They stacked this with a lot of my favorite character actors: Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, Anthony Zerbe. And I've had a lifetime crush on the adorable Brooke Adams. Walken's best performance, and Sheen's nastiest. He sort of reminds me of his son Charlie during his "meltdown." WINNING!
Mick, I remember reading Jeffrey's final script. I asked him, if he could make her run out in the rain and kiss him before the accident. He never told me if he did write it but I was lucky enough to see it. He was and will always be an amazing screenwriter. But I got the kiss in the rain because of him. Paulita Boam.
Agreed, though there a several great movies based on King's novels, this is probably the best by far. Christopher Walken's performance in this comes closest to the one he gave in The Dear Hunter. Martin Sheen is also great.
I have always believed the book is better than the movie But in this case the movie is better than the book. But l still believe the dead zone is a very good book
In my opinion the best Stephen King adaptation. It is actually a very sad movie. Christopher Walken's performance is brilliant and subdued with his haunted face conveying so much of the weight of this "gift" he was given. I recently reread the book after many decades and found the movie an improvement. I am a lapse King fan. I fell out after IT and his books got thicker and thicker and these thin plots were being stretched beyond their capacity I gave up on him. I recently read Doctor Sleep which only confirmed my opinion of him as a writer---he is terrible and the book is among the worst that I have ever read----a very lame follow up to The Shining, but I already imagine a Made-For-TV adaptation in the works beng done with some of the cheeziest CGI F/X imaginable.....but I digress. The scenes between Walken and Brooke Adams are heartbreaking. Herbert Lom is great as the doctor caring for Johnny. There is not a bad actor in the movie. My only quibble is when Frank Dodd kills himself and the ridiculous method he does it. This certainly among my favorite David Cronenberg films. Martin Sheen's character is a bit cartoonish at times but he seems not much of a exaggeration from any other psychotic cult leader----did I say psychotic cult leader? I meant Presidential candidate....sorry.
I feel the same way about King, but I fell out earlier. I read both SALEMS LOT and THE SHINING when they first came out and thoroughly enjoyed them. Then came THE STAND. After laboring through it, I said "Jesus Christ. This book needs editing. A LOT of editing." This was before I found out that I had read the ABRIDGED version! There is such a thing as being TOO prolific. He writes them faster than I can read them, and there are just too many good books out there to be wasting my time on someone suffering from diarrhea of the typewriter.
I swear I read somewhere he was retiring but a year does not go by where he pinches out another massive book. Yes, I read The Stand in it's original form as well but was in the depth of my "horror genre" phase that length didn't seemed to be an issue until IT when it just got tiresome. Now there is a version of 'Salem's Lot which includes deleted scenes. But at least they are tacked on as an appendix and not grafted back into the book. It's all about money and the anal obsessive fans/collectors who have to have these new editions when the originals were perfectly fine. I think oversaturation is a better word to describe the output of Mr. King. He is the Woody Allen of fiction and should work on quality over quantity. He seems like a nice guy but I think he's really a terrible writer.
GREG FREEMAN I look at King as Horror's version of mainstream writers like John Jakes or James Michener, who wrote those big, bloated historical romance novels that always topped the book charts. I have come to the conclusion that most people mistake quantity for quality. They think that a book has to be at least 900 pages long to be considered "good." Two of my all time favorite writers, Raymond Chandler and H.P. Lovecraft, were anything but prolific. They struggled over every word, and you can see the resultant craftsmanship. Then again, they both spent far too much time writing letters. If they were alive today, they would be doing what we are doing this very second, so I'll shut up now.
In his early days he was good at what he did but I will never consider him a great writer. It's literary schlock. I heard his Kennedy book was good but I have no interest diving into that. Doctor Sleep purged me of all interest in Stephen King. Why and how it won so many awards is beyond my comprehension. Did they read an alternate version not released to the public? This was a mind-numbingly boring and unscary book.
GREG FREEMAN King has become "out of sight, out of mind" with me, so I profess total ignorance about the books you mention. As you say, early on he was good at what he did. Contemporary horror with a good grasp of pop culture. But in the horror pantheon? Next to Poe, Lovecraft, Bierce, Stoker, Le Fanu, Bloch etc., NO WAY. Maybe closer to Shirley Jackson.
I liked the first half of the film, I wish they had kept in that vein and dropped the Martin Sheen part, but I guess that is not how the novel was written.
They stacked this with a lot of my favorite character actors: Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, Anthony Zerbe. And I've had a lifetime crush on the adorable Brooke Adams. Walken's best performance, and Sheen's nastiest. He sort of reminds me of his son Charlie during his "meltdown." WINNING!
