Nothing for the movie yet?

[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?"

[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