Hmmmmmm, perhaps I should give this another look. I gave up on Cell about halfway through due to my annoyance that all the main characters seemed to have a "heart of gold", which seems to be more in line with Kings recent works. I thought the plot was intriguing, I just got tired of the preachiness of the characters. Cell is only the second King novel I've ever bailed on (the other one being From a Buick 8). I totally agree with your "gumpy old man" assessment of his last few books. He just came out with a new one called "Lisey's Story" and it's the first time in 20 years that I didn't pick it up. I sat there in the bookstore reading and then re-reading the book jacket and I thought, "This description does nothing for me." The Dark Tower books are great, by the way.
Dark Tower's a mixed bag, I think. It's definitely the kind of thing you need to be in the mood for. And, it rambles. And I don't like all the philosophizing. I got tired of it around the time of Wizard and Glass.
That isn't to say it doesn't have its moments of brilliance. I'm just saying, it's a heavy intellectual and fantastical investment (not to mention time investment) with an uneven payoff. I can't remember much of Wizard and Glass beyond the fact that it was painfully, painfully drawn out.
"I'm just saying, it's a heavy intellectual and fantastical investment (not to mention time investment) with an uneven payoff."
I would agree with that. I think he really rushed the last 3 books just to get them over with. I enjoyed Wizards and Glass but I was annoyed that the ENTIRE book was a flashback, after we had already waited yeaers for the adventure to be continued. Ultimately I prefer King's short stories over his novels.
Jordan's embrace of original Dawn of the Dead after witnessing this year's contest is like a shining moment at the end of a Hallmark movie when you realize it really is all worthwhile.
Saying that, I feel like the newscasters who, in the wake of Jack Nance's wife's suicide, broadcast party video footage of her being all drugged-out and crazy. You know the drill: "As journalists we had a tough decision to make, but if we could prevent one young girl from heading down a similar path, it's all worth it. Now here's some amateur footage of a skagged-out porn actress for your edification. Enjoy. No wait...don't enjoy. Learn. We're doing this so you can learn. Yeah."
Great review, Jordan. Good to have your voice on the blog. I haven't read a King book since Gerald's Game, which I read several years after it came out.
Gerald's Game is a very good book. I always thought it would be an incredible movie starring Sigourney Weaver (going from "Ice Storm" mode to "Aliens" mode) (back when she was younger).
The greatest moment in Gerald's Game has to do with those seven woodcut icons that open the chapters: the one that signifies the bad dude is the basket with the bones and jewelry. When she passes out after cutting her wrist, the next chapter starts with the bone-basket icon, and you're just like, "Oh....no..."
Yeah, Gerald's Game was good. By the way, thanks, Octo! What a nice thing to say.
I left off all the big epics because there's no reason to dive into the deep end of the pool first time up. Plenty of time for that later!
Summerisle, King has written several huge (800-1200 page) epics, including The Stand and It. (The Stand was published twice, in two versions: I think the original 1970s version is better).
depends what kind of king you're looking for. there's stephen king when he's going for depth and king when he's going for scares and different books work for either of those motives.
if you're going for depth, i highly recommend different seasons, especially "the body" on which stand by me was based --- the book is far more lofty and mature than its film spawn.
if you're going for scares, pet semetary is great. apparently king himself had nightmares for weeks after writing it.
also, i read the stand when i was 13. it's over a thousand pages long (1056, if i remember correctly). it was the first time i'd ever considered reading a book of that size and i was pretty intimidated.
my mom (who, despite what you may have thought reading the wicker man review, delights in horror stories and adores stephen king --- even going out of her way to cite him when working with her cog.therapy patients) watched as i hefted the thing and suggested that, instead of being put off by the size, that i read the prologue.
and i fully get that wizard and glass pissed off everyone who had waited years to see how the blane the train riddlefest was going to shake out.
taken as an individual work i think it's some of king's best and most vivid writing. i haven't read anything past it -- the first 30 pages of wolves of the calla made me snooze and i still haven't woken up -- but it got tons of epic western mojo.
i could easily see it turned into a john wayne/searchers kind of flick.
