Sparrows.

I was absolutely astonished to discover that The Dark Half had a supposed budget of $15,000,000, where on earth did the money go? There are no big name actors, no big action scenes, no explosions, no car chases, no big special effect scenes apart from some computer generated Sparrows, no exotic locations & nothing that would suggest that 15 big ones had been spent on it. Was this film part of the reason why Orion went bankrupt? Was this the reason why Romero didn't work again in the horror genre for 9 long years? Romero's latest film Land of the Dead (2005) only had a budget of $15,000,000 & The Dark Half was made 15 years prior, this is not a 15 million film that's for sure. The acting was OK but no one stands out, it's all rather bland & forgettable. $15,000,000? I just can't believe it, maybe I'm wrong, maybe all the money ended up on screen but I simply didn't see it. We give films a certain amount of slack for being low budget so there's no reason we can't criticise a big budget film when it fails to deliver.

The Dark Half is a decent horror film of that there is no doubt but with $15,000,000 in his back pocket & a string of absolute horror classics behind him I can't help but feel disappointed by The Dark Half, a real wasted opportunity. Worth a watch but nothing spectacular.

I rented this short film as a part of `Stephen King's Night Shift Collection.' Previously, I thought that there was only one volume in this `collection,' that being the one that contained student films of `The Boogeyman' and `The Woman in the Room,' neither of which I enjoyed. `Disciples of the Crow' is paired up with a short film made in 1987 called `The Night Waiter,' which doesn't seem to be a King story at all. But never mind that, as that is a review for another day. I wasn't sure what to expect with this film. Just by the title, I knew that the story was based on `Children of the Corn.' This movie had the unfortunate chance of being made one year before the actual `Children of the Corn' film (which I liked, but I know I am in the minority). It would have been lost in oblivion had it not 1) been adapted from a Stephen King story and 2) been found by Karl James Associates to cash in on the late-80's Stephen King craze.

Pushing aside thoughts of the film series and letting the film stand on its own, I must say they almost pulled it off. I won't bore you with details of the original story's plot, but I will say that I wouldn't get the short film so much had I not either read the story or watched the feature film. Perhaps for the sake of time, key elements of explanation are gone and no attempt is made to characterize any of the children (I know the King story didn't do this either, but since this short acts like it is about to do this with one character and then balks, it is worth mentioning). The good points are that John Woodward slowly and effectively builds suspense to the point of creating nervousness for the viewers and that the sunny, outdoor setting adds to the rural creepiness---it's pretty obvious why this King story was chosen by both these students and Hollywood. Sadly, the film is too short, ending immediately after the full shock is released. It was a good try, but it just barely misses.

Young high school student Todd Bowden uncovers that an old man in his neighbourhood is really Nazi war criminal Kurt Dussander under the name of Arthur Denker. Bowden offers not to turn Dussander in if he agrees to tell him what it was like to carry out the crimes he did during the war. However the relationship changes both Dussander and Bowden, bringing evil to the surface in both of them.

Having read the short story prior to the film being made I knew that this was going to be a difficult subject to bring to the screen. The film does a good job but makes many changes that will disappoint those who know the book. Treating the film as a separate entity it isn't bad but it happens too quickly and doesn't go deep enough. The plot is interesting but the depth Todd sinks to isn't convincing as half of it is forced on him and the other half he seems to embrace it. Dussander himself is well crafted but his descent into evil doesn't go far enough to be truly captivating. The ending is different from the book but I'm in two minds if it works better or not.

Brad Renfro is good but I can't help but compare him to the character in the book and see his short fallings. However he does manage to keep his changes semi-realistic without descending into being OTT or turning into a cartoon character. McKellen is perfect in the lead role and he manages to be larger than life. An actor of Koteas shouldn't have done such a minor role but Schwimmer gives a good performance that isn't his usual `Ross' thing again.

It's hard not to compare this to the book and beside that it pales slightly. As a film in it's own right it's ok but it doesn't quite convince and has an uneasy tone to it. Singer was always going to have a tough time following the amazing Suspects, but here he does pretty well. The direction is great and features plenty of great shots throughout the film.

Overall it is a flawed film because it doesn't go as far as it should nor does it manage to totally sell the characters to us. However it's worth a watch for great direction by Singer and a good lead by McKellen.