Stephen King’s long-awaited novel – the sequel to The Shining. In a twist, the movie is not a sequel to the book. It is a sequel to the movie “The Shining”. See, the book and the movie (The Shining) have different endings. The book ends in a way that the Overlook Hotel cannot be a part of the sequel. The movie does not have this limitation, thus the Overlook returns!
I’m sorry Mr. King, but I thought your book was a bit hokey. A travelling band of senior-citizen psychic vampires in Winnebago’s with straw hats and tanks of “psychic energy” drained from victims resembling oxygen tanks? In the film, the tanks are there, but at least the roaming band of psychic vampires appear more threatening. They almost resemble a motorcycle gang in appearance. And in the film, we get to visit The Overlook Hotel again and watch in suspense as all of its ghosts reawaken. It was cool! For a more detailed comparison, read my article:
Oh and the film is done my that Michael Flanagan guy, the guy behind the Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor.
“Modern Gothic at its Best.” This was my tagline for the article I wrote about Susan Hill’s novel The Woman in Black. Written in 1983 yet capturing the writing style of a piece that might have been written one hundred years prior, Hill’s novel is a such a treat in an era that had seemed to have long forsaken the literary “ways of the Goth”. Sadly, the 2012 movie starring Daniel Radcliffe strays considerably from the tone that Hill gifted us readers. Yes, the film has the old mansion surrounded by marshes, a staple of Gothic horror. It is a visually stimulating film. But Mr. Soundman is too eager and he can’t resist sliding the volume lever on the music whenever the film is going for something suspenseful. Funny, because it’s the sounds as described in the book that chill the reader. These would be the sounds of an unseen horse and carriage that struggles in the foggy marshes, not some hyped up musical score. The film barely touches on this. What the film does show, over and over, are one second flashes of a woman in black. Jumps scares. Meh. And the film’s story is considerable different than the book, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the story as conveyed by Hill is much better. Read my review of the book: The Woman in Black – Modern Gothic at its Best
A 1999 horror movie starring Kevin Bacon. A 1958 sci-fi horror novel written by Richard Matheson (the third time that author makes this list.) I really liked the film. Did I love it. Um…no. But it was an interesting ghost story. Mr. Bacon gets hypnotized and suddenly a wall in his psyche breaks down and he now has certain psychic abilities. The ability the film focus’s in on the most involves the ghost of a girl who communicates with him in fragmented visions. The scope of his abilities is wider in the book and it details them more carefully. Therefore, I favor the book.
For a more detailed comparison, read my article:
Stir of Echoes Vs. A Stir of Echoes
The film I am referring to is the 1989 version, not the most recent adaption of Stephen King’s novel, which came out I believe in 2019. I didn’t see the newest version and after I read the reviews I didn’t bother to try. The movie from the 80’s didn’t fare much better. Not having read King’s book, I rented it back in the VCR days and I didn’t care too much for it either. I remember Herman Munster was in it without his Frankenstein’s monster makeup. Honestly, I don’t remember what faults I had with the film, other than I wanted the makeup back on Herman.
I was reluctant to read King’s book on account of my disliking of the movie. Eventually I did and it turned out to be one of my favorites of his. (In his top 10 somewhere). The “sematary” was creepier, and the hike to the “sematary” was creepier as well. In the film I don’t even remember that there was a woodsy trek to the graveyard. On the trek in the book, there were a lot of spooky noises.
By Author Scott Smith who also wrote The Simple Plan, later made into a movie starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda. Oh and directed by Sam Raimi – The Evid Dead dude. I both read and saw the film The Simple Plan. Oops I’m supposed to be writing about The Ruins. Let me redirect.
Anyway, with The Ruins, Smith writes a suspenseful, gory book about young American tourists trapped on the ruins of a Mayan temple in Mexico. Local Mayas will shoot them dead if they try to leave, and eventually, the vines that grow all along the pyramid-like structure will kill them. They are nasty things, these vines. They pry into the skin, strangle the neck, and their flowers are like mouths and they mimic the screams of its victims and replay personal conversations to pit the survivors against each other.
The book and the film (directed by Carter Smith) pretty much tell the same story with some variations. What happens to certain characters in the book happens instead to other characters in the movie, etc. The endings are different. The book goes for a hopeless conclusion while the film has an inkling of hope.
Book or movie? Hmm. When working out my decision, I kept alternating between “a tie” or “the book as the winner”. But since I reserved one option for the book as the sole winner and no option for the film as a standalone victor, then I have to go for the book.
Yes I actually read the novelization of this film. I remember reading and then exclaiming “Wow, this character, his head got “severe + d.”” That’s how I pronounced it; severe with a “d”. My sister didn’t know what “severe + d’ meant, so she looked at he word. “Danny, that’s severed!” she said. (But it was a severe act, you have to admit.)
What do you think I thought of this book? Well, I got some Jason backstory I didn’t get elsewhere. But overall, it’s more fun to see teenagers get sliced to death that to read about such a phenomenon. Plus, the words didn’t jump out at me in 3D like the eyeballs did in the movie theater. Jason put some guy’s head in a vice (or was it a vice-like grip with his own two hands? I can’t remember), all that pressure and boing! His eyeball shot out and almost landed in my box of popcorn. That’s better than the book, doncha’ think?
