I’ve seen the movie a few times and liked it - I’m just curious if the book is different enough to warrant
Me reading it?
For those that have seen the movie and read the book - how would you rate both?
Stephen King's books are always better than their adaptations.
shareExcept:
The Shining
The Dead Zone
Stand by Me
Misery
and
The Mist
The Shining I agree - the movie was much better than the book.
Stand by Me is a great book though and the movie is obviously great - the book gives us much more detail though so it gets the nod from me
Btw I hated Kings story The Running Man .. baffles me how anyone likes it
+1 - The Shining is the only one I agree with, just because the movie is so much scarier. The book is a better plotline arguably. The Dead Zone, Mist, and Stand By Me weren't even close as far as the detail goes in my opinion. And Misery... SO toned down. Breaking his legs with a hammer? Please. In the book she sawed them off and cauterized them with a torch. Annie was a savage in the book. And what she did to the cop...
And The Running Man - it was more like Harrison Ford's The Fugitive than the Arnie Swarzenegger clown show. That has to be the all time worst King adaption. Absolutely nothing like the book. Lawnmower Man is right on its heels.
The Shining(book) actually shocked me in how scary it wasn’t. I remember being halfway through the book and I was almost bored . It never pulled me in. The movie is fantastic though - the feeling of isolation and dread ..
Yes the Running Man movie I watched first so I was shocked in how different the book was . I almost thought it was the wrong story lol
Did you see Castle Rock series? I was really let down by that
His version of Shawshank sucks, too.
shareI read the book in the summer of 1983. Even though that's a long time ago I remember the book was excellent. It obviously was written when King was going through his cocaine binges, which are by far his best years. I'll rate the book Christine an 8.5 out of 10.
I saw the movie around Christmas of 1983, just a few months after I read the book. John Carpenter did a good job technically, and there were some really cool scenes along with a sometimes riveting score. I think it hurt a lot that I had already read the book, as I always knew what was coming. So, I'll say Christine is a good, but not great, movie. 7.5 out of 10.
For Carpenter to make a 7.5 movie in 1983 is rather disappointing.
The Novels for the most part will always be better in the sense they're more descriptive, however, this movie ROCKS right down to the no name casting at the time this movie was made in 1983 and considering I'm a product of the 80's, this movie hit home quite well.. I could relate to Arnie at the time in how he was bullied because I too was bullied in High School, but more from the jocks than the burnouts like the movie portrayed.. Still, even if they were to attempt to remake this, it wouldn't be any better FX wise because you can only make a haunted 57 Chevy come back to life in only so many ways..
share
Well, *Plymouth* but yeah. The scene with the Fury fully engulfed in flames was great. CGI couldn't have gotten that as good.
I just finished re-reading the book today for the first time in 20+ years and immediately re-watched the movie for the first time in about the same time. I found myself surprised by how different the book was from what I chiefly remembered from the movie--a lot of the surface stuff is the same, but there's a lot of MAJOR differences, which I won't go into here if you're planning on reading the book (if you want me to, let me know, but if you're planning to read the book, which you should, you shouldn't hear any spoilers).
As far as ratings, it's a solid King book, not one of his best, but certainly a fun, thrilling read, with some really amazing parts and at least 1 or 2 legendary characters (specifically Darnell, who's really short-changed in the film, with barely 2 scenes).
The movie would probably be a lot better, as you could say of most King movies based on books (hell, most movies based on books in general), if you hadn't read the book. I was surprised at how rushed some things felt, even for a near-2 hour movie, at least two specific things happen in the movie that made me feel like "Wait, what, how did we get here? There's no reason for these characters to be feeling/behaving this way yet!" Now I'm really hoping for a well-done miniseries like the recent The Stand (except, like I said...well done.)
This kind of makes me want to read the book now... I absolutely adore this movie, though. It's easily one of my favourite horror movies.
share Yes please I’d love to hear the differences between the book and movie!
Btw I’m already disappointed that the movie cheats Darnell as he is an important part of the book and an interesting character .
The main difference is that in the novel, the entire basis of the story is that the owner of the car, an evil and sadistic dude, transferred his soul into the car when he died. He's really the crux of the entire novel, his background and his rotting corpse always being seen in the car, and Dennis's interactions with his elderly brother. He sells the car to Arnie in the beginning and there are a few scenes with him before he dies shortly after selling the car, as he was waiting for someone like Arnie who would be the perfect owner, as he harbored some of the same rage and fury due to his upbringing and being bullied at school. In the movie, it's just an "evil car," lol.
There's tons of other differences, lots more deaths in the novel, including the detective played by Harry Dean Stanton, a couple more teenagers, and Arnie's parents. And like I said, Darnell is also a huge character in the novel, and Arnie does illegal things for him in exchange for keeping Christine at his garage and other perks, leading to an entire segment about Arnie being arrested with illegal contraband, which is entirely absent from the movie. Darnell's death scene in the novel is also insane, with Christine literally breaking into his home and murdering him on his second floor, haha. Would have been astounding to see on the screen.
The things that simply felt unbelievably rushed in the movie to me were:
1. Leigh all of a sudden hating Christine and refusing to enter the car, when really nothing had happened on screen to make her feel this way; it's a very gradual and dread-filled realization in the novel.
2. The climax of Dennis and Leigh going to destroy Christine was just out of nowhere, like they were just "we gotta end this thing!" There was no buildup to it or really anything hinted at that they would choose to do this or were in any way prepared for it.
Leigh became jealous of Arnie's infatuation with the car. Then the car tried to kill her. They seemed to get over it, but then Arnie accused her when Christine got trashed and things got worse from there.
Dennis saw his lifelong friend turn into a complete dick after he got the car.
Also people around Arnie are dying.
It doesn't come out of nowhere.
If you just read the book and then watched the movie, yes, comes out of nowhere, since so many little things are skipped. It was enough to actually shock me when watching.
shareBut movies aren't supposed to be watched as an exercise in checking what material they include or leave out from the book you just read.
I thought it was better. I still like the movie as it's own thing though, since it's a John Carpenter film.
shareboth the novel and the movie are great but the movie is different than the novel.
the novel is pretty dark and the ending is pretty much sad with the deaths of Arnie and his mother dying from a crazy hitchhiker incident.
that and Christine having the corpse of Micheal inside her and Micheal's body crashing through into Darnell's office that was pretty grisly. Leigh got hit pretty bad too during that part with her head bleeding.
Plus all the deaths happened during the winter time in the novel. That and still weird to learn that Christine is defeated by a cement truck and not a bulldozer like in the movie
[deleted]
My theory: whatever you experienced first is better. I liked every book I read better than the movie until I read Bourne Identity. What a slog of a book! The movie was way shorter. But my brother told me I was crazy. He read the book before seeing the movie.
Same with songs. Van Halen's You Really Got Me - I heard that first and fell in love with it. Then I heard the Kinks original. I thought it was lame.
The movie would've benefited more from having Carpenter's distinct ambiguity instead of King's inability to let the audience put the pieces together. You can tell Carpenter is trying to add the sense of whether or not the car is actually alive or if Arnie is just crazy, but King wanted it to be front and center that Christine is sentient and sassy.
shareThere is never any doubt in the movie that this is all actually happening. It all being in Arnie’s head is never anything Carpenter wanted the audience to consider.
share