SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Micransix Crappy film

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Ivan Lalic Story about a car killer is just one of those scripts that Carpenter built his career on, so the ''Christine'' fits in his portfolio like a glove. All the elements of the '80s trash horror will be there, poor acting, lame plots and some fine movie aesthetics. However, the bad elements will overcome the good ones and not in a good manner, leaving this flick as one of the weaker ones legendary John signs. Even if you are a automobile fan, ''Christine'' won't be a decent horror.

zkonedog Right off the bat, there are two ways of interpreting this film: If you haven't read the novel, you might find it a decent effort from filmmaker John Carpenter. If you have read the Stephen King masterpiece, you'll be left feeling more than a bit unsatisfied.For a basic plot summary, "Christine" tells the story of an evil car who first grips young Arnie Cunningham (Keith Gordon) with "her" menace, then schemes to murder his best friend Dennis (John Stockwell) & girlfriend Leigh (Alexandra Paul).The one nice thing I have to say about this film is that, if having read the book, it provides some nice visuals. The characters are roughly what I pictured while reading, and the car scenes are very well done.Unfortunately, the pleasantries end there. The plot (so magnificent at the pen of King) is an utter mess via Carpenter's camera, while the characters are more like caricatures of the actual King lifebloods. I realize that some things need to be chopped in the name of film, but this was one of the worst jobs I've ever seen. Without the knowledge that the book gives, I can't see anyone getting into this movie on an level deeper than "horror flick".To top things off, director Carpenter tries to add his "Halloween touch" by using the same visual style and music (almost to a "tee") as the first two Halloween films. What a rip-off! It really doesn't add much to this middling effort, and just made me think of Carpenter as a one-track wonder.Thus, this film can easily be skipped before or after reading the novel. If the material must be covered in some format, leave the storytelling to Mr. King...in this case, where it belongs.

kira02bit Back in the mid-80s, novelist Stephen King was prolific and it seemed that barely a few months went by that a new film adaptation was not making its way to the screen, often with varying degrees of success. Christine was one of his more popular books of the time taking that old nutshell of the possessed car and making seem a whole lot more plausible and less silly than it should be. Hopes were raised when it was announced that horror director John Carpenter was helming the film. Carpenter was in a downswing and desperately needed a hit. After making the classic Halloween, Carpenter had a more modest success with the underrated The Fog. Unfortunately, his badly thought out Escape from NY tanked and his disastrous remake of The Thing (which now has an indefensible cult following) had been eviscerated by critics and imploded at the box office, so he was in need of a hit and King's novel offered fertile ground.Alas, it was not to be. King's story, told through the eyes of sensitive jock Dennis, recalling past tragic events involving his nerdy high school best friend Arnie and the dilapidated 1958 Plymouth Fury that Arnie falls in love with, buys and starts to restore with sinister impact, had a lot going for it. The story of a killer car is foolish, but King takes everything very seriously and populates his tale with sympathetic characters, has a good ear for how high schoolers talk, and has a strong number of requisite set pieces that stay in the memory long after one puts down the book. By contrast, Carpenter's film feels rushed, shallow and forgettable.Carpenter makes major changes in the plot and characters, ostensibly for budget purposes, and literally all of them function as detractions. Barring a couple of amazing shots of Christine's regenerative powers, the film looks cheap. Given how much Carpenter has excised, his film still has stretches of boredom. He seems incapable of garnering sympathy for his characters and even the villains come across as half-hearted cardboard nothings.His cast is not the best either. Veterans like Harry Dean Stanton, Robert Prosky and Christine Belford are completely wasted. The gaggle of actors playing the bullying tormentors of Arnie seem entirely too old to be in high school. In the lead, Keith Gordon, who has been much better elsewhere, makes the leap from nerdy doormat to arrogant, self-confident and ultimately psychotic with such speed that the audience never has a any rooting interest in his plight. Truthfully, this could more be the fault of the rush in the screenplay than the actor. As our protagonist, Dennis, John Stockwell is goofy, awkward and off-putting. Alexandra Paul is cast as "the prettiest girl in school", which is debatable here, and she as well has been better elsewhere. There is not much time placed in developing her relationship with Arnie so that anyone buys how badly his transition has impacted her or the lengths that she is willing to go in the film's latter portion.Carpenter's changes in story often make no sense. Truthfully, in King's novel, Christine was fairly neutral. It was the rancid soul of her detestable former owner that possessed her and galvanized the action and change in Arnie. By omitting that character from the film and oddly mixing the characteristics with a still living character, Carpenter makes nonsense stew. Carpenter also omits the clever touch of how the souls of Christine's victims become trapped in the car and end up making diabolical passengers during attack scenes.Worst of all, King's novel features some stunning attack sequences set in a wintry Pennsylvania, including the snow drift attack on Arnie's chief tormentor and a terrific sequence where another character is attacked in their isolated home during the height of a blizzard, but Carpenter axes all such sequences for incredibly cheap affairs. The latter character dies in the film when he inexplicably decides to hop into the driver seat of the still-smoldering car that he just witnessed driving itself into a garage and the car seat pushes itself forward so far that it crushes him. An incredibly memorable sequence has been swapped out for an unintentional embarrassment.This all combines to make Christine a misfire. The studio obviously was not willing to cough up the budget necessary for a good film, the cast fails to inhabit their characters, and Carpenter was not inspired enough to do much with what he had, so the end result is an exceedingly mediocre testament of what might have been had anyone cared.

talisencrw One of the most intriguing coming-of-age stories in cinema, and this tends to be overlooked, both as a Stephen King story and horror film, in place of the more sensationalized frolic and mayhem of works such as 'The Shining', 'Carrie', 'Misery' and 'The Shawshank Redemption', which is a crying shame, because: a) John Carpenter is probably the finest director (at least Top 3) ever involved with King adaptations; and b) it perfectly conceptualizes, like earlier short experimental films by the likes of Kenneth Anger, the downright uncomfortable sleaziness and fetishism that has existed, mainly in America, between men and their cars.Keith Gordon does some really fine acting here (as he did previously for Brian De Palma in 'Dressed to Kill') as all possible dynamics along the range from nerd to psycho. It's impressive that, while growing up in film, he obviously learned some of the tricks of the trade from such cinematic greats (at least of American film of the past 50 years) and ended up becoming a decent film helmer himself.9/10 for me; Grade A Carpenter. It simply isn't top-tier for me, of his oeuvre, because I know he, like Sir Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma and other greats, is capable of cinematic perfection (Halloween, The Thing, etc.).