I'm not a fan of the cheeseball scares of Campion leaving the base. It's so much better to start with Hapscomb's Texaco (the first two words of the book: I remember even now, from when I was thirteen) at dusk...and that car cresting the hill...and weaving on the road as it approaches. Stu Redman turns off the gas pumps (probably dooming the world, right?) and we're in business. A car out of nowhere, with a dead man at the wheel. Perfect.
i never did read the abridged version. going off of memory though, if one were to lop off the prologue of the unabridged version, that would put the whole car crashing into the sunoco station as the first scene. no?
i like that we get invited into the mayhem at the base. that's the sort of thing we completely miss out on in every single romero Dead movie: we never see how it actually starts; what those first people were thinking.
that's one of the things i loved so much about TCM:B -- it predates the carnage. so when the carnage starts, even the people responsible know that there's something new and awful happening.
We're obviously playing comment handball, but I refer you to my earlier remark. It's, in my opinion, much better (and more 1970s) to start the way I just said. We get plenty of underground base corpses later, but we have to wait for it...first on those three video screens. I made a chart of it once, in high school. It's really a perfect opening.
JPX, if you're still reading, shades of LOST, right? First nothing, then surveillance cameras, then finally you get to see it.
"JPX, if you're still reading, shades of LOST, right?"
Good point!
Marc, is your mother a cognitive-behavioral therapist?
Jordan, you were just focusing on the novels, correct? Otherwise you'd have to include, Skeleton Crew, Different Seasons, Nightmares and Dreamscapes, Heart of Atlantis, etc. I LOVE King's short stories, I think ot's what he does best. Have any of you guys ever read his short stories "Lunch at the Gotham Café", "In the Deathroom", or "1408"? I have them on CD and King reads them, they're all terrific.
Yeah, the short stories are a different "brand of vodka" (channeling Mr. Clooney again).
I lost my patience with Dark Tower at the end of Wizard and Glass. I mean, give me a fucking break. Red shoes? We're in "The Stand" now, demarcated specifically as a parallel universe with weird car names? Forget it, Steve...
Thanks for the list, I may actually hit the bookstore on the way home today. The book I'm currently reading is pretty intense but I need to see it through. Daniel Pinchbeck's 2012 The Return of Quetzacoatl in which he proposes that humanity is on the verge of a new consciousness. Fascinating stuff and he puts together a good case using Mayan culture and predictions, science, history and a truckload of psychadelic experiments. I'll reserve judgment till the end. Anyway, I could use something to read alongside it as I'm not always in the mood for the heavy.
Now that I think back on my familiarity with King, I remember that I did (for some reason) read his Red Sox book and that was indeed scary but not for the right reasons. I was also really into that plant-shop-internet-continuing-saga that he aborted. That left a bad taste in my mouth.
I don't want 'Salem's Lot to get lost in the mix. It's a medium-length King novel; it's vampires, straight up (no special alternate rules or anything) and it's terrifying as hell. And it's only his second novel!
King spent the 70s writing Carrie, 'Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Stand, The Dead Zone, Firestarter (in that order). Beat that.
The Shining is very, very different from Kubrick's movie, and familiarity with the movie might be an impediment to fully appreciating the book. (Another consideration.)
reminds me of an intro to a king book i read once, jordan will probably remember which -- he talks about how seeing the movie before reading the book isn't necessarily bad, but limiting, and he cites jack nicholson as rp macmurphy as an example.
maybe that came to mind just because it's the same actor.
also, jordan, when i gave props to w&g, i was basing my compliments solely on the flashback stuff -- the parts that picked up where wasteland left off were indeed silly, i'll grant you.
but the prose in the flashback stuff, which comprised most of the book, was quite pretty and the plot was pretty page-turny
Yeah, John Le Carré complained that Alec Guiness' brilliant portrayal of George Smiley made it very difficult to write about Smiley again. And, he never did, except in The Secret Pilgrim, which is Smiley's "swan song" (he's not the main character but it's his final appearance). That book is actually dedicated to Alec Guinness.
Le Carré had nothing to say, however, about Denholm Elliot's portrayal of Smiley (opposite Glenda Jackson, Joss Ackland and Christian Bale in the excellent BBC adaptation of A Murder of Quality.)
Yeah, NotMarc, I agree about that. It's a nicely told story, and the writing is nice. I just get tired of the cramped interior of that "Midworld" cardboard carton of his and keep wanting to bash the sides out with a good kick and let the real-world sunshine in. (So does he: the series didn't take off until Drawing of the Three pulled us back into real New York, and what a breath of fresh air it was.
I read that! I completely forgot, although when I was searching my brain files Gerald's Game didn't quite seem like the right "last SK book read."
H in A is a beautiful book, I tore through it like I'd tear through his stuff in high school, staying up too late and blowing off my homework. And I was inspired to do so because I'd seen the movie, which is in a way even more bittersweet.