One of my favourite Stephen King Movie adaptations...a real classic.
One of the best adaption of a King movie.
Mick, I remember reading Jeffrey's final script. I asked him, if he could make her run out in the rain and kiss him before the accident. He never told me if he did write it but I was lucky enough to see it. He was and will always be an amazing screenwriter. But I got the kiss in the rain because of him. Paulita Boam.
I admired Jeffrey's writing so much, from Innerspace to Last Crusade and this brilliant film, of course.
Agreed, though there a several great movies based on King's novels, this is probably the best by far. Christopher Walken's performance in this comes closest to the one he gave in The Dear Hunter. Martin Sheen is also great.
Walken was amazing in that film.
Based on a novel that wasn't as thick as a phonebook. Great movie!
I have always believed the book is better than the movie
But in this case the movie is better than the book. But l still believe the dead zone is a very good book
When has he ever not given a great performance?
In my opinion the best Stephen King adaptation. It is actually a very sad movie. Christopher Walken's performance is brilliant and subdued with his haunted face conveying so much of the weight of this "gift" he was given. I recently reread the book after many decades and found the movie an improvement. I am a lapse King fan. I fell out after IT and his books got thicker and thicker and these thin plots were being stretched beyond their capacity I gave up on him. I recently read Doctor Sleep which only confirmed my opinion of him as a writer---he is terrible and the book is among the worst that I have ever read----a very lame follow up to The Shining, but I already imagine a Made-For-TV adaptation in the works beng done with some of the cheeziest CGI F/X imaginable.....but I digress. The scenes between Walken and Brooke Adams are heartbreaking. Herbert Lom is great as the doctor caring for Johnny. There is not a bad actor in the movie. My only quibble is when Frank Dodd kills himself and the ridiculous method he does it. This certainly among my favorite David Cronenberg films. Martin Sheen's character is a bit cartoonish at times but he seems not much of a exaggeration from any other psychotic cult leader----did I say psychotic cult leader? I meant Presidential candidate....sorry.
I feel the same way about King, but I fell out earlier. I read both SALEMS LOT and THE SHINING when they first came out and thoroughly enjoyed them. Then came THE STAND. After laboring through it, I said "Jesus Christ. This book needs editing. A LOT of editing." This was before I found out that I had read the ABRIDGED version! There is such a thing as being TOO prolific. He writes them faster than I can read them, and there are just too many good books out there to be wasting my time on someone suffering from diarrhea of the typewriter.
I swear I read somewhere he was retiring but a year does not go by where he pinches out another massive book. Yes, I read The Stand in it's original form as well but was in the depth of my "horror genre" phase that length didn't seemed to be an issue until IT when it just got tiresome. Now there is a version of 'Salem's Lot which includes deleted scenes. But at least they are tacked on as an appendix and not grafted back into the book. It's all about money and the anal obsessive fans/collectors who have to have these new editions when the originals were perfectly fine. I think oversaturation is a better word to describe the output of Mr. King. He is the Woody Allen of fiction and should work on quality over quantity. He seems like a nice guy but I think he's really a terrible writer.
GREG FREEMAN I look at King as Horror's version of mainstream writers like John Jakes or James Michener, who wrote those big, bloated historical romance novels that always topped the book charts. I have come to the conclusion that most people mistake quantity for quality. They think that a book has to be at least 900 pages long to be considered "good." Two of my all time favorite writers, Raymond Chandler and H.P. Lovecraft, were anything but prolific. They struggled over every word, and you can see the resultant craftsmanship. Then again, they both spent far too much time writing letters. If they were alive today, they would be doing what we are doing this very second, so I'll shut up now.
In his early days he was good at what he did but I will never consider him a great writer. It's literary schlock. I heard his Kennedy book was good but I have no interest diving into that. Doctor Sleep purged me of all interest in Stephen King. Why and how it won so many awards is beyond my comprehension. Did they read an alternate version not released to the public? This was a mind-numbingly boring and unscary book.
GREG FREEMAN King has become "out of sight, out of mind" with me, so I profess total ignorance about the books you mention. As you say, early on he was good at what he did. Contemporary horror with a good grasp of pop culture. But in the horror pantheon? Next to Poe, Lovecraft, Bierce, Stoker, Le Fanu, Bloch etc., NO WAY. Maybe closer to Shirley Jackson.
I liked the first half of the film, I wish they had kept in that vein and dropped the Martin Sheen part, but I guess that is not how the novel was written.
Whose the thumbs down? Did you not know where you were
That haircut.
"There has been a lot of really bad Stephen King movies and I'm not here to judge"
Gee, Mick, I wonder why?