Same. I think often there is a fixation with having a backstory or explanation to everydetail in media. However, particularly with fantasy and horror, less can be more. Just like in life, sometimes things are inscrutable and cruel and those victimized by it have no choice but to shake their heads and carry on.
I re-watched this a few months back and came out with the overwhelming sense that it was very slight. I like it, it's entertaining, and you can tell a lot of care and apparently cash went into it - it's a very slick production - but once it's over it doesn't leave you with much of a feeling other than it had cool effects and music, decent acting, but was just okay. The Dead Zone was the far superior 1983 King adaptation.
As much as I liked Christine (see above), I agree that The Dead Zone was not only a better film, but remains one of the best King adaptations of all time (certainly of the 70s-80s). It seems strangely overlooked by both King and Cronenberg aficionados, but it still holds up really well today. Perhaps because, like some of the most successful King adaptations, it was more of a drama than a horror story.
Minor correction: Cujo's director was Lewis Teague, who had formerly done 2nd unit work for Samuel Fuller before moving on to low-budget King adaptations in the 80s. (See also: Cat's Eye.)
I agree with Nathan that Christine is lacking as a King adaptation, yet is also a good Carpenter movie. It wasn't scary, but it *was* cool -- I still think that scene of Christine driving down the road on fire at night is one of the most badass things I've ever seen on film. Ditto the self-repair effects. The film also had a mischievous sense of humor, notably with those music cues. (And Alexandra Paul's closing line, "God I hate Rock n' Roll".)
Of course the book was still better, but apparently I liked this movie more than John Carpenter did.
I've been a fan of John Carpenter's since I saw DARK STAR in college—and while I liked CHRISTINE, it felt kind of inessential as both a John Carpenter movie and a Stephen King adaptation. It was good, but it lacked...something—probably Carpenter actually wanting to make this movie, rather than taking it on as a gig after THE THING flopped.
Still a better movie than Kubrick's THE SHINING, though—which Nabin and too many other people inexplicably think is "brilliant" because it was directed by a full-of-himself, abusive "genius" director. I didn't like it even before I knew what a horrible excuse for a human being Stanley Kubrick was during that shoot—now I put right down there with ZackSnyder!'s SUCKER PUNCH as movies that are hateful beyond redemption.
I think it works better that they don’t establish why the car is evil. It’s just born bad.
Same. I think often there is a fixation with having a backstory or explanation to everydetail in media. However, particularly with fantasy and horror, less can be more. Just like in life, sometimes things are inscrutable and cruel and those victimized by it have no choice but to shake their heads and carry on.
Cronenberg’s film is Crash, not Drive
You saved me the trouble of pointing this out.
I re-watched this a few months back and came out with the overwhelming sense that it was very slight. I like it, it's entertaining, and you can tell a lot of care and apparently cash went into it - it's a very slick production - but once it's over it doesn't leave you with much of a feeling other than it had cool effects and music, decent acting, but was just okay. The Dead Zone was the far superior 1983 King adaptation.
As much as I liked Christine (see above), I agree that The Dead Zone was not only a better film, but remains one of the best King adaptations of all time (certainly of the 70s-80s). It seems strangely overlooked by both King and Cronenberg aficionados, but it still holds up really well today. Perhaps because, like some of the most successful King adaptations, it was more of a drama than a horror story.
Minor correction: Cujo's director was Lewis Teague, who had formerly done 2nd unit work for Samuel Fuller before moving on to low-budget King adaptations in the 80s. (See also: Cat's Eye.)
I agree with Nathan that Christine is lacking as a King adaptation, yet is also a good Carpenter movie. It wasn't scary, but it *was* cool -- I still think that scene of Christine driving down the road on fire at night is one of the most badass things I've ever seen on film. Ditto the self-repair effects. The film also had a mischievous sense of humor, notably with those music cues. (And Alexandra Paul's closing line, "God I hate Rock n' Roll".)
Of course the book was still better, but apparently I liked this movie more than John Carpenter did.
I've been a fan of John Carpenter's since I saw DARK STAR in college—and while I liked CHRISTINE, it felt kind of inessential as both a John Carpenter movie and a Stephen King adaptation. It was good, but it lacked...something—probably Carpenter actually wanting to make this movie, rather than taking it on as a gig after THE THING flopped.
Still a better movie than Kubrick's THE SHINING, though—which Nabin and too many other people inexplicably think is "brilliant" because it was directed by a full-of-himself, abusive "genius" director. I didn't like it even before I knew what a horrible excuse for a human being Stanley Kubrick was during that shoot—now I put right down there with ZackSnyder!'s SUCKER PUNCH as movies that are hateful beyond redemption.