I've just watched this 1997 version for the first time. I never thought that it was available on DVD, but recently ran across a box set which included this film, the original television version of "IT", and the television re-make of " 'Salem's Lot".
I'd been wanting to see this more recent version of the story since it originally aired on television, but couldn't view it at the time due to poor reception. I had actually tried to record it onto VHS, but when trying to play it back saw mostly static and snow with very little picture. So I was actually pretty excited to be able to finally own a copy of the DVD.
It was because I am such a big fan of the book and the original '80 Kubrick version that my interest was so piqued for this installment.
However, this is supposed to be a review, not a lesson on my history with the story so I'll get on with it.
My views are going to be contrary to many others here. I'm a pretty jaded horror viewer so I typically need freshness in what I take in to satisfy me, but at the same time a well told story trumps all and if that is done with care, then I'll always walk away with a positive overall impression.
I'll start with the Pros.
I think that the direction was passable. I know that Garris was working off of King's screenplay which was fine, but I never felt like he was interested in doing anything particularly artistic or that would give any sense of edginess to the film. No risks taken for sure, but nothing wrecked either.
Speaking of the screenplay, here is where this movie really deviates from Kubricks', which I know was totally the intent, and it absolutely works. As someone else said here, this is certainly not a remake of the original film, but a re-telling of the book itself, and in that it shines. I loved this script because it actually did take me deep into the book as I remembered it. So many things, from the wasp's nest, to the croquet mallet banging on the walls, to Jack pouring over the hotel's history in the cellar, all made me think "Oh I remember that---Oh yeah, I remember that too, it's just as I imagined it." I know that it was over four and a half hours, but it needed to be to fit the important story points in there. This really felt like the book on film, whereas Kubricks' now kind of feels like a truncated version. However, this film never felt particularly slow to me as I guess it did to some others. There was always that lingering sense of dread hanging in the air. Some of the longer conversation scenes were so well paced and delivered that I was taken right into the scene and never got itchy for what might be coming next, I was simply engaged right there in the moment. It was quite well paced for the most part. Again, if the storytelling is on point, then I'm not sitting and just waiting for the next machete murder or whatever.
I felt that the dialog was very well written (most of it anyway, and it had better be with King's name stamped all over this project), and really got the sense of King's voice in the characters the way that I remembered it from the book.
This telling actually moved me a few times. There's a heart to this version that comes through, and I think that's because we become very invested in the characters. The danger feels more real, the sad things sadder, the emotions rawer, and the ties in the relationships stronger.
I would rate the acting as running the gamut between C grade TV level, to major film worthy.
Let me just say that from where I sat, all three leads did an outstanding job.
Rebecca De Mornay gave us Wendy Torrance as she was in the book. A totally believable portrayal of a woman beginning in an uneasy state of affairs, and ending up in a situation of spiraling crisis. Her responses to any given circumstances in any given scenario feeling accurate.
I feel that Courtland Mead was absolutely the perfect choice to portray Danny Torrance. He's a great child actor who seems to totally understand the whole of what's going on with his character and how to get that across onscreen. It isn't long before we sympathize with this kid and want to rescue him from his setting.
One would have to be a fool, or supremely confident, to agree to take on a screen role as iconic as Jack Torrance. Comparisons will be inevitable and most likely unfavorable. But I have to sincerely hand it to Steven Weber here. What an excellent portrayal, really. I believed him from his first moment on screen and in every scene following until the end. Never over-done, never under-done. Right on point and definitely the Jack from the novel. I honestly didn't think that there was any way to do that role after Nicholson stamped it, but Weber sold it using his own acting skills and characterization. From a mild mannered want-to-be writer with nervous insecurities, to an overconfident murderous sociopath is quite a bridge to cross, but Weber navigates it with seamless aplomb.
Melvin Van Peebles did a serviceable job as Hallorann. Not bad, not amazing. But he has the unenviable task of filling the shoes of Scatman Freakin' Crothers. No one can touch that anyway so.....
I'll finish up with the Cons.
The first thing that I felt was unbecoming for this story was the exterior location that was chosen for The Overlook. I couldn't imagine a much more friendly, inviting, cheerful facade to be greeted by. I don't really understand the reasoning here for this pick, but it just never comes close to giving off the foreboding, sinister vibes that I feel a haunted place should exude. Particularly when held against the dark, almost macabre architecture of the building from the '80 film. As a physical story character, Kubrick's Overlook wins straight up.
Secondly, in a film this long which is telling a story with a horror reputation, it would have been beneficial to the end product, I believe, to have had many more horror visuals. There just frankly aren't enough, if I may, "ugly" scenes / sights to satisfy those who are fans of the genre. And it's not just the fact that it's a television production; what's there is pretty good most of the time, they're just so few and far between. It really could have used many more nightmare inducing shots to help justify it's tag of a "horror" film. Although I will say that the climax is a ramped-up tension fest that satisfies.
"IT" contained far more gore and, well, scary stuff, and was on T.V. seven years earlier.
John Durbin as Horace Derwent didn't do it for me at all. Every time that he was on screen I felt as if I were watching an "actor-ACting-SCARY BWAHAHA). And then not nailing it.
Lastly, I don't think that the television budget level CG effects of 1997 were up to the task asked of them in this project. I feel that stop-motion and/or miniatures may have been more effective. In fact, stop-motion, when used in a horror setting always creeps me out, always. I still believe to this day that it's viable in that particular genre. But I kind of wish that maybe they could have waited just a few more years when the tech would have allowed us to buy into those effects much more readily. But they didn't know. And then of course we wouldn't have had the same cast and then that element may not have been as good. So, I'll be happy with what's here.
Oh, and what's up with that cover art?? The face looks nothing like Steven Weber as Jack, and little Danny there looks like he just had a bag of flour dumped onto his bowl haircut. Very amateur looking. A re-working of that is certainly in order.
There's no question that the strong far outweighs the weak and I really did love this film. As a whole I'll never even compare it to the '80 film because this is a completely different telling of the tale, mostly truer to the source material. King accomplished his goal here. Although there are several little nods to Kubricks' version if you're paying attention. They're pretty subtle, but homage is paid now and again.
I'm quite glad this was made and that I finally own a copy. It will receive multiple viewings over the years.
4 out of 7 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends