Showing posts with label Stephen King. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen King. Show all posts

Sunday, November 23, 2025

The Krell Laboratories Podcast: The Movies and Mr. King

I had a long conversation with besties, Anna Maurya and Jenni Shwaner, about this year's crop of Stephen King adaptations, including The Monkey (2025), The Life of Chuck, The Long Walk, and The Running Man (2025). We also discuss the recent anthology of stories set in the universe of The Stand, The End of the World As We Know It. We are all long-time "constant readers," as King would have us, but we're not entirely uncritical. Join us, won't you?

Anna is also on this week's Horror 101 episode talking about Cannibal Holocaust. Like Chuck in The Life of Chuck we contain multitudes.





Christianne Benedict on Patreon
This blog is supported on Patreon by wonderful subscribers. If you like what I do, please consider pledging your own support. It means the world to me.

Sunday, February 23, 2025

A Monkey on Your Back

"I was in New York on business about four years ago. I was walking back to my hotel after visiting my people at New American Library when I saw a guy selling wind-up monkeys on the street. There was a platoon of them standing on a gray blanket he'd spread on the sidewalk at the corner of Fifth and Forty-fourth, all grinning and bending and clapping their cymbals. They looked really scary to me, and I spent the rest of the walk back to the hotel wondering why. I decided they reminded me of the lady with the shears . . . the one who cuts everyone's thread one day. So keeping that in mind, I wrote the story, most of it longhand, in a hotel room."
--Stephen King, "Story Note on 'The Monkey,'" Skeleton Crew, 1985

The new film version of The Monkey (2025) is a bit of a departure for director Osgood Perkins. It has a grotesque sense of humor that I didn't know he had and an instinct for the grand guignol that is new to his films. Ordinarily, his films are mood pieces that trade on atmosphere and menace more than plot, but this one is a cartoon. It shares with the Stephen King story its central idea of a wind-up monkey that causes death when it's wound up to action. In the story, the monkey has a pair of cymbals. In the movie they've changed it to a drum for reasons of copyright (they did not want to run afoul of Disney and their army of lawyers). It's a minor change. It also takes from the story its central characters, two brothers who find the monkey in childhood and realize its power. Apart from that, this is a film that ranges far afield of King's story, which is nothing new to the author. "Based on" is too strong a credit for what this takes from King. "Suggested by" might have been more apt. That doesn't mean that it's bad. Just different.

Friday, October 04, 2024

Just After Sunset

It never occurred to me that Jerusalem's Lot was a sundown town until two of the central characters in the story were racebent. If you don't know what a sundown town is, it's a town where it was illegal to be out on the streets after sundown if one belonged to a despised minority. This was traditionally directed at African Americans, but other not-white peoples have fallen prey to this as well. It is perhaps too much to ask that the new version of Salem's Lot (2024, directed by Gary Dauberman) actually do something with this idea. They almost get it. So close. But, alas, no. The way race is completely ignored in a film set in Maine in 1975 is conspicuous. There aren't a lot of black people in Maine. But this is off in the woods. 'Salem's Lot is a different kind of sundown town, a fact elided by Gordon Lightfoot's "Sundown" on the soundtrack. A little on the nose maybe, but not wrong.

Tuesday, October 08, 2019

Hell On Wheels

Christine (1983)

Such was Stephen King's popularity in 1983, that work on the film version of his novel, Christine, began while the book was still being edited. 1983 offered a bumper crop of films based on the writer's work, including Cujo, The Dead Zone, and Christine. The later two were directed by two of the masters of late 70s/early 80s horror movies, David Cronenberg and John Carpenter. Carpenter, for his part, was coming off the failure of The Thing, a financial disaster that saw him removed from the director's chair of another King project, Firestarter,* and desperate for a hit. Christine was fast-tracked and appeared in December of 1983, a mere eight months after the novel's publication.


