King on Screen

First off, I am a lifelong fan of Stephen King. I have read all the books, some of them more than once and have seen most of the movies.

Naturally, a documentary like this sparked my interest.

I quit after about 15 minutes or so, because I could not stand it any longer.

First off, was the sounddesigner on acid or something? Or why did he use "music" that makes your toenails roll up and yout teeth fall out?

Second, either the sound mixer is legally deaf, or let some kids turn the knobs as they please. The difference in volume across the whole thing is staggering and most of the times the godawful "music" is so loud that you can't hear any of the interviews.

Who thought this would be fine and greenlit it?

Did ANYBODY related to it ever watch it themselves? I highly doubt that.

It really is a shame and not worthy of a brilliant and beloved writer like Mr. King.

The documentary King On Screen is a celebration of King's fiction on the big (or small) screen as told by over twenty different filmmakers who were fortunate enough to adapt a King story. King On Screen tells their story.

Of the many different personalities interviewed here (Mick Garris is always a joy) there are some shockingly notable absences. No Rob Reiner (Stand By Me, Misery). And no Brian DePalma, who holds the distinct honor of directing the first Stephen King adaptation, Carrie (1976).

There are few gripes or regrets conveyed throughout the interviews. No real discussion of failure be it artistic or box office. Baiwir safely captures a positive exuberance. But make it a little shorter with some clever editing? King On Screen could have been a Blu-Ray special feature extra - or an all-star episode of "The Kingcast" podcast.

Whether you've always wanted to bike through Derry with the Losers or mistakenly confuse "Christine" for "Carrie", King On Screen is a delight to watch. Especially when the lights are off.

Taking a seemingly endless number of writers, directors and technicians, this documentary looks back at pretty much every film and series since Carrie and attempts to look at the themes that King brings forth around America's dark side (even Trump gets a mention) which has proved so successful over the years.

The documentary is a smorgasbord of interviews, behind the scene / making of clips and particularly insights by those who have adapted King's work, including interestingly the considerable amount of average and down right awful adaptations - so for every 'Carrie', there is a 'Thinner' given equal amounts of reverence. Overall it is a little scattershot with no clear direction as to what it's trying to say until the conclusion and the best bits are the more in depth stories - Frank Darobont talking 'Green Mile' or why King famously didn't like Kubrick's 'The Shining'. So so as a documentary but plenty to enjoy for King / Horror Movie fans.

This is a documentary that I saw on Shudder. The concept intrigued me. What is interesting is that Stephen King, like others, is my favorite author. He was my introduction into adult horror literature. I own all his older works and am someone that eventually picks up his newer titles as well. Seeking out the adaptations of his works was something else I did when expanding my horror knowledge from what we already owned. This was a documentary that I watched at work, treating it like a podcast, watching when something truly caught my attention and listened to the rest.

What is a shame here is that they couldn't get King himself to be a part of it. What I do like though is that the people who are interviewed are filmmakers who have adapted his works. There is charm there, because as a fan of King, it is fun to see that the likes of Frank Darabont, Tom Holland, Mike Flanagan, Mick Garris and Greg Nicotero are the same. It makes me feel like I'm part of a club. It is truly amazing to hear how many books/short stories/screenplays that King has and then even crazier the number that have also been adapted.

I do have issues here and it falls in line with others that I saw review this on Letterboxd. It focuses quite a bit on the fact that King hates Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. We also have all these people who are interviewed here who are on the side of King. This is an argument and a stance that has grown tiresome. I did find it more interesting hearing Flanagan say how he swayed King to his vision for Doctor Sleep, blending Kubrick with the source for both books.

Another issue I have is that this focuses on work more than others. Keeping it more balanced would be preferred. I get that not every production would be as interesting. Hearing Darabont talk about The Shawshank Redemption is something that I enjoyed, but that seems more for a special feature for that film. Including stories or more information for other adaptations would be something I'm more intrigued by.

This is still impressive to see all the people that were involved. I thought this was well-made, including the editing of footage to help visually show what people were talking about. What they did here was fine, but I do think that a bit different approach would make this work better personally. Still worth a watch for King fans, whether it is his writing or his films.

My Rating: 7 out of 10.

Stephen King is an author who really needs no introduction. His books have topped best-seller lists for yonks but what is very interesting about them is that, unlike many authors, a lot of them have translated to the screen extremely successfully. Some bona fide great films have been based on his work such as Carrie, The Shining, The Dead Zone and The Running Man. Admittedly, there has been a few turkeys as well - Maximum Overdrive and The Lawnmower Man spring to mind; albeit, in the case of that latter movie, it bears absolutely no relation to King's actual short story! But basically, the hits outweigh the misses in the King adaptions, so this documentary feels very merited.

It takes a talking heads format, with contributions from many film people involved in screen adaptions, such as Frank Darabont and Mike Flanagan. There is a lot of clips too, to keep things interesting. It does seem to be a somewhat lop-sided film though, with disproportionately large segments given over to the likes of The Green Mile and The Shining TV adaption, with only small nods given to several of the more significant works. It isn't told in any particular order either, which does mean it does seem a bit scattershot in presentation. While this is definitely a good and entertaining watch, it does have to be said that it is very non-critical and doesn't focus on any creative failures - this approach does mean that it can seem a bit one-dimensional and a bit bland at times. Lastly, there was a thing which bugged me - and it's a thing you see in many such docs where you have film professionals and/or critics talking about the horror genre - and that was that, if you believed what they said, you would be believing that they all read King's books because of their social criticism and metaphors. My eyes were rolling in their sockets as so many of the participants descended into these bouts of pretension. I personally read his books for the vampires, ghosts and spaceships buried in forests. Where have I gone wrong?