After bidding farewell to Halloween and 2018 arriving right around the corner, movie-goers have witnessed some of the most interesting and fresh Stephen King’s adaptation on the big screen this year.
Even though King’s stories always seem perfect for screen adaptations, Hollywood has failed to get the writer’s offbeat stories right. Despite the success of Brian De Palma’s “Carrie” (1976) and Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” (1980), the films shied away from the author’s original vision.
However, 2017 seems to have been King’s year, where three out of four films have acquired of a taste of the author’s vision of storytelling.
It
“It,” among other new adaptations on the big screen has wowed the audience, both local and international.
Andy Muschietti’s fresh new take on one of King’s novels have opened up an avenue for the writer’s work to be appreciated again. A remake of the 1990 miniseries, which casts Tim Curry in the titular role, the director’s re-imagination was much appreciated by King himself.
A horror flick in its rightful genre, Muschietti perfectly blended tropes of psychological thriller and mystery, themes of coming-of-age, and subtle nods to loss of innocence to the film’s narrative plot and characters. The first part of the two-part series hit just the right notes of horror, more violent compared to the 1990 miniseries which was much tamer. Though Curry’s homicidal clown, Pennywise the Dancing Clown, was equally cheerful and terrifying.
Since its release in September, “It” broke all records, both at the US box-office and internationally, making it the highest grossing R-rated horror film ever. The “Loser’s Club” and Bill Skårsgard’s version of Pennywise has brought quality to screen.
Not giving too much away, especially for those who have listed the film onto a to-do list, the film is set in 1988 Derry, Maine. A group of seven young outcasts face their worst nightmare – an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Invisible to all parents and elders in the town, the seven youngster band together to fight the evil, in an attempt to put an end to all their fear.
The R-rated big screen adaptation courses on bold moves of taboo topics. With subtle hints, Pennywise is not the only evil in town. From Beverly Marsh’s sexually abusive father to the predatory pharmacist, among others, all fall into the same category of evil.
The film perfectly used its R-rating with the extreme graphic violence, bright and dark tones, kids casually using the f-word and pitch-perfect sound design. The frame and settings speaks volume, creating a perfect marriage of dialogue and story-telling. The horror gradually builds as the young characters evolve, and viewers become a part of the narrative itself.
Muschietti has done justice to King’s story.
Gerald’s Game
King’s second psychological horror on the big screen of this year, directed by Mike Flanagan and written by Jeff Howard and Flanagan, is based on the author’s novel of the same name.
A Netflix production, the film has received raved reviews from audience and critics alike for the terror and emotional contemplation it portrays.
After Gerald, played by Bruce Greenwood, and Jessie Burlingame, played by the ever-talented Carla Gugino, arrive at an isolated lake house for a romantic weekend, they couple attempt to save their strained marriage. Hell breaks loose after Gerald dies unexpectedly, while Jessie is handcuffed to the bed frame.
The unexpected turn of events and Jessie’s struggles equally begins to resonate with the viewer’s mind, creating chaos and terror. Flanagan appropriately shifts perspectives between the imaginary and real characters, questioning judgement and trauma, hence blurring the line between real and fantasy. Set in one room, the misery and isolation of the character causes claustrophobia in the viewers’ mind, that would put them at the edge of their seat. Jessie’s struggle becomes real and haunting.
Stephen King, who has had a complicated relationship with Hollywood, called the film “hypnotic, horrifying and terrific,” according Screenrant.
Since King himself has given the seal of approval, it is fair to say Flanagan has done it right too.
The Dark Tower
The only “meh” from the highly anticipated big screen King’s adaptation from this year failed miserably among its fans and critics. This film examples the complicated relationship between the author and Hollywood.
Based on the author’s novels and a comic series, the film fails to give justice to King’s captivating writing. While Idris Elba’s role of Ronald Deschain, a gunslinger on a quest to protect “The Dark Tower,” was praised, the other characters failed to impress, including Mathew McConaughey’s role of Walter Padick.
Poor execution of the narrative is what landed the film with dislikes and negative reviews. This is the only film that has poor performing characters, loose plot devices and flashy cuts, from King’s list of big screen adaptation this year.
While the other films will be praised in the coming years, “The Dark Tower” will not be worth remembering, or it may be remembered as one of King’s poorly-adapted films.
1922
Netflix has most definitely learned to prioritise, when it comes to producing creating and original content. This can also be said about Zak Hilditch’s big screen adaptation of King’s novella.
One of another horror stories from King’s library, the second Netflix production has already received appeasing reviews from critics, while the film was also screened and much appreciated during its premiere at Fantastic Fest.
A gothic heartland horror, almost hinting Edgar Allan Poe’s classic iteration, the horror is almost always ambiguous with gory tragedy, right from the start. Horror infests as the story progresses with the characters’ psyche, as their physical and psychological pain grows.
Almost dystopian in nature, Hilditch gleefully lays out the narrative, without dragging too much with the characters, plot and mystery.
While the film is identifiably different, with its own blend of horror and classic, Hilditch’s “1992” definitely deserves a screening and praise of King’s adaption.
In conclusion, with three wins and a miss for Stephen King, it is fair to say the author will most definitely leave a mark on the newer generation. Thanks to the tremendous success and popularity of “It,” 2017 has led a way to a renaissance of Stephen King’s works.
“It” director Andy Muchietti, who will also direct the second part of the film which is set to release in 2019, has peaked his interest in remaking “Pet Sematary,” King’s scariest novel.
In the meanwhile, fans are craving for more re-imagining and screen adaptations of the author’s other stories, such as “Strawberry Spring” (1968), “The Boogeyman” (1973), “Salem’s Lot” (1975), and “Cujo” (1981), among others.