Saturday, October 20, 2018

Stephen King's America

Bill Skarsgård in It (2017)

Whenever you have a massive breakout success in the horror genre, there is usually some underlying social force at work over and above the relative quality of the film. It's not just that, say, Get Out is a crackerjack thriller. There are plenty of crackerjack thrillers that are at least as good as Get Out that never find a wide audience. But Get Out appeared in the social ferment of Black Lives Matter and a conversation about race in America that wasn't happening four years earlier. It hit a window in the zeitgeist that provided it with the exact moment to become a monster breakout success. You could probably say the same thing about the new version of Stephen King's It (2017, directed by Andrés Muschietti). As a movie, it's good enough. It's well-made. But merely being "well made" isn't enough to explain its success. Director Andrés Muschietti's last film, Mama, was "well made," but that only got it modest box office, not the gaudy success of It. As I write this, It has become the highest grossing horror movie ever made. Its success is the stuff of summer blockbusters, not autumn horror movies. You might think that this is a matter of kids who grew up in the nineties latching on to something from their childhood, but I don't think that's it, or, at least, that's not everything. Its brutal view of what childhood entails (not just in the 1980s) goes a fair way to debunking pure nostalgia as the author of the film's outsized financial success. There's more to it than that.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Prom Night

Chloe Grace Moretz in Carrie (2013)

There's a legend about Stephen King's first published novel, Carrie, in which Doubleday editor Bill Thompson was convinced to buy and publish the book because the secretaries were found to be passing the manuscript around the office, completely horrified and utterly mesmerized by its first scene. You know the one? In which poor Carrie White has her first period and her classmates pelt her with tampons while chanting "Plug it up! Plug it up!" That scene and, indeed, the book itself suggest a story that ought to be examined with a female gaze. It's categorically a book about women in which men are barely present as active characters with agency. While I'm not going to grouse about Brian De Palma's film version on the whole--it's one of the landmarks of the 1970s horror film--De Palma's filming of the opening scene has always struck me as mildly exploitative. It's certainly filmed from a male gaze. This is corrected by Kimberly Pierce's 2013 remake, a film that's not nearly as heartless as De Palma's film. In theory, Pierce's version of Carrie is a more faithful adaptation of King's novel, but as has happened in the past with "more faithful" versions of King, something gets lost.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Netflix Roulette: Firestarter Rekindled



Anyone who goes in for genre films has to have a streak of masochism. Genre movies are so rarely good that if you can't take the punishment, you won't survive long enough to find that perfect rose at the top of the mountain of dung. Most genre films lack the ambition to be good even when they have the talent for it. They don't push the envelope because challenging the audience will reduce the box office in the short run even if it creates long term hits or cult items. Audiences don't like to be challenged. I understand that. I do. Sometimes genre films are comfort food, something to put on the TV while you unwind after work, to be consumed when your brain needs to rest.


I've been avoiding very challenging films for the last couple of weeks. For various reasons, my attention span and my general headspace haven't been up to the task. True, there are legitimately great films that don't require the level of concentration that a film by, say, Hou or Kairostami or Wong Kar Wai require, but I just haven't been in the mood. Instead, I've been using media as a kind of Hagen Das for the brain. When I haven't been watching old favorites, I've been watching movies that don't require much in the way of deep analysis and that certainly don't plumb the deeper recesses of my emotions. Most such movies are crap. That's fine. I can own that.


Spinning the roulette wheel has never been kind to me, but it usually offers me up unchallenging movies that I can approach at a cruising altitude of consciousness. One doesn't need to watch very much of this week's offering, Firestarter Rekindled (2002, directed by Robert Iscove), to realize that it is damaged goods. It takes even less time to identify where it goes wrong. The main problem? It has too little story for its running time. That it's nearly three hours long is a foolish gamble even considering that this was conceived as a cable miniseries-slash-series pilot.

Saturday, November 03, 2012

Writer's Block


David Koepp's Secret Window (2004) is another avatar of the vogue for identity horror that was so popular around the turn of the millennium. As such movies go, it's not bad. It mostly acts as a showcase for star Johnny Depp, who dials back the quirks of his usual roles for a more nuanced character than we're used to seeing from him. It's a middlebrow horror movie that's light on the violence and long on psychological suspense. For all that, it's not bad.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Storm Warnings


I kind of fell out of love with Stephen King in the 1990s. I was a faithful constant reader, in King's words, for the previous decade. King was one of the few writers I would buy in hardback on the day of release. At some point, though, I realized that the thrill was gone. Oh, he was still capable of good books now and then (particularly story collections like Everything's Eventual), but King, for me, became like a middle-aged husband who can only get it up every so often and that only with the help of pharmaceuticals. The affection was still there, but, sheesh, every so often a girl wants to go for a hard, wild ride. And King wasn't getting it done. I still buy King in hardback, by the way, but I usually wait until they're remaindered because it's cheaper than a paperback these days. I think part of what contributed to my wandering eye was the rash of TV movies and mini-series that began to appear in the 1990s. These tended to literalize King's ideas in ways that were not flattering to the writer. It didn't help that most of them were made by Mick Garris, who may be a nice guy but who isn't much of a director.

