Category Archives: Stephen King Films
CHRISTINE
CHRISTINE-United States-1983
Directed by John Carpenter
Screenplay by Bill Phillips
Based on the novel by Stephen King
Now we come to Stephen King’s Christine. Oops, hold on, wait a minute, that’s not entirely accurate. If I were talking about the masterful novel by the aforementioned Mr. King that statement would be correct. But I’m not; I’m talking about John Carpenter’s Christine, screenplay by Bill Phillips. We’re talking about a movie that took everything that was cool about King’s novel and threw it in the garbage; this is one of the absolute lowest moments in the career of John Carpenter. The fact that it comes one year after the sci-fi horror masterpiece The Thing makes it all the more a complete failure. With this film Carpenter has taken three steps backward instead of one giant leap forward. If Carpenter and Phillips had only followed the novel he would had one of the scariest and one of the goriest horror films ever put to celluloid. Instead he has a shell of a film that only succeeds in making him look like a non-collaborative egotist. The main thing that Christine the film does right is in representing the love triangle between the nerd cum stud Arnie Cunningham, the beautiful Leigh Cabot and the evil 1958 Plymouth Fury, Christine. I got the same impression about Arnie from watching the movie that I did from reading the book and that was that if he were given the means and the opportunity he would have had sex with that damn car. Not the girl, the car. Other than that I found nothing with which to compare the two. I know what you’re thinking. What about the way the car could re-assemble itself and the way it killed all of Arnie’s enemies? Well, what about it? The deaths are so tame a Pinto could have committed them. For instance, in the novel the death of Moochie Welch is so brutal and bloody it stayed with me for days. Christine repeatedly runs over him until he’s nothing but human hamburger. In the movie it crushes him against a wall and there’s not one ounce of blood. I’m not saying the gore was the best part of the book, but it was a very important part of it and it should have been part of the movie. You know what? I’m ranting. The bottom line is that Christine the movie is a failure that should never have happened. If only the King had been involved; things would have been so much different.
TRIVIA
Scott Baio was considered to play Arnie Cunningham and Brooke Shields was considered for Leigh Cabot. But the film makers involved all felt the movie would be better served by casting “unknowns”.
Arnie’s nemesis, Detective Rudolph Junkins, also drives a Plymouth Fury. The car Detective Rudolph Junkins is driving when he meets Arnie in the high-school parking lot is a 1977 or 1978 Plymouth Fury – a popular police car of the late 1970s.
As a joke, Alexandra Paul’s twin sister, Caroline Paul, stood in for her during some scenes, most notably the ride on the bulldozer.
Related articles
- John Carpenter’s The Thing (themoviereport.net)
PET SEMATARY
PET SEMATARY-United States-1989
Why in the hell is Stephen King’s novel Pet Sematary better than the movie? They’re both creepy as hell and both contain some pretty effective scares. Shoot, King even wrote both the book and the screenplay. So why is the movie not better or even equally as good as the book? It’s because it doesn’t have the scene in it.
The scene is that part of a book that is so scary or so creepy that you just know that it has to be in the movie exactly the way it was written. For Pet Sematary, it’s when Gage Creed comes back from the dead and has a confrontation with old Judd Crandall. Last time he saw Gage was before he’d been hit by a semi and splattered all over a Maine highway. Judd’s ready for him; he knows this isn’t any cute little two year old coming back to see him. This Gage is something straight from Hell itself. What he doesn’t realize is that Gage has brought back-up in the voice of Judd’s recently deceased wife, Norma. The creepiness level begins to rise when dear, departed Norma tells Judd that she was a whore the entire time they were married and that she even ‘rutted’ with a few of Judd’s friends. Now they’re all in hell and they’re laughing their asses off at old Judd. It’s bad enough to lose your wife, but when she talks to you from beyond the grave and tells you things you sure as shit don’t want to hear, that’s when it gets real damn creepy. That was the scene in Pet Sematary the novel.
Unfortunately it is nowhere to be found in the movie. Judd’s wife is nowhere to be found in the movie. Because of this the film feels watered down, a sort of Pet Sematary Lite. The acting is decent; what we’ve come to expect from a Stephen King film. It’s still scary, but without the scene it’s just not the same.
TRIVIA
Related articles
- Did Stephen King Really Say ‘F*** You’ On Facebook? (huffingtonpost.com)
- Chiller 13: Horror’s Creepiest Kids 2011 (horroraddicts.wordpress.com)
- B-Sides: I Don’t Want to Be Buried in a Pet Sematary (dreadcentral.com)
CUJO
CUJO-United States-1983
For a long period of time it seemed like every writer or director or producer worth his salt was trying their best to put a Stephen King novel on the silver screen. As fast as King shat them from the keys of his word processor, the faster the studios processed them and made them (somewhat) palatable for us to swallow up alongside our money and our sodas and popcorn. I’m not going to lie; I was one of the millions of people who spent their dough on films like The Dead Zone, Christine, Children of the Corn and this one, Cujo.
Now, like all the other films, I read Cujo before sitting in the darkness of a theater to watch it. The one thing that stood out for me about the novel was that it was the first one of his books that I found myself becoming bored with. I just didn’t buy keeping the mother and her child trapped in this sweltering hot car for over a hundred pages. There’s only so much you can do with that small of a setting and King should have put it to rest after thirty pages, give or take a page or two. So, when I heard that there was going to be a film adaptation I began to wonder how they were going to pull this off. That is when I learned that great editing and great acting make for wonderful bedfellows. The film Cujo is just the opposite of the book in that it bogs down before they’re trapped in the car. I found myself not giving a damn about the fact that she had an affair or that the dad’s job was on the line because people were throwing up blue stuff or whatever color they were puking. I wanted to see what was going to happen when this huge, rabid Saint Bernard finally had this mother and her child trapped in that tiny little Pinto. In the hands of a lesser actress, the entire thing would have been a complete failure. Dee Wallace has always been one of the most capable and dependable actors I have ever had the pleasure of watching and Cujo is no exception. But it wasn’t just Wallace, but also Danny Pintauro as young Tad Trenton who impressed me within the confines of that Pinto. His performance is one of the best I have seen from a child star.
So, is Cujo the movie better than Cujo the book? Well, seeing as how I could very easily piss off a lot of tried and true bona fide hardcore Stephen King fans, I’ll just say that Cujo the movie is…
Related articles
- Famous dog names (moneyexpert.com)
- Dee Wallace Lends a Hand to the Lords of Salem (dreadcentral.com)


















































































