Back in the 70s and 80s, Stephen King’s stories generally had a lot more scares in them, as did their cinematic equivalents. Perhaps that’s why David Cronenberg’s adaptation of “The Dead Zone” feels a bit out of place — it comes off as much more of a dramatic thriller than a horror film. It certainly garnered critical praise and found its audience, but 31 years later, it comes across a bit dated. Join us — Pete Wright and Andy Nelson — as we continue our Stephen King series with 1983’s “The Dead Zone.” We talk about our feelings of the movie when we first saw it and where we stand on the film now, finding the film to not hold up that well. We chat about the performances and how they work but don’t grab us – even Christopher Walken who seems to be just developing his strange mannerisms here. We discuss the problematic flow of the story and how its episodic nature really leaves the film forgettable, but perhaps is why the story worked so well in the land of episodic television when the USA Network put it out in 2002. And we touch on the cinematography, the production design and the score, looking at what works and what doesn’t. It’s still a decent film but oddly forgettable upon revisiting it. But that doesn’t stop us from having a great conversation about it. Tune in!
Film Sundries
- Script Transcript
- Original theatrical trailer
- Original poster artwork
- Art of the Title
- The Dead Zone — Stephen King
- Flickchart