Although I know the TV movie of The Stand was mostly crap, I liked the opening credits, with the camera moving all around the research center full of bodies (the pathogen being much quicker to kill at that point) while Don't Fear the Reaper by Blue Oyster Cult's plays. Stylish.
This is definitely the blog's comment record and I completely missed it happening. I'mnotMarc pointed it out to me last night, and my response was "38 comments and only one of them is me? It's an outrage!"
November 15, 2006 9:29 AM
I'm not sure what kind of Horrorthon post this is -- whether it's a review or just a normal post like we do when it's not October -- but I just read Stephen King's Cell and I wanted to talk about it and see if any of you fine gentlemen had read it. [Image] As far as Horrorthon's recent posts, what's especially germaine about Cell is that King openly acknowledges a rather large debt to George A. Romero, whose "Dead" movies are clearly the major influence here. King has a habit of sheepishly admitting his source material by having the characters talk about it (like, say, the group in 'Salem's Lot comparing the English teacher dude to "Van Helsing") and in Cell we have quite a few references to Dawn of the Dead and once nice reference to Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which Cell also resembles quite strongly (in a very good way).
Obviously I have nothing but good things to say about Spielberg's brilliant and terrifying ode to H. G. Wells, which seems to become more of a masterpiece every time I watch it or think about it. (I recommend the essay in The New York Review of Books on Spielberg; I'll find the link later, if I feel like it.) But I want to also add that I just watched Night of the Living Dead (which I'd seen, long ago, a couple of times) and then Dawn of the Dead, which is stunning, brilliant, unique, amazing. I had never seen if before and I'm just astonished at how good it is, and the wonderful way it incorporates all the best elements of 1970s cinema. It's so good that I have to re-orient my thinking about horror fiction and horror movies in general, and, of course, that's where Cell comes in, because if anyone's going to use George A. Romero to re-orient their thinking about horror fiction, why not have it be Stephen King?
Spielberg, King, Romero, H.G. Wells: these authors and many others are all dancing around a central idea which is clearly a vital armature of horror: that which has been called "apocalyptic fiction" or "dystopian fiction" (although the first term is more accurate: "dystopian" sci-fi tends to drift in the direction of, "Okay, it's after a big nuclear war" etc. etc. and we all immediately fall asleep because the only remaining cultural value of that train of thought might be Charlton Heston kneeling in the sand, bellowing).
I have an essay by J. G. Ballard (British sci-fi author; wrote the semiautobiographical Empire of the Sun) (more Spielberg) about apocalyptic fiction, wherein he presents an essentially Freudian or Jungian analysis about dreams and destruction and the point at which the infant learns to tell the difference between itself and the rest of the universe: Ballard argues that sci-fi writers blow up the Earth or whatever because they tap into an impulse that precedes this development -- a pre-Coopernican tantrum that brings down cities in flame, if you will. I prefer to think that the point of it all isn't tantrums but adult people; the strength of Dawn of the Dead and War of the Worlds (Spielberg or Wells) and The Stand and Cell is the examination of the human soul, pushed past all conventional modes of psychic endurance into a rarefied atmosphere of hyper-intensified emotion and meaning. If it's all gone, then what's left? Characters in apocalyptic fiction are our surrogates or proxies, answering these questions for us so that, when we awaken into reality and look out the window at the un-interrupted, normal fabric of reality, it looks a little different, hopefully in an enlightening way.
There's another appealing level of meaning here in that the protagonist of Cell is an author of graphic novels -- and this isn't just an amusing character detail: it's actually quite vital to the plot.
Anyway, Cell is probably the best King I've read in a long, long time (certainly better than any of his "grumpy old jerks in Maine and the troubled writer who's getting on in years but remembers Vietnam" efforts). I haven't read the last three Dark Tower volumes, although that's really an entirely different brand of vodka (as Danny Ocean would say). It's great to read a King novel in which he's dishing up the blood and gore and violence and fear without apologizing for it or trying to win the Booker Prize again (although he deserved it). It's great to read a King novel that doesn't completely fall apart two thirds of the way through -- one for which he clearly sat down beforehand and figured out what the hell he was trying to do. The beginning of Cell may be a bit rusty, and I wasn't too hopeful going in (especially since I believe almost all of Everything's Eventual to be re-fried garbage) but boy, does he get his mojo working along the way.
