Posts tagged with "Stephen King"

The Dark Tower: Movie Review

By
Westley Smith

The process of adapting Stephen King’s magnum opus in to a film has been a long, drawn out process, going though countless directors, writers (re-writes) stars (at one point Russell Crow was attached to star as Roland) studios, and even a planned TV series crossover that would tie in to a three film trilogy – which may or may not be moving forward at this time.

The problem is that King’s Dark Tower books are not easily adapted for the screen – maybe more so than any of his other works. There are a total of eight books coming in at 4,250 pages. Trying to adapt all of that material would be insane (by any filmmaker) and not to mention tiring for your average movie goer or TV watcher.

The decision was made (and King liked the idea as well) to make the movie adaptation for The Dark Tower as a sequel to the book series, while Roland is on the second journey of his quest – so in an essence, The Dark Tower film is its own thing, and only using the source material loosely. This also allowed the book adaptation to be opened to a wider movie going audience unfamiliar with the source material.

To some of the hardcore Dark Tower fans out there, this is a major letdown (or a slap in the face for sticking with 4,250 pages of reading) to just take the easy way out and make the movie its own thing.

I disagree.

As I stated above, adapting Stephen King is not easy – even some of his smaller works have been adapted into movies and they still are not as good as the books/stories. King is a very prolific writer. His books, though dealing with horror, monsters, and inner demons of characters are very literary tails. His style of story-telling is more akin to older story-tellers than for modern audiences and even movie adaptations. You have to invest your time, energy, and patients with a King novel as he takes you on a journey through the story.

Trying to flesh out The Dark Tower series into one movie (or even several) would be impossible to do. There is just too much to cover over the eight book series, a lot (even if they made all eight into movies) would have to be cut from the movie to save time.

The decision to make The Dark Tower movie a sequel instead was more of the way to go with this adaptation. And I think once you look at The Dark Tower movie that way, it helps elevate any preconception you may have of the film - remember in the books, Roland does create a time paradox that changes events.

The movie adaptation of The Dark Tower, follows Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) as he begins to have nightmares of The Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) and Roland Deschain (Idris Elba) and of The Dark Tower. He realizes that he’s being followed by The Man in Black’s goons – creatures that hide under human skin to disguise their true identity – because of his gift called ‘the shine’. Walter, also known as The Man in Black is collecting other kids with ‘the shine’ in hopes to bring down The Dark Tower, which holds the universe together, with the help of their gift.

The Dark Tower movie is not bad (as some would have you believe); it’s engaging enough that you can follow the story, the characters, and what’s going on and not become board or tied down with tedious amounts of detail that fill the novels – again this was made with the mindset of getting it to a wider audience and not just hardcore fans of the series. Here, the story is told pretty straight forward – a good vs evil tale.

The problem is that there just isn’t enough story to make one feel that what is happening on screen is really that big of a deal to the universe. The Man in Black’s goal ultimately is to bring down The Dark Tower, but you never learn why he wants to destroy it, and he never really feels that threatening to Roland because, unlike everyone else in the movie, he cannot control Roland – so the threat to Roland isn’t there and you know he’s going to win in the end.

The other thing is that we never get an idea of how big Mid-World is; we get snippets of dialog or images that suggest what it was, or is, but never a fully fleshed out realization of the world. The idea of jumping between worlds is never expanded upon – it’s just there as a plot device - nor are we ever given a clear explanation of what the creatures (The Man in Black’s goons) who are chasing after Jake and Roland are; there are a lot of plot holes. The scope of the film feels smaller than it should for this type of movie, unlike say Lord of The Rings. It all needed to be bigger, grander, the threat needed to be more sinister and not so easily stopped in the end. It’s a self-contained story that is wrapped up neatly at the end.

For fans of the books series there are plenty of hidden images pointing to The Crimson King and other Dark Tower lore, but again, it is never spoken of or mentioned in the movie and leaves you wondering what the The Crimson King is. I guess this is going to be addressed in future movies, if there are any.

