Login
There were two main reasons for seeing 'The Dead Zone'. One was for one of the most interesting and unique directors David Cronenberg, who may have pioneered the body horror genre but a good deal of his films are far more than that. The other was for Stephen King, who in my mind is the quintessential "horror" writer, not all his dialogue writing is great and some of his books have bloated moments but his characterisation is so vivid and meaty, the atmosphere of much of his work thoughtful and terrifying and his attention to detail for horror literature is unparallelled. Consider Christopher Walken a great actor too.
As far as Cronenberg, King and Walken films go, 'The Dead Zone' is one of the must sees, even if not perfect. It is one of Cronenberg's most restrained, and mostly conventional, films, especially for back then in his career when his body horror pioneering was being established, being a deliberately paced psychological drama/thriller with a few horror elements. And in a good way, Cronenberg has shown more than once in his career that he can do restrained while still being disturbing well, 'Dead Ringers' (one of his very best in my opinion) is another prime example of this.
It's, 'The Dead Zone' that is, among the best King adaptations too. King adaptations are very hit and miss, there are some outstanding adaptations like 'The Shawshank Redemption', 'Stand By Me' and 'Misery' but also some dross such as 'Children of the Corn', 'Tommyknockers' and 'Sleepwalkers'. Again, by King standards 'The Dead Zone' is pretty restrained and more psychological than full on horror, again done really well. Consider the film version to be one of not very many King adaptations to be better than the source material, most of the time taking a King adaptations on their own terms is in order to avoid severe disappointment at lack of fidelity. It is one of the most faithful King adaptations in detail and spirit, which will delight King fans, while also being very good and nearly great as a standalone and making the dialogue and story tighter for the better and necessary.
Did feel that 'The Dead Zone' is a little too short, would have given it 20 or so minutes more. There is a lot of content packed in, some of it needing more explanation and time (namely in the middle) meaning the film jumps about structurally a bit and abruptly too.
Those are my only problems, though they are quite big. Problems that are vastly outweighed by the good and great things. 'The Dead Zone' is a very well made film, beautifully and creepily shot especially and the lighting also enhances the atmosphere. Michael Kamen's haunting music score is hard to forget and adds so much to the atmosphere, in the horror, thriller and psychological elements. One of my favourite scores in a Cronenberg (whose regular composer was Howard Shore and wrote many great scores for his films, especially 'The Fly') and King film.
Scripting is thoughtful and is tighter and more natural in flow than some of the book's prose. The story has its problems, mainly structurally, but it disturbs (the horror elements inserted not feeling predictable at all) and moves emotionally as well as provokes thought. The thriller has genuine tension. 'The Dead Zone' starts beautifully and compels straightaway but it is the ending that has the most staying power, man that was unsettling. All of this is helped by meaty characterisation and perfectly pitched performances. Best of the bunch is a mesmerisingly vulnerable Walken, one of his best and most subtle performances and one of the best for any Cronenberg (in a list that includes Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons, Viggo Mortensen and James Woods) and King (Morgan Freeman, River Phoenix, Kathy Bates and Tim Curry) film. Brooke Adams is suitably sympathetic and Martin Sheen is both hammy and terrifying.
Concluding, a very good film and towards the better half of Cronenberg's mostly solid but not without its disappointments filmography and one of the best King adaptations. If you are fans of either, 'The Dead Zone' is a must see. 8/10
