Good Movie

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.


Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2014
I watched it when it premiered 10 years ago and like it. It followed book more than original mini-series which I appreciated. I really wish they would do a theatrical version of the book.


New Member
Aug 13, 2014
Long Beach, CA
Agreed on doing a movie-version; as long as it's a serious/honest attempt at the material..
That said, I recently bought the new/updated mini-series with Rob Lowe in the lead and thought it was better than the original attempt. Of course, the original still has its' place in my heart as well.
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT


Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
I thought it was terrible. Nothing was the same as the book. Why change everything like that? The book was perfect, one of King's best; why change nearly every single aspect of it and then call it by the title?
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT


Active Member
Jan 6, 2015
I picked this up for 3 bucks at a local record shop today. I was excited when I saw the comments that it followed the book closely, but then a little nervous when I saw a comment that says it didn't. Guess I'll have to watch it myself and see.
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT


Just moseyin' through...
Oct 9, 2013
This is pretty much godawful. Nearly EVERYTHING is changed, and with no good reason. Jimmy Cody is a perv, Ben is a bitter war reporter, Matt is not very quick on the uptake, Mark is a poor (and pretty scuzzy) kid of a single mom, Eva is a Nazi war criminal, and pretty much the whole town looks like they've been tweaking for weeks. I can't even talk about Barlow & Straker. Good god this is bad.


Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2016
(I hope it's okay to necropost; I didn't want to create a new thread.)

I just watched this the other day as part of a DVD set of Stephen King adaptations, and I have mixed thoughts about it. Some of the scenes follow their book counterparts much more closely than the original film (which adapted the general story but didn't try to be an exact translation) and some of the changes, while I really dislike them, I can understand (Jim Cody was a late occurring character in the novel who didn't get as much focus as even some of the minor characters, and Callahan was essentially a loose end whose story wasn't tied up until Wolves of the Calla, which would have been much too confusing to try and incorporate; the changes to their storylines were presumably to flesh out the former and close the proverbial book on the latter.) Others just seem like attempts to be "edgy" (like making Ben a disillusioned war journalist and Mark the smart aleck kid from a broken home that every movie is apparently required to have now) or just random (why is Eva French?) It was nice to see characters not included in the original film, though (like Charlie Rhodes) and I definitely like this one's Weasel a lot better- he resembles much more the friendly, likeable old timer from the book, although his alcoholism is notably absent (I guess they figured Callahan had that covered?)
  • Like
Reactions: Nomik and GNTLGNT


The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
Cambridge, Ohio
Surely anything is better than "Return to Salem's Lot" ?!
Ok..perhaps not
  • Like
Reactions: Kurben