Have any of you gentlemen read this book? I'd love to go into more detail about it. (And, by the way, DON'T GIVE AWAY THE ENDING OF DAWN OF THE DEAD because I decided to put off watching the final, undoubtably shocking and incredible 35 minutes of the movie in order to read Cell, which was probably a good idea. You can't double-dip this stuff; it doesn't work.)
I'll leave you with the excellent frontispiece epigraphs from Cell, which are vintage King:
The id will not stand for a delay in gratification. It always feels the tension of the unfulfilled urge. SIGMUND FREUD
Human aggression is instinctual. Humans have not evolved any ritualized aggression-inhibiting mechanisms to ensure the survival of the species. For this reason man is considered a very dangerous animal. KONRAD LORENZ
"Cell"
39 Comments -
Hmmmmmm, perhaps I should give this another look. I gave up on Cell about halfway through due to my annoyance that all the main characters seemed to have a "heart of gold", which seems to be more in line with Kings recent works. I thought the plot was intriguing, I just got tired of the preachiness of the characters. Cell is only the second King novel I've ever bailed on (the other one being From a Buick 8). I totally agree with your "gumpy old man" assessment of his last few books. He just came out with a new one called "Lisey's Story" and it's the first time in 20 years that I didn't pick it up. I sat there in the bookstore reading and then re-reading the book jacket and I thought, "This description does nothing for me." The Dark Tower books are great, by the way.
November 14, 2006 4:30 AM
Great review, by the way.
November 14, 2006 4:31 AM
"The Dark Tower books are great, by the way"
Dark Tower's a mixed bag, I think. It's definitely the kind of thing you need to be in the mood for. And, it rambles. And I don't like all the philosophizing. I got tired of it around the time of Wizard and Glass.
That isn't to say it doesn't have its moments of brilliance. I'm just saying, it's a heavy intellectual and fantastical investment (not to mention time investment) with an uneven payoff. I can't remember much of Wizard and Glass beyond the fact that it was painfully, painfully drawn out.
November 14, 2006 7:38 AM
"I'm just saying, it's a heavy intellectual and fantastical investment (not to mention time investment) with an uneven payoff."
I would agree with that. I think he really rushed the last 3 books just to get them over with. I enjoyed Wizards and Glass but I was annoyed that the ENTIRE book was a flashback, after we had already waited yeaers for the adventure to be continued. Ultimately I prefer King's short stories over his novels.
November 14, 2006 9:03 AM
Jordan's embrace of original Dawn of the Dead after witnessing this year's contest is like a shining moment at the end of a Hallmark movie when you realize it really is all worthwhile.
Saying that, I feel like the newscasters who, in the wake of Jack Nance's wife's suicide, broadcast party video footage of her being all drugged-out and crazy. You know the drill: "As journalists we had a tough decision to make, but if we could prevent one young girl from heading down a similar path, it's all worth it. Now here's some amateur footage of a skagged-out porn actress for your edification. Enjoy. No wait...don't enjoy. Learn. We're doing this so you can learn. Yeah."
Great review, Jordan. Good to have your voice on the blog. I haven't read a King book since Gerald's Game, which I read several years after it came out.
November 14, 2006 10:02 AM
Gerald's Game is a very good book. I always thought it would be an incredible movie starring Sigourney Weaver (going from "Ice Storm" mode to "Aliens" mode) (back when she was younger).
The greatest moment in Gerald's Game has to do with those seven woodcut icons that open the chapters: the one that signifies the bad dude is the basket with the bones and jewelry. When she passes out after cutting her wrist, the next chapter starts with the bone-basket icon, and you're just like, "Oh....no..."
Yeah, Gerald's Game was good. By the way, thanks, Octo! What a nice thing to say.
November 14, 2006 10:07 AM
I'm embarrassed to say I've never read a Stephen King book, and only a handful of short stories... Great review though, makes me want to dive in!
November 14, 2006 10:20 AM
Really, Summerisle?
Hey, guys, where should he start?
I nominate
'Salem's Lot
The Shining
Misery
Gerald's Game
Anyone else have ideas? (I mean, "about this?")
November 14, 2006 10:30 AM
I'd add Pet Cemetary, It, and The Stand to that list.
November 14, 2006 10:53 AM
Pet Sematary's fantastic; agreed.
I left off all the big epics because there's no reason to dive into the deep end of the pool first time up. Plenty of time for that later!
Summerisle, King has written several huge (800-1200 page) epics, including The Stand and It. (The Stand was published twice, in two versions: I think the original 1970s version is better).
