Zachar_Laskewicz

I like Stephen King's writing style; if infuriating in that his rather one-sided super evil and sometimes extremely nasty and violent characters are set against a set of far nicer individuals who may have to overcome enormous difficulties while the plot of the novel unravels towards its extremely exciting conclusion. In the book Big jim Denny is a power hungry psychopath from the very beginning; 'Barbie' is already attempting to escape the town when the Dome suddenly thunders into existence. But his reasons for escape are far more innocuous than in the television version which portrays him straight off as a possible killer with secrets he wants to kept hidden. The television version, in other words, is simpler, doesn't involve anywhere near the complexity of the power relationships that built up with the military attempting to communicate outside the dome. The Angie of the novel is a poor girl whose only mistake was reacting in the wrong way to Big Jim's sociopath son Junior who promptly murders her, and then all her friends as they come looking for her, enjoying their cold dead unresponsive and unyielding bodies. He soon becomes a deputy and enjoys his role as cold-blooded killer; his hatred for Barbie is unrelenting and frightening. In the TV series there far less torture, rape, violence, pollution issues but especially the whole issue of the drugs crusade which is an incredibly important part of the novel. Sets of characters (such as the medical staff or perhaps the Father Coggins who also plays the funeral director, were amalmagated into single characters to make it less complex for a TV viewer (and undoubtedly more suitable for younger viewers). In my opinion, however, I think it works the other way around; what you see it easier to differentiate than what you read. The series does have many of the interesting aspects of the book and does things with them I wouldn't have expected, making it all the more interesting for me to wacht it. Still, in the end I thought I was watching a version of an extremely toned-down version of what the book was offering both in entertainment and significant thematic issues that should concern us all, corruption, drug production in the guise of someone else's interests, obsession with power; it was a metaphoric battle for power of the small village Chester's Mill of 'Lord of the Flies' proportion but with modern day plot developments such as Grenell's overcoming of her drug addiction, the crack lab finally exploding fly high revealing the true nature of the constant transmission of pre-recorded religious music that formed the guise for the lab which a city's leaders had used to amass a fortune. I also enjoyed the female preacher who no longer believes in god but helps in the scheming to fight Big Jim, get Barbie out of jail and find the communicative device that will lead to the ultimate solution of the mystery. The television version is completely different; it's fun to watch, but it's like a toned down version, either for the actors who can't do over the top psychopathy or a general desire to tone down the dramatics for a younger audience. Some of the themes of the book are quite significant and are largely ignored in the television version. Although the violent rapes by Junior and his increasingly growing groups of thug deputies are shocking, the make a point about sex, violence and the desire some women choose to love women. In the TV series this is dealt with in a non-violent but appropriate way and I'm glad King and co. are beginning to do that. Still UNDER THE DOME had a lot more to say and the metaphor within the metaphor; the 'aliens' looking through the looking glass through the humans who have once burned ants with a similar looking glass or kept them in ant farms, has far more to offer than an episode of the Twilight Zone. The TV version is certainly worth watching; I'd advise you watch the TV version first; the feel good happy version - and then read what really could happen in a polluted, radioactive enclosed pod inhabited by people who increasingly lose any connection to the reality they had. Sorry, but the book is far more fun and tell the themes with the violent imagery it deserves; the TV version is interesting and cute, and although all its characters are more ambiguous in whether or not they are truly good or bad, if you compare the two, the TV version comes across rather blandly. Still, it's so different to the book you can't help enjoying it.

John Dies at the End (2012) David's Wong (…so is John Wite?) It's unusual to have seen a book and then the movie and to feel that it would've been better had you seen the film first. My impression was that I would have enjoyed the book even more if I'd seen the film first – the non-expositional straight into it approach of the film doesn't let down the contents of the book, which I tried to absorb far too fast and which was at times unnerving but as many irritating. In that respect the film becomes a fairly successful vehicle for communicating the author's ideas. Don't get me wong (ha ha); I liked the book a lot which can be described as Lovecraft through the eyes of modern youth who filter reality with the tools provided them, horror films and video games. And if there ever was a reason to explain why the book was written like it was; how it came into existence in reaction to positive creative feedback to an audience which grew from a small group very gradually. Being a creative artist myself and understanding how much of an encouragement feedback can be, and reading the author's afterword with individual thanks and gratitude to those who encouraged and supported him (just by reading his story) gives you an insight into how the story bloomed so marvelously into what must have been hell for Wong and Coscarelli to flesh out into what is essentially a pretty tight little piece of horror cinema. But in this case I imagine the partnership Wong and Coscarelli, already well known in the horror world for the Phantasm film series; that Wong would encourage rather than resist changes to his work. There are a few things in the film which could've been done better. Dr 'Monsieur' Marconi and his 2 Italian secretaries didn't come across well for me; not only was it sexist, but it was overplayed and didn't make much sense. Not that it made much more sense to me in the book; but to a book you can return. Wong is, like the delusion-forming, world-changing 'soy sauce' the main protagonists binge on to step out of time, a fairly intense experience. The special effects in the film, as well, could have been much better, and if it's makers had spent more time and money on them the experience of the film could have been truly terrifying. As is, they didn't do badly and thankfully the special effects are effectively organic and not digital. Things like Korrock (or one of his minions) speaking through the pieces of frozen meat which are so clearly pieces of plastic at the beginning makes it look a bit silly. Perhaps they were intentionally trying to set it up as if it looked like a flimsy puppet; but if the results are going to be so bad, show the puppeteers warts and all. The sudden transformation to cartoon of the resistance fighters and villagers being wiped out by monster spiders is far more successful and horrifying than a macho Marconi obliterating the manifestation of Korrock with a word. Moments like that made the film look more like Scary Movie 99 than a scary movie, so John Dies at the End is certainly more Evil Dead II than the original. Not that the book isn't funny; not by a long shot – there are moments of comic genius in the book, but they are offset by the horrific possibilities. I think that the scariest moment in the film for me was when you see the strangely masked characters who exist only to serve Korrock. A smiling pig-mask and group of manically-fascinated elderly members of the 'twin' human race was the one point I felt sufficiently grossed-out – thanks not, in fact, to anything graphic – but what they don't show. In the book, to add to what has undoubtedly turned already into a large online discussion, the moment when the communities finally meet, my wind was indeed spinning and a feeling of horror would be insufficient to describe the intense feeling of emptiness and insecurity about all the things I do or don't believe in. But I wonder how many others have found that the film and the book complement each other?