I saw some clips of the movie and can't imagine why someone would prefer it to the book. Cussack seeing an open grave or spoopy demons isn't as frightening as the way King describes Mark's descent into madness and losing control of his own thoughts.
The film is really good. Cusack and Jackson deliver on mood and creepy-fun weirdness. And Stephen King evidently loved the screen adaptation by Matt Greenberg. Which is not surprising, considering the huge check he cashed for the film rights. Because, while a passable short story, the material is a bit thin and needed a load of peaking and tweaking to work out to anything near a decent film; cinema is naturally more "show" than "tell", but the story here is almost all the latter, when it should achieve more of the former. Think of Conrad's best work for example, where a protagonist can go on with expository narration forever, yet the story is vivid, detailed, and alive. This is a laundry list of endless details, and nothing much else. An egotistical writer talking about being a writer who is egotistical. Must be nice, though. Hacking out a fast one, and coming up cherries across the board.
One of my favorite King short stories. Mike's descent into madness is very subtle and chilling.
I saw some clips of the movie and can't imagine why someone would prefer it to the book. Cussack seeing an open grave or spoopy demons isn't as frightening as the way King describes Mark's descent into madness and losing control of his own thoughts.
Love both; example of Mr King’s storytelling prowess and for once it was well brought to the screen x
The book is much better than the movie. One’s imagination always creates the perfect personal image.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Great story 🎉
Is this AI? Because there are some weird word emphasis choices throughout. I don't approve of AI doing actors' jobs.
I like the movie better
Why? Seems kind of like cheap scares
Says quite a bit for both then! 🙂
Good storey, strange naration?
AI
The film is really good.
Cusack and Jackson deliver on mood and creepy-fun weirdness.
And Stephen King evidently loved the screen adaptation by Matt Greenberg.
Which is not surprising, considering the huge check he cashed for the film rights.
Because, while a passable short story, the material is a bit thin and needed a load of peaking and tweaking to work out to anything near a decent film; cinema is naturally more "show" than "tell", but the story here is almost all the latter, when it should achieve more of the former. Think of Conrad's best work for example, where a protagonist can go on with expository narration forever, yet the story is vivid, detailed, and alive.
This is a laundry list of endless details, and nothing much else. An egotistical writer talking about being a writer who is egotistical.
Must be nice, though.
Hacking out a fast one, and coming up cherries across the board.
Uh yeah whatever. You're wrong. The short story is good.
@@danceswithcomicbooks7733 Yeah, somebody sounds super-jealous.
It’s a short story. Quick and to the point! King is at his best in my opinion in short story form.
The short story is good but the movie is terrifying. It perfectly evokess the creeping terror.
1408
Is this AI
So slow ..
Ai sucks
Ai garbage