Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThought
I don't watch many movies, and I'm always hesitant to watch a movie derived from a book I have or am expecting to read. I hearken back to the days when I was still reading Stephen King (before he became such a rabid purveyor of propaganda) and would watch a movie based on one of his books, coming away from the experience with a flat, tasteless feeling in my soul.
|
Book adaptations don't have to be flat and tasteless. It depends on the skill of the director making the movie. Bad directors make bad movies. Lots of the '80's King adaptations were churned out by bad or mediocre directors.
But there are plenty of good ones. Brian DePalma's Carrie, Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, John Carpenter's Christine (I wish Carpenter had done an adaptation of Firestarter), David Cronenberg's The Dead Zone, Meathead's Stand By Me and Misery, Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemtion, The Green Mile and The Mist.
Quote:
|
That being said, I have to say that I really enjoyed the movie Odd Thomas, based on Dean Koontz's book by the same name, even though it was necessary to condense the plot significantly in order to prevent it from becoming a maxi-mini-series. At least it allowed me to put a face on Odd, Stormy, and those nasty things whose names I can't remember offhand. (Or maybe I do remember, just don't want to name them in case they decide to turn their attention in my direction.)
|
I really don't like Dean Koontz as a writer. His authorial voice just grates on my nerves. But I have seen some really enjoyable adaptations of his stuff. Phantoms, the TV miniseries of Intensity and as you mentioned Odd Thomas. I guess I like his tales without his voice.
I don't understand what happened with Odd thomas. It was a big budget movie with a good cast and director, but I don't even remember it being released to theaters.