The best King films omit the gore

Rating: 10/10 (24 September 1999)

Years ago I decided to start collecting Stephen King paperback editions (and reading them, too) to prop up my excellent English. I'd found out that in the horror genre, everything that had something to do, had the label 'Stephen King' or 'John Carpenter' on it. Luckily both (as in 'Cat's Eye). But as I introduced myself with Mr. King's works I found out that the Enchantment in it isn't in the gore (which he describes splendidly, meaning that I can smell the rottening human flesh despite the fact that my nose exists only for cosmetical reasons) but the professional skill to tell a story. King gets paid by the page, so nowadays he's apt to write stories up to three bricks thick before his eyes wear out. Luckily, his best stories to be filmed are the ones that don't need 'overwriting',nor 'overfilming' as in mini-TV-series as 'The Stand', 'Golden Years', and so on. The best way for Stephen King to make an original story for a movie seems to be to: 1) keep it compact and 2) stay out of intestines, awkward smells and anything that comes out of your body when you're dead). We saw 'Stand by me me' already and 'Dolores Claiborne' afterwards, but this is the upmost number one. When King tells a little story in size of a novelette with no hurry at all, there should be nothing to add. But: then comes the movie with its more than perfect casting plus the original serenity maintained! I conclude my speech with saying that no other movie ever has collected full 10 points, horror or not.