The upshot of this is that I skipped King's original miniseries, Storm of the Century, when it originally aired in 1999 and never felt the need to catch up to it until now. Over the years, I've had multiple friends tell me that it's one of the better King projects, but I never felt motivated enough to seek it out until now. I probably wouldn't have gone for it now if I wasn't looking to feed the October Challenge with movies I haven't seen. In a challenge where quantity matters, it does seem foolhardy to select a movie that's longer than Gone With the Wind, but I've never chosen wisely for this exercise. So I put it on my Netflix queue.

In truth, I've been finding it hard to write about. It was the third film I watched for the Challenge, but this is the seventh blog entry charting my progress. For the most part, my friends are right: it's pretty good in a network television "good" sort of way. Television is a writer's medium and this is the first time TV has really given King himself the chance to marry his own narrative gifts with the advantages of time granted by television. This has the feel of some of King's better novels, particularly 'Salem's Lot and Needful Things. Like those two books, Storm of the Century is like some deranged version of Peyton Place. It documents the dirty secrets of its small town setting, then lets it all fester as an outside evil comes to stir the pot.

The setting is an island community off the coast of Maine. Little Tall Island has the usual cast of downeasters familiar to anyone who has read King. The ostensible hero of the piece is Mike Anderson (Tim Daly), who owns a grocery store and moonlights as the town constable. On the day when the so called "storm of the century" hits Little Tall, Anderson is obliged to investigate the murder of Martha Clarendon, an old lady who has been clubbed to death by a sinister newcomer to the island, one Andre Linoge (Colm Feore). Linoge, it seems, is looking for something from the people of Little Tall, and he carries with him more than just a whiff of brimstone. Soon, at his behest, the fault lines in the town psyche are shifting, and people are beginning to crack, sometimes violently.



Linoge is a familiar character type from King: He's Leland Gaunt or Randall Flagg under another name. As he is depicted by the movie, Linoge is everything the version of Flagg in Mick Garris's version of The Stand failed to be: menacing without being a boor about it. He's genuinely sinister. It doesn't hurt that Colm Feore has the voice for the part. Linoge has more than a little bit of Hannibal Lecter in him. Even some dodgy special effects don't dim the impression he makes. Tim Daly, too, is good in a thankless role as our hero. The rest of the cast serves. As a narrative, Storm of the Century takes its own sweet time. Oh, you get an early murder scene to keep the groundlings at bay, but this follows King's preferred pattern of getting to know his characters before throwing them into the abattoir. There's a lot of character development in this project, almost to the point of tedium (seriously, this is over four hours long!). The final forty five minutes of the movie is the payoff, in which Linoge tells his victims exactly what he wants, and the movie charges onward to its satisfyingly bleak conclusion. The way this plays out is pretty misanthropic, actually, kind of like Rod Serling's blacker Twilight Zone episodes. It doesn't send the audience away happy. I like that.

Obviously, I like the story, but I find myself ambivalent towards the whole project. It didn't occur to me until I started looking for screen caps for this review that the reason for my ambivalence comes down to the fact that it's visually dull. Oh, it has some nice special effects sequences depicting the storm, but most of the film is shot in close-ups. There aren't many master shots in this film, and there's almost no flair to the movement of the camera, and no really arresting visual images. Director Craig Baxley has had a long career in television, but he's not a visual director; he comes to the job from the stunt department, after all. The style on display in this movie is strictly utilitarian. Baxley went on to replace Mick Garris as King's go-to director for TV projects, but he's just like him in so far as he sublimates style in favor of a depressingly literal approach to narrative. King likes these sorts of directors, but he's a writer. I'm guessing that the days of visual stylists like De Palma and Carpenter taking on King's work are over, which depresses me a little.




Current Challenge tally:

Total Viewings: 7

First Time Viewings: 7