There were a lot of Stephen King Easter eggs hidden in the movie though, and some of them are hard to spot, some are not. It’s fun to see that The Dark Tower was trying to say that all of King’s works (or at least a lot of them) are connected to this universe.

Both Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey are excellent in their rolls. Idris Elba, in my opinion, captured the spirit of Roland perfectly and pulled off The Gunslinger without any flaws – he understood his dry wit, his callous, and that he had only one thing in mind: killing The Man in Black. And you could not have cast a better Man In Black when they cast Matthew McConaughey as Walter – I would love to see him play Randle Flagg in The Stand (yes, I know they are the same character). Though the threat to Roland is lacking, to the rest of the characters surrounding The Man in Black, McConaughey chews up the scenes in a devilish good way, and really sells himself as the ultimate bad guy who, at times, can climb under your skin.

For the general audience, who know nothing about The Dark Tower series (nor has any interest in reading the books) I’m sure they will enjoy this movie for what it is – a fun action/fantasy movie with a decent story, characters, and is well acted and aptly directed from a script that is lacking understanding of the source material.

For hardcore Dark Tower fans, they are going to hate this water-down version and would just rather go back and re-read all 4,250 pages of the books than put themselves through watching this movie again.

6 out of 10 Stars

If you enjoy what our blog, help support us by donating so we can continue to bring you awesome movie and toy reviews, movie news, and other Dark Cinema related topics.  Thank you!

Stephen King’s fogotten gem: The Night Flier (Review)

By

Frank Ford

With the “IT” trailer dropping this week (looking scary as hell, by the way) it got us here at The Crimson Screen thinking about another Stephen King adaptation that most people have forgotten since its releasing.

Over the years there have been a lot of King’s novels and short stories adapted into movies. Some are great; Shawshank Redemption, The Mist, Carrie, The Shining. Some are good; Pet Semetary, The Dead Zone, and Misery. Some are okay; Needful Things, Graveyard Shift, and Firestarter. And some are just downright dreadful– we’re looking at you The Lagoliers and The Mangler.

But the film I’m discussing today isn’t as well-known as most on the list above, and sadly it has somewhat fallen into obscurity since its releasing twenty years ago.

That film?

1997s “The Night Flier”.

Originally airing on HBO in 1997, before being released into theaters a few months later, The Night Flier revolves around Richard Dees; (the late Miguel Ferrer) a down on his luck, tightly-wound reporter who hasn’t had a successful front-page article in months for the sleazy tabloid magazine “Inside View”.

But Dees’ luck is about to change when his boss, Merton Morrison (Dan Monahan; Pee-Wee from the Porky’s films) offers him a new assignment. It seems someone has been flying around to small airports in a Black Sesna Sky Master killing victims and draining them of their blood. This person calls himself Dwight Renfield – the name is an anagram, Dwight is a reference to Dwight Frye the actor who played Renfield in the 1931 version of Dracula.

Could Renfield really be a…vampire?

Morrison seems to think this assignment is what Dees needs to get him back on the front page, and because Dees has his pilot’s license and his own plane, he can track Renfield’s path to get the bloody details about the murders.

Miguel Ferrer is perfectly cast as the unlikable Dees. The role fits him to a T and he makes you both truly despise and like him at the same time; not an easy feet for any actor but he pulls it off effortlessly. He really carries the movie as Dees; the hard-as-nails reporter who has seen too much depravity in his life and copes with the stress by drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes – which Miguel Ferrer makes look really cool, if I can be politically incorrect here.

Dees doesn’t agree and passes on the story; allowing Merton to give it to the newest member of the “Inside View”, Katherine Blair (Julie Entwisle; wife of the film’s director, Mark Pavia) who has taken over for a former reporter, Dottie Walsh, who died under mysterious circumstances…

Blair (who Dees refers to as Jimmy, as in Jimmy Olsen) wants to get to know Dees better so she follows him to a bar. While there, Blair asks for Dees’ take on “Inside View”. It is here we see just how despicable Dees is, and tells her that she reminds him of Dottie Walsh, the reporter she replaced. Dottie killed herself because the weight of the stories she was covering was too much for her to handle. Dees found Dottie, took a picture of her body, and wrote the story of her suicide – which in Dees’ words with a chuckle, “Made for a good headline, though”.

