Good doggy...

Late last night, I finished Cujo. You know, the novel written by Stephen King and published in 1981?

Okay, so it's been 38 years since publication, but that didn't bother me at all, after all, I lived through the 80's and remember it fairly well.

I'll try to avoid spoilers, but the basic premise is so well known by now that I'm assuming you know the central issue of the story is a dog with rabies. A St. Bernard in fact, and apparently one of almost world record size. The titular dog, Cujo, is mentioned to weigh 200 pounds (90kg) and the world record dog was 210 pounds (95kg).

The novel is set in King's fictional town of Castle Rock, in Maine during an unusually hot summer. There is a small cast of characters and a large part of the book concerns their interconnected lives. The rest of the book is about a couple of people trapped in a hot car with the dog trying to kill them.

I found that from the start, King weaves a very compelling narrative. Even though it's essentially just normal life, he makes it interesting without bogging you down in pointless detail. Everything has a meaning, even if it might take the entire book to understand it.

The characters are incredibly believable, with their hopes and fears realistically portrayed. Good or bad, you know there are people like this, even though you might not have met any. Likewise, the environment works.

The book is set in 1980, but that really doesn't matter that much. I really don't think it would have mattered all that much if the story was set today. Yeah, the whole trapped-in-a-car scenario would be different with mobile phones, but those run out of battery and not everyone keeps an adapter in their car.

So, what is my verdict? Cujo is a very enjoyable book. Before going into it, I knew as much as I mentioned above, but the book is something that has to be experienced. Even if I broke down the whole thing, you would still have to read it to really get it. I did find towards the end that there was a coincidence too many, but that's about the worst thing I can say about it.

Is it a horror novel though? Depends on your definition of horror. There is no murderous supernatural clown here, nor is there magic or vampires, but a 200 pound rabid dog hell-bent on ripping you to shreds is pretty damn scary. It's a more mundane and down to earth story compared to some of King's other works, but a very easy and good read.

If you haven't read it, and you're in the mood for something tense and miserable (in a good way), then read Cujo.

That's it for this time. Until next time, have a great week and stay away from rabid dogs!

It

I got around to watching It (2017), and I liked it.

First off, Stephen King's novel was published in 1986 and the TV mini series was produced in 1990, so I consider the story pretty well spoiled. That said, I'm still going to try to avoid any major spoilers, I'm nice like that.

So we have the small town of Derry, a nowhere kind of town set in Maine, because this is a King story. Every 27 years, something awful happens and lots of people die. It has now been 27 years since last time, and kids are disappearing. A small band of kids, dubbed the Losers Club decide to do something about it, and they do. End off first movie. The next film is out next year so we're only looking at the kids part of the story.

Overall, this movie is incredibly well done. All the usual things I ramble about applies, set pieces, sound etc. Well done everyone. The film gets a black mark against it due to a couple of scenes, including the climactic finale, being way too dark. Stop trying to make an almost black screen exciting. You know what is exciting? Seeing all the exciting things happening in the film, okay?

Now, an important point is that the book (and the TV series) are set in the 50's and in the 80's. This version starts in the 80's and then moves on to now. Placing a movie in a time period that the audience can actually remember is always risky, as you can't mimic an era perfectly. It always comes off as a set piece, but they really did an adequate job here. Besides, there is nothing in the story that requires it to be set in the 50's. The 80's works just as well, as long as it's pre internet.

Another pretty big change is how the kids fears take shape. In the book, the kids watch classic Universal horror movies at the cinema, so Pennywise the Dancing Clown (the monster if you didn't know), takes, amongst other things, the shape of the mummy and a werewolf. Kids in the 80's aren't going to be scared by that so the film changes it around a bit. Controversial perhaps, but I think they pull it off quite well. This presented a problem however. When the kids decide to fight Pennywise in the book, they decide to use silver, because werewolves are allergic to silver. But with the werewolf gone they can't use that, and their plan seems very haphazard. It becomes less of a plan and more a drive to do something.

Lets look at the characters next. There are very few adults here with anything to say. This part of the story is about the kids, and the actors were phenomenal. Some of the best child actors I've seen in a long time. However, the characters are almost not developed at all. For having a 2h 15m run time, the film barely introduces anyone. On one hand we have stuttering kid who lost his kid brother, girl, fat but smart kid, scared Jew, hypochondriac, loudmouth and poor black kid. On the other hand they all have motivations, fears, personalities and a strong drive to survive. I wish they could have developed them a bit more though, as I had to fill in a couple of blanks from memory.

My one complaint with the kids is Ritchie. He's the smart mouth who always has a joke or quip ready. In the book he's the morale booster, the kid who can calm tensions and cheer everyone up when it gets too scary. In the film, he comes across as a crude, rude jerk. I mean, thirteen year old kids are walking hormone bombs, but Ritchie does little except make crude sexual suggestions and trying to high-five his uninterested friends. It does not work.

Pennywise is interesting. Visually very different than Tim Curry's version, but more accurate for the novel. Bill Skarsgård does a really wonderful job being all weird and creepy. They could have used him better, but it's good enough, no question about it.

I could go on, nitpicking and analyzing, but there's no point. You have either seen it, you're going to see it, or you don't care.

Join us next time for more Eccentric Spheres, and until then have a great week and stay away from creepy clowns.