Talk about ambitious, everyone's favorite Spider-man was directing Stephen King adaptations a year before he was born.
Seriously though i really don't want to shit on Tom Holland the writer director. he is best known for his work in the horror, penning the 1983 sequel to the classic Psycho, directing the first entry in the long-running Child's Play franchise, and writing and directing the cult vampire film Fright Night. He also directed the Stephen King adaptations The Langoliers and Thinner, and i think his work in this movie really elevates (a bit) it form the made for TV schlock you might be expecting.
i read the Novella what feels like a long time ago, and i remember enjoying it. it wasn't the best novella i have ever read, but it had all the classic Stephen King staples that make his work so... interesting. A full blown bat shit crazy violent murderer, An obvious Stephen King surrogate character, down to earth small town characters, a little kid with some psychic visions, and of course that feeling that all of this was written by an oldish man in the 90's on cocaine.
people often shit on this movie (yes technically its a mini series but come on) solely because of its CG segments, and that's the equivalent of judging a book by its cover. although its not as good as the book (what movie is) but its a competent adaptation of the book. the run time undoubtedly feels bloated at just under three hours, but it does almost all of the novels characters justice. the flashbacks keep things from feeling to boring and confined to the air port/plane setting, and ya know... overall its just... fine. its not terribly good or bad, and to be honest the fact that this exists at all feels unnecessary.
i'm no stranger to being excited for Stephen King movies, but sometimes dead i better.
and by dead i mean the book. please just read the book and only watch this if you are interested in watching people walk around an empty airport with overdubbed dialogue, help yourself.
but why?/10
Comments