User Reviews

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.

Stephen King is an author who really needs no introduction. His books have topped best-seller lists for yonks but what is very interesting about them is that, unlike many authors, a lot of them have translated to the screen extremely successfully. Some bona fide great films have been based on his work such as Carrie, The Shining, The Dead Zone and The Running Man. Admittedly, there has been a few turkeys as well - Maximum Overdrive and The Lawnmower Man spring to mind; albeit, in the case of that latter movie, it bears absolutely no relation to King's actual short story! But basically, the hits outweigh the misses in the King adaptions, so this documentary feels very merited.

It takes a talking heads format, with contributions from many film people involved in screen adaptions, such as Frank Darabont and Mike Flanagan. There is a lot of clips too, to keep things interesting. It does seem to be a somewhat lop-sided film though, with disproportionately large segments given over to the likes of The Green Mile and The Shining TV adaption, with only small nods given to several of the more significant works. It isn't told in any particular order either, which does mean it does seem a bit scattershot in presentation. While this is definitely a good and entertaining watch, it does have to be said that it is very non-critical and doesn't focus on any creative failures - this approach does mean that it can seem a bit one-dimensional and a bit bland at times. Lastly, there was a thing which bugged me - and it's a thing you see in many such docs where you have film professionals and/or critics talking about the horror genre - and that was that, if you believed what they said, you would be believing that they all read King's books because of their social criticism and metaphors. My eyes were rolling in their sockets as so many of the participants descended into these bouts of pretension. I personally read his books for the vampires, ghosts and spaceships buried in forests. Where have I gone wrong?

"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.

Stephen King is an author who doesn't quite do it for me. He has some great ideas, but I find that many of his stories don't do them justice. I'm also one of those who has a problem with many of his endings. I have however enjoyed several screen adaptations of his work, particularly Salem's Lot (1979 - my favourite), Creepshow (1982), It (1990), Misery (1990), and The Mist (2007). This documentary (first shown at the Fantastic Fest film festival, Texas, in September 2022) focuses on the transposing of King's tales from page to screen, and is told almost entirely by various directors involved (such as Frank Darabont, Mike Flanagan, Mick Garris, Taylor Hackford). Their tales of the processes involved in bringing established written words to life really break down the work involved, and the professionals needed to produce these glossy, spectacular extravaganzas that are often taken for granted. Also interesting are their accounts of liaising with King himself, and his views (sometimes initially resistant) on the filmmakers' visions. However, it does feel overly drawn-out at times, and is bookended by a dramatised mini-story that feels oddly out of place.

I may not be a huge King fan, but I am a huge horror fan, and this film has plenty to interest. 7/10.

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.

Taking a seemingly endless number of writers, directors and technicians, this documentary looks back at pretty much every film and series since Carrie and attempts to look at the themes that King brings forth around America's dark side (even Trump gets a mention) which has proved so successful over the years.

The documentary is a smorgasbord of interviews, behind the scene / making of clips and particularly insights by those who have adapted King's work, including interestingly the considerable amount of average and down right awful adaptations - so for every 'Carrie', there is a 'Thinner' given equal amounts of reverence. Overall it is a little scattershot with no clear direction as to what it's trying to say until the conclusion and the best bits are the more in depth stories - Frank Darobont talking 'Green Mile' or why King famously didn't like Kubrick's 'The Shining'. So so as a documentary but plenty to enjoy for King / Horror Movie fans.

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.