Again, Ferrer’s performance in this scene is great and he plays it with such a sinister, spiteful vibe, that you can’t help but admire the guy in this role. He owns it. Like this role was written just for him. I can’t think of anyone that could have played Dees better than Ferrer did.

Dees does give Blair one piece of advice in this scene that will set up the final act of the movie beautifully when he says “Don’t publish what you believe. Don’t believe what you publish.”

The next day, Dees is once again called into Morrison’s office where he’s told that Renfield has murdered two victims in Maryland, bringing his total to four murders – one in Maine and another one in New York (which the movie opens with, brutally). Morrison, at this point, rubs it in Dees’ face that Blair found the nights prior victims through clever ingenuity.

Dees, not one to be shown-up, takes the story but only after Morrison, sleazily, persuades him. Morrison kicks Blair off the case which she protests, considering the story hers.

But Morris has made up his mind and gives the story to Dees.

Dan Monahan plays Morrison like a conniving weasel; he makes you want to reach into the screen and strangle the guy for how he’s playing both sides to get what he wants. Though Morison’s not as outright nasty as Dees, and keeps his true self well hidden, he’s still an unlikeable character.

Dees then flies to Maine where the first murder occurred and interviews Ezra Hannon.

 

There is a really good exchange between Dees and Hannon here. Hannon, who speaks with a New England accent, asks Dees which paper he writes for and Dees tells him “Inside View”. Hannon laughs and tells Dees that his wife reads that paper, but after she’s done with it he uses it “to line the cat litter box. Soaks up that cat piss real nice.” This small touch of social commentary really says a lot about tabloid publications and how people view them.

Hannon then proceeds to tell him about the night Renfield landed and that he was wearing a cloak that “was a red as a fireengine on the inside and as black as a woodchucks asshole on the outside” – that is such a Stephen King written line, and if you have ever read any of his books or short stories you already know his work is littered with zingers just like that that make you chuckle with delight.

He describes how the first murder victim, Clair Bowie, was acting strange and found him washing Renfields plane, as if in a trance. Later that night, Clair was found dead.

KNB did the effects on the film and there are plenty of moments where you get to see their work shine – none more than when Clair’s body is shown; it’s bloody great!

Hannon then says there was something else that was peculiar to him; he found dirt under Renfield’s plane and that it looked like something dead had come from it.

Later that night, Dees goes to Clair’s grave, and in a dick move to help his story and “Inside View” sell more papers, he kicks the gravestone askew to give his photo a creepier vibe. But Dees still isn’t satisfied and decides to cut himself and smear blood on the gravestone – which seems to link him and Renfield by blood.

This is another little tidbit that I like about this movie and how the media (whether it be mainstream or other) will do anything to enrich a story’s appeal to help ratings or sell papers.

Later, after having a nightmare about Renfield, Dees awakes and finds the words STAY AWAY written in blood on the window of his motel room – Renfield knows he’s on his tail.

Dees then flies to New York and gets the nasty pictures of the second victim, Buck Kendell, in the morgue. Reporting back to Morrison, Dees tells Morrison that he’s calling him “The Night Flier”. Morrison, now overly excited about the news says, “the fatties in the supermarket are going to go nuts. God, I hope he kills more people!” Morrison wants to rush the story to print.

Yet Dees knows this story is just getting started and it’s going to get bigger, stranger, and he isn’t in a rush to get it back to Morrison until he has more.
Morrison, upset that he’s not getting his way, then returns to Blair and puts her back on the story in hopes of getting a story out sooner.

Dees continuing his investigation goes to Maryland where he finds out that Renfield was staying with his last victims and that they were acting strange prior to their deaths, much like Clair Bowie had been, even after being notified by the FAA about Renfield.

