King on Screen

"King on Screen" is an exceedingly strange documentary. It begins and ends with an almost non-sequitur sequence and moves along without much organization or theme. Yet, it remains baseline watchable due to the insights of its subjects-especially the directors who have worked on Stephen King film/TV projects.

For a very basic overview, "King on Screen" looks at the numerous film/TV adaptations of Stephen King novels from 1976's "Carrie" all the way up to newer projects like "The Outsider" & "Lisey's Story". More time is spent on "The Shining", "The Green Mile", and "Creepshow" than anything else, but almost all of King's other adaptations are at least tertiarily mentioned.

Like I said, the format for "King on Screen" is quite odd. I cannot-for the life of me-understand what the beginning and ending have to do with anything. Those "dramatic" sequences confused me more than set a mood. Also, there is no overriding concept or theme tying the material together-it is simply a bit of an aimless wandering through King's on-screen works, with the amount of each discussed dependent on the subjects they are interviewing.

That being said, there are definitely some interesting nuggets to be uncovered in "King on Screen"-mainly when King's directors are speaking/reminiscing. When Mike Flanagan (of "Gerald's Game" & "Doctor Sleep" adaptation fame) is talking about King's work, it is clear that he understands what is needed to transition book-to-screen. It is also fascinating to hear Frank Darabont reminisce on "Shawshank Redemption" and "Green Mile" as well as see some behind-the-scenes clips from both. The prolonged discussion of "Stephen King's Shining" vs. "Stanley Kubrick's shining" is interesting, as all the subjects weigh in to round out that fascinating dichotomy.

Overall, though, I found "King on Screen" to be a little underwhelming for its meandering nature and odd general setup-hence the pedestrian 6/10 rating. Certainly some material that will be interesting for the Constant Readers among us, but it doesn't "all work" here to be sure.

This is a documentary that I saw on Shudder. The concept intrigued me. What is interesting is that Stephen King, like others, is my favorite author. He was my introduction into adult horror literature. I own all his older works and am someone that eventually picks up his newer titles as well. Seeking out the adaptations of his works was something else I did when expanding my horror knowledge from what we already owned. This was a documentary that I watched at work, treating it like a podcast, watching when something truly caught my attention and listened to the rest.

What is a shame here is that they couldn't get King himself to be a part of it. What I do like though is that the people who are interviewed are filmmakers who have adapted his works. There is charm there, because as a fan of King, it is fun to see that the likes of Frank Darabont, Tom Holland, Mike Flanagan, Mick Garris and Greg Nicotero are the same. It makes me feel like I'm part of a club. It is truly amazing to hear how many books/short stories/screenplays that King has and then even crazier the number that have also been adapted.

I do have issues here and it falls in line with others that I saw review this on Letterboxd. It focuses quite a bit on the fact that King hates Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. We also have all these people who are interviewed here who are on the side of King. This is an argument and a stance that has grown tiresome. I did find it more interesting hearing Flanagan say how he swayed King to his vision for Doctor Sleep, blending Kubrick with the source for both books.

Another issue I have is that this focuses on work more than others. Keeping it more balanced would be preferred. I get that not every production would be as interesting. Hearing Darabont talk about The Shawshank Redemption is something that I enjoyed, but that seems more for a special feature for that film. Including stories or more information for other adaptations would be something I'm more intrigued by.

This is still impressive to see all the people that were involved. I thought this was well-made, including the editing of footage to help visually show what people were talking about. What they did here was fine, but I do think that a bit different approach would make this work better personally. Still worth a watch for King fans, whether it is his writing or his films.

My Rating: 7 out of 10.

The documentary King On Screen is a celebration of King's fiction on the big (or small) screen as told by over twenty different filmmakers who were fortunate enough to adapt a King story. King On Screen tells their story.

Of the many different personalities interviewed here (Mick Garris is always a joy) there are some shockingly notable absences. No Rob Reiner (Stand By Me, Misery). And no Brian DePalma, who holds the distinct honor of directing the first Stephen King adaptation, Carrie (1976).

There are few gripes or regrets conveyed throughout the interviews. No real discussion of failure be it artistic or box office. Baiwir safely captures a positive exuberance. But make it a little shorter with some clever editing? King On Screen could have been a Blu-Ray special feature extra - or an all-star episode of "The Kingcast" podcast.

Whether you've always wanted to bike through Derry with the Losers or mistakenly confuse "Christine" for "Carrie", King On Screen is a delight to watch. Especially when the lights are off.

I watched this film tonight on Apple TV. I really enjoyed the interviews, particularly those with Frank Darabont and Mike Flanagan, and it was obvious that all of the contributors admire King and his work as much as I do. My only gripe was the soundtrack, which at times made it very difficult to hear the interviews, I'm not sure why if was necessary to superimpose music at a volume higher than the speaking voice of the interviewee. Perhaps this was a problem with Apple and my TV set up, but if not then the film would really benefit in having its soundtrack remixed.

Apart from the issue above I would have watched many more hours of this material.

First off, I am a lifelong fan of Stephen King. I have read all the books, some of them more than once and have seen most of the movies.

Naturally, a documentary like this sparked my interest.

I quit after about 15 minutes or so, because I could not stand it any longer.

First off, was the sounddesigner on acid or something? Or why did he use "music" that makes your toenails roll up and yout teeth fall out?

Second, either the sound mixer is legally deaf, or let some kids turn the knobs as they please. The difference in volume across the whole thing is staggering and most of the times the godawful "music" is so loud that you can't hear any of the interviews.

Who thought this would be fine and greenlit it?

Did ANYBODY related to it ever watch it themselves? I highly doubt that.

It really is a shame and not worthy of a brilliant and beloved writer like Mr. King.