With respect to the previous reviewer, I believe that die-hard King fans (especially those who have read Riding the Bullet) will be, if anything, more disappointed in this movie. (Warning, I am trying to avoid spoilers, but they may creep in.) Am I the only one bothered by how much the script departed from the original story? By the time it was over, I had spent so much time referencing the original that my wife asked me, quite seriously, if anything on the screen was from the story. **Minor Spoilers Upcoming**I mean, whole sections of the movie, well over half the material including a lot of the back story and the fantasy sequences the previous reviewer complains about, were completely off the page. In itself not a problem, a short story needs some filler to make a 2-hour movie, but in this case it made such changes in the tone of the central character that the payoff at the end (his decision) did not play as powerfully to me (this is only my opinion and reaction, feel free to disagree) as in the written story. Also, I was very disappointed in the rather contrived way the interior dialog of the central character was handled. Especially when a more effective (if traditional) simple voice over narration was used later in the film to accomplish the same function. Frankly, I do feel that, in the hands of a different director, the original material could have been powerfully recreated and given the atmosphere of real horror without a lot of plot embellishment through lighting, pacing and acting.
(In fairness, I do want to mention one embellishment that I did like. The "Movie within a Movie" sequence was well done and even interesting both visually and dramatically.)
Finally, I find it interesting that while it was claimed that the movie was made for USA Networks they did not see fit to make it a "TV ready" version. I do know that it is common with TV movies to do a "European" theatrical cut to try and recoup some of the cost, but this is usually done by actually filming two versions of various scenes, one with sanitized language and images for US TV and another one for big screen overseas release. In this case, they made a movie "for TV" and simply **bleeped** the "dirty" parts. (This was done so often, and so jarringly, that I found it frankly both distracting and annoying.) I am beginning to wonder if, in fact, both USA and SciFi (sister channels) are simply buying low-medium budget made for theater Indies that don't get distribution deals and then editing them (in many cases quite badly) for TV broadcast.
My recommendation? Get hold of a printed copy of the original story Riding the Bullet (collected in Everything's Eventual by Stephen King) and let the director of your own imagination put it up on the screen of your mind.
(In fairness, I do want to mention one embellishment that I did like. The "Movie within a Movie" sequence was well done and even interesting both visually and dramatically.)
Finally, I find it interesting that while it was claimed that the movie was made for USA Networks they did not see fit to make it a "TV ready" version. I do know that it is common with TV movies to do a "European" theatrical cut to try and recoup some of the cost, but this is usually done by actually filming two versions of various scenes, one with sanitized language and images for US TV and another one for big screen overseas release. In this case, they made a movie "for TV" and simply **bleeped** the "dirty" parts. (This was done so often, and so jarringly, that I found it frankly both distracting and annoying.) I am beginning to wonder if, in fact, both USA and SciFi (sister channels) are simply buying low-medium budget made for theater Indies that don't get distribution deals and then editing them (in many cases quite badly) for TV broadcast.
My recommendation? Get hold of a printed copy of the original story Riding the Bullet (collected in Everything's Eventual by Stephen King) and let the director of your own imagination put it up on the screen of your mind.