November 14, 2006 10:56 AM
depends what kind of king you're looking for. there's stephen king when he's going for depth and king when he's going for scares and different books work for either of those motives.
if you're going for depth, i highly recommend different seasons, especially "the body" on which stand by me was based --- the book is far more lofty and mature than its film spawn.
if you're going for scares, pet semetary is great. apparently king himself had nightmares for weeks after writing it.
November 14, 2006 11:36 AM
also, i read the stand when i was 13. it's over a thousand pages long (1056, if i remember correctly). it was the first time i'd ever considered reading a book of that size and i was pretty intimidated.
my mom (who, despite what you may have thought reading the wicker man review, delights in horror stories and adores stephen king --- even going out of her way to cite him when working with her cog.therapy patients) watched as i hefted the thing and suggested that, instead of being put off by the size, that i read the prologue.
i was hooked.
November 14, 2006 11:38 AM
and i fully get that wizard and glass pissed off everyone who had waited years to see how the blane the train riddlefest was going to shake out.
taken as an individual work i think it's some of king's best and most vivid writing. i haven't read anything past it -- the first 30 pages of wolves of the calla made me snooze and i still haven't woken up -- but it got tons of epic western mojo.
i could easily see it turned into a john wayne/searchers kind of flick.
November 14, 2006 11:42 AM
NotMarc,
That's the expanded Stand, right? I see where you're coming from but come on, the opening of the original version is so much better!
November 14, 2006 11:43 AM
but, yknow, john wayne would have mastered the five magics.
November 14, 2006 11:44 AM
I'm not a fan of the cheeseball scares of Campion leaving the base. It's so much better to start with Hapscomb's Texaco (the first two words of the book: I remember even now, from when I was thirteen) at dusk...and that car cresting the hill...and weaving on the road as it approaches. Stu Redman turns off the gas pumps (probably dooming the world, right?) and we're in business. A car out of nowhere, with a dead man at the wheel. Perfect.
November 14, 2006 11:46 AM
i never did read the abridged version. going off of memory though, if one were to lop off the prologue of the unabridged version, that would put the whole car crashing into the sunoco station as the first scene. no?
i like that we get invited into the mayhem at the base. that's the sort of thing we completely miss out on in every single romero Dead movie: we never see how it actually starts; what those first people were thinking.
that's one of the things i loved so much about TCM:B -- it predates the carnage. so when the carnage starts, even the people responsible know that there's something new and awful happening.
November 14, 2006 11:48 AM
Marc,
We're obviously playing comment handball, but I refer you to my earlier remark. It's, in my opinion, much better (and more 1970s) to start the way I just said. We get plenty of underground base corpses later, but we have to wait for it...first on those three video screens. I made a chart of it once, in high school. It's really a perfect opening.
JPX, if you're still reading, shades of LOST, right? First nothing, then surveillance cameras, then finally you get to see it.
November 14, 2006 11:52 AM
whoa. you don't still have the diagram, do you? if you do, you have to post it.
November 14, 2006 12:05 PM
"JPX, if you're still reading, shades of LOST, right?"
Good point!
Marc, is your mother a cognitive-behavioral therapist?
Jordan, you were just focusing on the novels, correct? Otherwise you'd have to include, Skeleton Crew, Different Seasons, Nightmares and Dreamscapes, Heart of Atlantis, etc. I LOVE King's short stories, I think ot's what he does best. Have any of you guys ever read his short stories "Lunch at the Gotham Café", "In the Deathroom", or "1408"? I have them on CD and King reads them, they're all terrific.
November 14, 2006 12:32 PM
jpx = correct
and is there any way you could rip those stories as mp3s? i'd love to check them out.
November 14, 2006 12:39 PM
Yeah, the short stories are a different "brand of vodka" (channeling Mr. Clooney again).
I lost my patience with Dark Tower at the end of Wizard and Glass. I mean, give me a fucking break. Red shoes? We're in "The Stand" now, demarcated specifically as a parallel universe with weird car names? Forget it, Steve...
November 14, 2006 1:03 PM
Thanks for the list, I may actually hit the bookstore on the way home today. The book I'm currently reading is pretty intense but I need to see it through. Daniel Pinchbeck's 2012 The Return of Quetzacoatl in which he proposes that humanity is on the verge of a new consciousness. Fascinating stuff and he puts together a good case using Mayan culture and predictions, science, history and a truckload of psychadelic experiments. I'll reserve judgment till the end. Anyway, I could use something to read alongside it as I'm not always in the mood for the heavy.