Remember this movie? It’s somewhat obscure, I guess. Came out in 1981. Directed by Tobe Hooper; he’s not so obscure! (Salem’s Lot director). My Daddy took me to see this in the theater at his suggestion. It was the first time I saw teenagers hacked to death on the big screen.
It’s the story of a shady carnival. Four teenagers spend the night in The Funhouse. They witness a carnival barker’s deformed son kill the carnival’s fortune teller. As witnesses to this crime they must be destroyed. Let the “fun” of “funhouse” begin!
The book is a bit different. It’s the novelization of the film, based on the screenplay. It was written by Owen West, but that’s not the author’s real name. His real name is Dean Koontz. You might have heard of him. Anyway, the entirety of the “trapped inside the funhouse” plot of the film is just one mere chapter in the book – the final chapter. Most of the book is backstory concerning the Conrad the Carnival Barker, his deformed son, and a different story regarding the teenagers. In the book, one of the teenager’s is a daughter or an ex-wife of Conrad and he purposely lures her and her friends into the funhouse so that he may kill them, extracting revenge on his ex-wife for something he did.
The book really does have an interesting backstory. But the film is more thrilling and interesting. It focuses solely on the carnival and funhouse, but details very well the depravity and overall freakiness of this traveling band of misfits. The animatronic attractions in the funhouse are pretty awewome.
Would you like to know when I first began reading Stephen King’s Children of the Corn? (To tell you the truth, Cheely, I really don’t care…) Great! I will tell you. It was two weeks ago. I read for a few minutes and then suddenly my eReader is telling me that I’m already 25% finished with the story. Read a bit more the next day and discover that I am over 80% done. So, I reread, trying to keep the experience going for as long as I can. Okay, done rereading, I’ll just progress a little further…Congratulations! I’m all done. Boo! I want more!
Okay, I went in knowing it was a short story. But this was like, really short. It was much darker and more wretched than the movie though. The two adult characters, husband and wife, that find themselves in the middle of nowhere in a small abandoned town surrounded by cornfields and killer children are obnoxiously sugar coated in the movie. The young childless couple, hero and heroine, are destined to overcome the supernatural force of “he who walks behind the rows,” escape the evil and thwart the plot of the meanie kids. They are awarded with two adorable children that they rescue from the kid cult. In the book they are flawed individuals struggling to save their rocky marriage. More relatable if you ask me.
Oh but the movie gives us memorable evil children like Malachi, the killer with long red hair and the younger Isaac with the unnerving squeaky voice who leads the pack! They are simply mentioned in the book. It takes a screen and a longer story to bring them to life.
So which do I prefer? Tough choice. I’ll go with the book (short story) for its commitment to dark storytelling. Maybe later I will flip a coin and let fate decide my preference. But not now.
I wish I could remember the finer details of this story. How long has it been since I read this Stephen King classic? Too long. It deserves a second read, even though, despite how others feel, it is not a King favorite of mine. Don’t get me wrong, I like it. It’s probably in his top ten. But not top five.
A vampire takes up resident at Salem’s Lot’s “haunted house”. Soon, the populace of this small town will be infected by vampirism. One by one they become the walking undead.
If you were a kid in the 1970’s, then you probably remember stumbling upon some TV vampire movie and watch young boy vampires floating in the air before a bedroom window, scratching their fingernails the window, wanting in. Pretty scary stuff. This was the Made-For-TV miniseries of Salem’s Lot, directed by Tobe Hooper. Pretty damn good for a TV movie. I watched it for the first time as an adult the other night.
When all is said and done, I favor the book for its thick yet rich plot and interesting characters. The movie attempts a thickness of the plot (over three hours long but meant to be watched over the course of two nights) but it is a bit overbearing at times. Again I must revisit the book.
The debate will continue until the end of time. What are we to make of Stanley Kubrick’s film version of Stephen King’s The Shining? I’m going out on a limb here, but I think it breaks down like this. Those that saw the film but have never read the book loooove the movie. Those that have read the book really don’t think much of the film. King himself didn’t like the movie although his opinion has evolved a bit and he has recently noticed the things that worked very well with the film. Still the criticism exist. In brief, the film flattens out the characters, or turns them into caricatures. Jack Torrance, played by Jack Nicholson, is pretty much a loose cannon throughout the whole film. This is not the case of the character in the book.
I, of course, have seen both the film and read the book. I’ve seen the film several times. I read the book twice. My verdict? I really, really love the film. It comes close to being just as good as the book for its visuals and brilliant camera work and use of space. But the book is better. So I guess not everyone fits into the dichotomy I described in the above paragraph.
The Shining is my favorite book by Stephen King. It is in my list of top ten books. It is my favorite haunted house novel. Yes, I like it even better than The Haunting of Hill House.
For a more thorough comparison, read my article: The Shining Book – Movie- Miniseries