Way back in 1974, Stephen King wrote a story called "Sometimes They Come Back". It was originally published in the collection called Night Shift. It also included tales such as "Battleground", "Lawnmower Man", and "Children of the Corn", all of which have been turned into big and small screen adaptations. The most successful was the hour-long "Battleground" that opened the Nightmares Dreamscapes mini-series in 2006. It was a brilliant hour that starred William Hurt and had no dialogue. In 1991, "Sometimes They Come Back" was brought to the small screen to amazingly boring effect.
Stephen King's stories are notoriously difficult to adapt to the big screen. For every one that is successful, or at least halfway decent, there are a handful that fail to deliver on any level. Sometimes They Come Back is one of those failures. As I watched it, I got to wondering why it has been so historically difficult to adapt King. I enjoy his work, although I haven't read anything new of his in years. The one thing I can think of is that his writing is best left up to the imagination, more so than many other writers. When you read a King story it can conjure up some very strong visuals in the mind that are nearly impossible to live up to, so when you ultimately see the film it can be nothing but a letdown. I know that the two works should be judged separately, I have been saying that for years. However, the combination of ingrained visuals while reading the story combined with the generally poor quality of the films, it is a no-win situation.
Sometimes They Come Back is not one of King's better stories, making it a questionable choice for a movie, theatrical or TV, to begin with. What works on the page can wind up being downright silly on the screen. That is what happens here, the movie is silly. Beyond that, it is flat out boring. The lack of logic that flows freely throughout is nearly impossible to ignore.
Article comments