Author: Keith Phipps
Photo by Brooke Palmer / Warner Bros. Entertainment
A history of disappointment has lowered the bar for Stephen King adaptations. A few extraordinary exceptions aside, adaptations of King’s work tend to range from acceptable to disastrous. Some draw on weaker material. (There’s likely a ceiling on how good any film version of Thinner could be.) Others fail to explore the underlying themes of King’s books in favor of scares — like either version of Pet Sematary — or get so lost in the wispier aspects of King’s writing that the creators forget the appeal of a good scare or an unsettling moment. (Think back to Hearts in Atlantis, if any memory of it remains.)
So when a pretty good film like 2017’s It comes along, it tends to look better just by comparison. Adapting the first half of King’s...
Continue reading…
Continue reading...
A history of disappointment has lowered the bar for Stephen King adaptations. A few extraordinary exceptions aside, adaptations of King’s work tend to range from acceptable to disastrous. Some draw on weaker material. (There’s likely a ceiling on how good any film version of Thinner could be.) Others fail to explore the underlying themes of King’s books in favor of scares — like either version of Pet Sematary — or get so lost in the wispier aspects of King’s writing that the creators forget the appeal of a good scare or an unsettling moment. (Think back to Hearts in Atlantis, if any memory of it remains.)
So when a pretty good film like 2017’s It comes along, it tends to look better just by comparison. Adapting the first half of King’s...
Continue reading…
Continue reading...