Going to the victims home, Dees finds it in total disarray and covered in blood. But when he returns outside, he is greeted by a dog that tries to kill him – one can only assume that this is Renfield; it’s never fully explained in the movie and left up to interpretation.

Dees and Blair finally cross paths at a motel and decide to work together to track down where Renfield is going to be flying into next. After figuring out where he’s going to be landing, Dees locks Blair in a closet, so he can get the full story on The Night Flyer himself.

Tracking Renfield to the next airport, Dees finds the black Sesna plane; the inside is covered in blood and the back is lined with soil. Once inside the airport, Dees finds it littered with dead bodies; blood is everywhere and Renfield is near.

After finding one of the victims with a crucifix stuffed into his mouth, Dees has a meltdown and runs away only to slip in a pool of blood; he heads to the bathroom to puke.

While standing at the sink washing his hands, Dees hears footsteps behind him, but he cannot see anyone in the mirror’s reflection

It is here that the movie’s suspense is ramped up exponentially and with a cleaver use of the camera and special effects we get one of the creepiest scenes in the movie.

Renfield is behind Dees and beings to piss blood into the urinal – but the cool thing is that we don’t yet see Renfield, only the stream of bloody piss against the white porcelain of the urinal. It is a very cool scene that is well executed.

Then, as the camera moves, we start to see the mirrors being smashed – there is no reflection of Renfield in them. And before Dees realizes it, Renfield is standing directly behind him, silhouetted in the shadows, his face hidden. e demands Dees to give him his camera and film and forget about the story, or he’ll kill him.

Dees, with little options left, does as Renfield asks.

As Renfield is leaving, Dees demands to see his face and is sorry he asked when Renfield obliges to his request.

He is a hideous creature. KNB’s Effects are topnotch here and the first time you see Renfield’s face you’re truly as shocked as Dees is in the film.

Renfield’s victims then “return” to life as vampires and Dees begins to fight them off with an ax, chopping them up into bits.

The police enter the airport and find Dees covered in blood holding the ax. Now all of Renfield’s victims on the floor again, dead. Thinking Dees committed the murders they shoot him, just as Blair enters to see the aftermath.

She then takes over the story – writing the Dees was The Night Flier all along. But Blair knows the truth, that Dwight Renfield (a vampire) really killed all those people, but she takes Dees’ advice from the beginning: Don’t publish what you believe. Don’t believe what you publish.

The movie was made on an estimated budget of 1,000,000.00. Mark Pavia had just 31 days to shoot the movie and had it finished in 30 days. Every penny was put on screen and used to the fullest to put this movie together and you can see that in the final product.

Not only is this one of the most faithful King short story adaptations to date, it is also littered with references to some of King’s other works throughout the film – you’ll have to look for them, I won’t spoil that part for you. To find some of them you’ll have to both listen carefully and pay close attention to details in the background. I’m telling you it is a treasure-trove of Easter eggs litter throughout the film to the larger King mythos.

Mark Pavia wanted Stephen King to do a cameo in the film, but because of a book tour he was unable to play the part of the coroner. This is a shame, since The Night Flier is one of the best adaptations to his work, it would have really been nice to see him in this movie.

The atmosphere is heavy and claustrophobic at times, making you hold your breath and grow tense in the right scenes, especially the ending when Renfield is behind Dees.
But what the movie does best, even better than the horror aspect, is that it works as a great mystery. As you go along for this ride, you want to know more about The Night Flier/Renfield. You want to know why he’s killing people, how he’s doing it, and how is Dees going to solve the mystery, even though he’s an unlikeable character you’ll find yourself rooting for him.

As I’ve said above, KNBs effects are great in the movie; thought they are used sparingly, but when they are on screen there work is proudly displayed.

If there is one place where the film lacks, it’s in the budget. There are a few more things in the story that could have been fleshed out better. Like the dog that chases after Dees or why Renfield was caring dirt in his plane. Pavia was shooting with limited funds within a tight timeframe. He had to do set-ups quickly and efficiently to get the movie done. The small imperfections and plot holes are minor and the viewer can make their own conclusion about the dog and the dirt, if they want to.