Now that I think back on my familiarity with King, I remember that I did (for some reason) read his Red Sox book and that was indeed scary but not for the right reasons. I was also really into that plant-shop-internet-continuing-saga that he aborted. That left a bad taste in my mouth.
November 14, 2006 1:09 PM
Marc, I'll put them on CDs and give them to Octopunk when he comes home for the holidays. For fancier technology, Jordan's your man.
November 14, 2006 1:10 PM
Yeah, "The Plant" showed promise abd then Kind (according to his own report) became bored with it. He never finished it. bastard.
November 14, 2006 1:11 PM
sorry for all the errors, I'm trying to type these comments quickly between patients.
November 14, 2006 1:12 PM
Summerisle,
I don't want 'Salem's Lot to get lost in the mix. It's a medium-length King novel; it's vampires, straight up (no special alternate rules or anything) and it's terrifying as hell. And it's only his second novel!
King spent the 70s writing Carrie, 'Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Stand, The Dead Zone, Firestarter (in that order). Beat that.
November 14, 2006 1:34 PM
Yeah there's nothing like 70s King!
November 14, 2006 2:21 PM
Summerisle,
The Shining is very, very different from Kubrick's movie, and familiarity with the movie might be an impediment to fully appreciating the book. (Another consideration.)
November 14, 2006 2:28 PM
reminds me of an intro to a king book i read once, jordan will probably remember which -- he talks about how seeing the movie before reading the book isn't necessarily bad, but limiting, and he cites jack nicholson as rp macmurphy as an example.
maybe that came to mind just because it's the same actor.
November 14, 2006 2:38 PM
also, jordan, when i gave props to w&g, i was basing my compliments solely on the flashback stuff -- the parts that picked up where wasteland left off were indeed silly, i'll grant you.
but the prose in the flashback stuff, which comprised most of the book, was quite pretty and the plot was pretty page-turny
November 14, 2006 2:40 PM
Yeah, John Le Carré complained that Alec Guiness' brilliant portrayal of George Smiley made it very difficult to write about Smiley again. And, he never did, except in The Secret Pilgrim, which is Smiley's "swan song" (he's not the main character but it's his final appearance). That book is actually dedicated to Alec Guinness.
Le Carré had nothing to say, however, about Denholm Elliot's portrayal of Smiley (opposite Glenda Jackson, Joss Ackland and Christian Bale in the excellent BBC adaptation of A Murder of Quality.)
November 14, 2006 2:41 PM
I think this is a record for the most comments posted in one section, way to generate discourse, Jordan!
I really liked The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, despite my loathing for everything baseball.
November 14, 2006 2:44 PM
Yeah, NotMarc, I agree about that. It's a nicely told story, and the writing is nice. I just get tired of the cramped interior of that "Midworld" cardboard carton of his and keep wanting to bash the sides out with a good kick and let the real-world sunshine in. (So does he: the series didn't take off until Drawing of the Three pulled us back into real New York, and what a breath of fresh air it was.
November 14, 2006 2:46 PM
ah, carrie. another fantastic read and the only reason that the word "epistolary" is in my vocabulary.
definitely among the king adaptations that worked out the best.
November 14, 2006 2:46 PM
if i were to make that a horror niche (good king adaptations) my list would include the following:
carrie, the shining, dead zone, misery
shawshank redemption, apt pupil, and hearts in atlantis were all pretty good movies, but not horror.
also, looks like they're making a film out of the talisman and michael j fox is rumored to star.
November 14, 2006 2:46 PM
I can't imagine Michael J. is going to be acting much anymore, his medical problems appear to be getting the best of him.
I especially like the story "Hearts in Atlantis" in the titular book.
November 14, 2006 3:03 PM
I read that! I completely forgot, although when I was searching my brain files Gerald's Game didn't quite seem like the right "last SK book read."
H in A is a beautiful book, I tore through it like I'd tear through his stuff in high school, staying up too late and blowing off my homework. And I was inspired to do so because I'd seen the movie, which is in a way even more bittersweet.
November 15, 2006 9:24 AM
Although I know the TV movie of The Stand was mostly crap, I liked the opening credits, with the camera moving all around the research center full of bodies (the pathogen being much quicker to kill at that point) while Don't Fear the Reaper by Blue Oyster Cult's plays. Stylish.
This is definitely the blog's comment record and I completely missed it happening. I'mnotMarc pointed it out to me last night, and my response was "38 comments and only one of them is me? It's an outrage!"
November 15, 2006 9:29 AM