Friday, October 22, 2010

Christine Review


They call him the master of Horror, and in some regards, he really is. He's one of the best horror writers, but his work doesn't necessarily make a great film adaptation. John Carpenter adapted the Stephen King's (i was referring to King in my opening sentences) Christine. The film was made in 1983 and it is's topic of linear monologue.

The plot is easy to follow as it feels like a 1980's coming of age movie. The main characters are bullied in school and find that life is not so grand for the nerds and the geeks, even if you're friends with a jock. The movie moves forward and our main star Arnie Cunningham purchases an old beat up car, and as he fixes it up, he changes into a more suave and attractive guy, getting the hottest girl in the school and gaining a sense of envy from his former bullies. What he doesn't realize though, is that his's supernatural and haunted!

The movie turns into a revenge flick as Arnie starts getting revenge on his antagonizers, but ultimately loses the battle when he is thrown through the car and impaled on glass. The car dies too...well...not really, it is turned into a cube, and then starts to regenerate and that's that.

The movie looks good, it's paced fine, but it's not an amazing flick. I read the book, and while there are some strange things in the book, the movie just doesn't make the text work well in visualization. There's no major nudity, which is missed in this 80's horror movie, but it manages to maintain a few moments, and some surreal scary points.

The scariest of points has to be when Arnie's new girl is being killed by Christine at the drive in theater, which was rad to see visually, but other than that? This movie is like watching a "Goosebumps" made for tv special (or tv show) and nothing more. Sure, it's got some gore,but overall, it's not as good as other adaptations of King's work.

Is Christine A Scary Film?: No.

This film is not scary. It's actually quite boring in the first half, but comes to fruition in the end, with some nice driving and explosions. I didn't hate the film, it's just not scary at all to me. The idea of a haunted car is ok, but the execution of the film just doesn't work well compared to the book.

I don't recommend multiple viewings of this film, but out of curiosity, check it out. It lacks a lot, and while it looks ok, it just is lacking something....that "it" factor that makes older horror films into classics. Christine has a few interesting points, but not nearly as good as 90% of the 80's horror classics.

John Carpenter has an impressive array of film credits, this isn't one of them, in my book.


  1. jervaise brooke hamsterOctober 22, 2010 at 3:31 PM

    True, this is one of Carpenters weaker films (along with "Prince Of Darkness" and "Ghosts Of Mars") but its still 100 times better than anything the British film industry has ever produced.

  2. I love this movie and I always have. Yes, it is not that scary and maybe it doesnt do justice to King's novel, but it is still a very good 1980s horror and it is one of my favourites....If you look at some of the horror movies today,this is one hundred times better than those movies, so if you take that into consideration, this is a good decent horror flick...

  3. Yeah, it's not half bad, and you're right, it's one of the better 1980's flicks. It has far better acting than 90% of the stuff I'm watching these days, which is saying a lot, because i've seen some major budgeted horror movies


About Me

My photo

A writer first, cat lover second, and some other stuff too. Human, with lots of faults, and terrible communication.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...