Stephen King

Gerald’s Game

06/11/17

I remember reading Steven King’s novel on its release in 1992 and thinking to myself, ‘Well, here’s one of his books they’ll never be able to make into a film.’ This was the time when moviemakers were happily turning everything he was involved with into motion pictures, (even, it seemed, his shopping lists), so this was quite a claim, but everything about the story – it features pretty much a single protagonist who is chained to a bed throughout proceedings – seems to suggest it’s a cinematic non-starter. Clearly, nobody has mentioned that to writer/director Mike Flanagan; and it’s to his credit, that he makes a pretty decent fist of this Netflix Original.

Jessie Burlingame (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), attempt to spice up their flagging marriage by heading off to their remote summerhouse for a weekend of carnal pleasure, in which Gerald wishes to investigate the possibilities of a little bondage. Almost before you can say, ‘bad idea,’ Jessie is handcuffed to a bed and Gerald (don’t worry, this really isn’t a spoiler) has dropped dead from a massive heart attack. Awkward! Unable to get up off the mattress, Jessie has time to regret leaving the back door open (really?) and encouraging a hungry stray dog to come around and get himself something to eat… also, who is the mysterious Moonlight Man, who keeps appearing from time to time? Is he merely a hallucination? The image of Jessie’s own impending death? Or something much more prosaic?

Given the problematic storyline, Flanagan manages to walk a tricky tightrope between prurience and suspense – and his technique for ‘opening up’ the story is cleverly done. A recurring flashback to Jessie’s childhood cleverly echoes the point that she’s always been held prisoner by a man’s sordid intentions; and, if you thought Greenwood’s presence here was going to be fleeting, think again. There’s also a mercifully brief but extremely visceral sequence that will have the hardiest souls averting their gaze as it unfolds in all it’s bloody detail.

King’s books rarely get the screen adaptations they deserve – even the recent, highly acclaimed It, fell somewhat short of the mark in my opinion – but this is a palpable success and it’s right there on Netflix whenever you feel hardy enough to give it a whirl.

3.8 stars

Philip Caveney

Advertisements

It

 

 

13/09/17

Like many readers, I came to Stephen King’s writing in the early seventies, when his debut novel,  Carrie had just been released. I read a lot of his books and I thought that It was one of his best later efforts, despite the inclusion of a lamentable (what-was-he-thinking?) scene towards the end of the story that seemed to have strayed in from an entirely different genre. And of course I saw the 1990 TV adaptation, memorable for Tim Curry’s spirited performance as Pennywise but not much else. This new release, however, has certainly caught the public imagination. In a year where overall box office takings are dramatically down, the film is already proving to be a major hit with the public.

The town of Derry is plagued by a string of mysterious disappearances – most recently, young Georgie Denborough (Jackson Robert Scott) has chased a paper boat along a rainy gutter and into the clutches of a homicidal clown. The event leaves Georgie’s older brother, Bill (Jaeden Lieberher), riddled with guilt and obsessed with finding his lost sibling. Bill teams up with a bunch of fellow outsiders from his school and together they start to uncover Derry’s infamous history – one that appears to feature a list of similar disappearances going back for centuries…

What made the source novel so good was that King really knew how to write about teenagers – and that’s certainly the element that new director, Andy Muschietti, gets right. There are appealing performances from all of the young actors in this version, especially from Sophia Lillis as Beverly and from Finn Wolfhard, channeling his inner Corey Feldman as motormouthed geek Richie Tozier. Bill Skarsgard’s Pennywise is also fabulously creepy in the early scenes, but inevitably, the more we see of him, the less scary he becomes. This means that I really enjoy the first hour or so, but by the time the young protagonists had pursued their supernatural quarry down into the sewers, I am enjoying proceedings a whole lot less. Somebody should have whispered in Muschietti’s ear the old maxim that less is more. But no, he keeps piling it on, and all the menace he’s worked so hard to create runs straight down the drain. Interestingly, it’s the same problem that plagued his earlier film, Mama.

And it’s not just the over-reliance on effects that niggles here. What passed for plotting back in the eighties is starting to feel decidedly heavy-handed in this day and age. I could have done without the cartoonish gang of bullies terrorising the weaker kids in town (or at least had their over-the-top antics dialled down a couple of notches) and, while I appreciate the whole thing is a metaphor for kid’s coming to terms with their true identities, the points don’t need driving home with an economy-sized sledgehammer. As for the decision to turn the book into two different films, one dealing with the nineteen eighties and another featuring the kids all grown up and returning to Derry to confront their old nemesis? Well, given the success of part one, the creators are doubtless rubbing their hands at the prospect of pulling it off a second time.

Whatever I think about It hardly matters. It’s already a massive success and one that clearly chimes with a wide audience. King will, I’m sure, be pleased at what’s finally been done with his book. After so many cack-handed adaptations of his work (including The Lawnmower Man, from which he made a point of having his name removed) this at least is recognisably his brain child. It’s frankly not the spine chilling masterpiece that many have labeled it as, but maybe you can’t argue with bums on seats.

3.5 stars

Philip Caveney

Carrie

MV5BMTc1MDIyOTkxN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTU1NzEzMDE@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_AL_

28/08/14

Why do they do it? Brian De Palma pretty much nailed this idea in 1976, but as is the way of things these days, somebody has decided that they can put a new spin on it. Except that director Kimberly Peirce completely fails to do that. Apart from a few tiny changes (Carrie’s mum owns a dress alteration business, Sue Snell is pregnant and Carrie’s first period humiliation is shared on Facebook) this is pretty much a shot-for-shot retread of De Palma’s film, minus the fancy split-screen, slo mo tropes that are his (brilliant) signatures. And apart from a bit of contemporary tweaking, they’ve even used Lawrence Cohen’s 1976 screenplay.

And then there’s Chloe Grace Moretz in the title role. Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s fabulous, but she’s too groomed, too wholesome to play the awkward, naive outsider Carrie White. Her transformation into a beauty on prom night is supposed to be a revelation, but she’s easily the best looking person in the film from the opening shot onwards. And while Sissy Spacek may have been too old for the role in the original, by golly, didn’t she convince at every step? Julianne Moore is a better fit for batty, sex-obsessed Momma White, and she cranks things down a couple of notches from Piper Laurie’s histrionic original, but that’s not enough to justify spending so much time and money on this ‘reimagining.’ Oh and that famous final ‘shock?’ Don’t hold your breath.

To my mind, the only reason for doing something like this is to radically reinvent the material. This is decently made, decently acted and if you’ve never seen the famous original, then maybe it’s worth seeing. But why would you bother when De Palma’s iconic movie is still available on DVD?

3.4 stars

Philip Caveney