Though The Night Flier has no connection to Salem’s Lot, (though King himself said that Renfield is the same vampire in his story Popsy) it feels very akin to that story – especially in the third act of the film, when Renfield’s victims come back to life as vampires. They even look similar to the vampires in Toby Hooper’s Salem’s Lot. It’s really cool and I can’t help but wonder if that was done on purpose since they had tied other King works in with this movie?

But Renfield isn’t the only character in The Night Flier that makes an appearance in one of Kings other stories, Richard Dees does as well in The Dead Zone.

If you haven’t seen this forgotten gem I highly recommend seeking it out. As of this writing it has not been released on Blu-Ray and the DVDs are long out of print – hopefully someone like Scream Factory or Arrow can pick this movie up and give it a rightful restoration collector’s edition and save if from obscurity.

The Night Flier deserves to fly again…

9 out of 10 stars.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do6BqbQRIv8&w=560&h=315]

 

 

IT (Trailer Review)

By

Westley Smith

The trailer for the updated version of Stephen King’s IT dropped online today. Have you seen it (pun intended)? If not, you should check it out below.
Stephen King published IT in 1983 and a made for television film was produced in 1990, directed by Tommy Lee Wallace (Halloween 3: Season of the Witch) and starred Tim Curry as Pennywise.

Like most people, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this new movie. Growing up with the original on VHS and Tim Curry’s iconic performance as Pennywise scared the hell out of me as a kid; it’s hard to believe that anyone could step into his clown-shoes and do the role justice.
But as good (and scary) as the film adaptation is, the 1990 film loses a lot of the darker subject matter from the King novel, as well as a few key subplots that enrich the story.  As a made for TV movie, some of those darker subjects from the book would never have made it on to television screens in the 1990s, and might not even make it on television screens in this day and age. Yeah, the book is that dark at times.

Don’t worry, if you haven’t read the book, I won’t spoil anything and suggest you read it for yourself to know what I’m talking about.

The “updated” version of IT is directed by Andrés Muschietti (Mamma) and was scripted by Gary Dauberman (Annabel, and the upcoming The Nun), Chase Palmer, and Cary Joji Fukunaga (True Detective).

Both the book and the TV mini-series took place in the 1950s in King’s fictional town of Derry, Maine. The new film takes place in the 1980s in Derry, Maine to give the movie more of an updated feel, and allow the second part of IT to be set in modern times – yes, it’s already been confirmed that we are getting a second part to this movie.

There is a notable difference with the new film and its source material, as well as the TV adaptation, and that it looks like this film is going to focus solely on the kids in the 1980s and not go back and forth between the characters as adults (in present day) reminiscing about what happened to them in the 1980s. They are leaving that part for the second IT movie – which could be a very good idea. This allows us, as viewers, to get to know these characters as children before being introduced to them as adults. By the second movie, we will already know their backstory, and now we will see how their past has affected them.

Bill Skarsgård takes over the roll as Pennywise in the new film. And after seeing the trailer, it is apparent that Pennywise in this film is going to be a much different character than what we get in the book or the mini-series. This is also a good, refreshing thing, I think and it will allow this film to be both faithful to the source material and the film that came before it, but allow this film to be its own movie.

Almost all bad remakes suffer from two thing: staying too close to the movie that preceded it (A Nightmare on Elm St, The Fog), or straying so far off the subject that it’s no longer what we were expecting (Rob Zombie’s Halloween, comes to mind). There are a few remakes that are very well done, (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), The Hills Have Eyes (2007), and Maniac (2012) all of these films stayed true to their source material but updated them very well for modern audiences.

Let’s just hope IT will do the same.

IT crawls its way under your skin in theaters September 8 2017

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

If you would like to pick up an old VHS copy of IT visit our store: http://www.mcssl.com/store/18046487/it-vhs

 

 

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnCdOQsX5kc&w=560&h=315]