Nothing for the movie yet?

[jacobtlong]

The movie wasn't great, but I still liked it. Does no one want to share an opinion on the movie?

[Harley Wench]

I liked it! They mess with his movies too much...add stuff..delete stuff, but I did like it!

[Firebird]

I hate to say it but I thought it was a bit suckish...the book rocked though!

[Mr. Palmer]

I liked it, too. I thought the performances were outstanding.

[Scoutabout]

I've always thought this movie was totally underrated. The only thing I didnt like was Amy Madigan as Liz (I find her so annoying) - I think I might have gone George Stark on her. All in all I love this movie and watch it at least once a year. George Romero definitely did this one "up round".

[Smikes]

I went to see it when it came out in theaters. I remember being excited that Romero was slated to direct— as far as I know, after Monkey Shines it was his only mainstream film until Land of the Dead, at least it was the only one I noticed.

I read the book before seeing the movie and remember being slightly disappointed that Stark wasn't scarier— I just don't think Timothy Hutton was a good enough actor to pull off such evil convincingly.

For the time, however, the FX were striking. In fact, I feel they pretty much saved the movie from complete mediocrity.

Apparently it was a flop (according to wiki) that was budgeted 15,000,000 and only grossed 10,000,000 domestically. Also, it had a delayed release thanks to financial troubles at Orion Pictures. I am guessing that this flop after Monkey Shines flopped was what did in Romero for so long - box office poison, they call it. I always felt bad for George because not only is he good friends with Stephen, he's the master of the zombie film. Thankfully Land of the Dead more than made up for his previous flops, grossing nearly three times its budget. Looking forward to Survival of the Dead.

Live, love, laugh & be happy,
Smikes

[lilydust76]

Loved the book, pretty much hated the movie. Not pleased with it AT ALL. Of course, I've never been a big fan of Timothy Hutton, and I still don't see him as Thad or George.

[the_dark_half]

I don't think the movie was that bad compared to what they've done with some of his other stories. It could have been much worse. I wasn't very pleased with it eiher, but it still could have been much worse. Didn't do George much justice though. He wasn't that creepy.

[Seb Shaw]

Dark Half is my next book in line (as you may already know im an SK noob) i already have the movie, but i dont want to watch it until i have read the book. some good missed reviews here. Sometimes bad movies are better, as they dont get overhyped and overplayed. which is why i love this forum, because no matyter how bad a SK adaptaion we all deep down have respect for it, as we know the canvas it was drawn on. and im sure SK appreciates our comments as we love his books.

Maybe to get a Great Box Office Smash movie he will have to write the screenplay himself, that way it will have that creepy dark blood curdling horror with a hint of humror in it that we love in his books.

[Mark R]

I really enjoyed the movie, but the book was much better

[Gavvo1976]

Absolutely LOVE the movie version! Yeah, they may have changed a few things here and there, but as a film it really works! Timothy Hutton is amazing playing both roles of Thad and George - wasn't until the third time I saw it that I actually realised he did!!! Those twins are sooo cute too! Just wish a special edition DVD would arrive with some documentary making of's and interviews with the cast.

[MakaBozey]

Book was better. I really liked the movie though, they handled the Pschopomps especially well.

I liked what they did to Rawlie, didn't like what they did to the wife. Casting otherwise was great. A little bemused that they left out the stuck up newspaper woman. I also think the ending was a bit abrupt.

[GNTLGNT]

"comme ci, comme ça"-I liked em both-but as always, the nod goes to the printed word. C'mon now, without the book-there never would have been a movie...

[Pucker]

Well . . . I finally sat through this thing from end to end last night and can say with near certainty that I won't bother again.

The Dark Half is actually sitting on my end table as I type this, up next for re-read (after many, many years), and I will be interested to see just how much of this nonsense actually came from the author. Two things virtually jumped off the screen at me. (1) Timothy Hutton was laughable as Stark. I realize he didn't write the dialogue, but he projected zero menace and couldn't seem to make up his mind where he was from. And (2) I would not want to live anywhere near a town that would allow anyone as idiotic as Alan Pangborn was portrayed in this thing to rise to crossing guard, let alone sheriff. "I'm telling you Thad, if six or seven more people directly connected to you get viciously murdered with your fingerprints all over the scene, I might seriously start considering the notion of locking you up . . . maybe."

"Can I put my bullet in, Andy?"

:umm:

[CCAL]

If I may put my 2 cents worth in, I have been an avid reader as far back as I can recall and have yet to come across any book that was inferior (not as good as) the movie version. In books the author can describe but in movies the actor is stuck with dialoque and expression to convey those same thoughts, words, feelings. Many movie scenes can sum things up quite quickly whereas the writer might wear his fingers down to the nubs to find just the right meanings.Just my thoughts on the matter. I enjoy a good movie as much as the next guy, but give me a book and I will jump for joy!

[Silhouette86]

The book was better. The movie was good, but the book just left much more to the imagination when it came to George Stark. And is it me or did they mix two characters into one in the movie? I believe it was Homer Gamache and the photographer for George's tombstone.
Did anybody else notice that?

[Seb Shaw]

Loved the Book, liked he film.

the book had that 'on the edge feeling' where as the film, just felt like going to a museum. You go for the curiosity, but find litle of interest to you.

I wanted Alan to be more menacing, the deaths more brutal and Stark absolutly terrefying..... Am I mad?


apart from that, the film wasn't too bad at all :D