I find it disheartening that so many of King's masterpieces were treated so badly in their film adaptations...and perhaps it's mostly because his books are too complex to adapt well to film...I'm not sure. Delores Claiborne, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, and the Green Mile all did well. Then we are treated to stinkers like IT, Maximum Over-drive, Dreamcatchers, Thinner, The Running Man, Firestarter...and of course, this one.
Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.
This film has all the feel of a made-for-TV movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.
That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.
Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.
Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.
They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.
Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.
Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.
Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.
This film has all the feel of a made-for-TV movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.
That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.
Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.
Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.
They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.
Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.
Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.