I was inspired by Martin's thread (and Carlo's responses) to open up a topic that's fascinated me ever since I was old enough to read "grown-up" books -and- rent whatever movies I wanted. (I'm guessing I was about 14.) Carlo opined that the best of the King adaptations were the ones that stuck most faithfully to the source material. His examples were The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me and The Green Mile. I added Misery to the relatively short list. But that leaves a whole lot of other movies out in the cold. I've read essentially every one of King's novels and have seen ALL of the films based on 'em. I figure that most of you could also claim the same thing, and perhaps it would be interesting to discuss the books, the films and the vast differences that may lie between them. Like...who here remembers the Lawnmower Man short story from Night Shift? Could the movie version possibly be ANY different than the story? I'd venture a NO there. There's an interesting story behind how the movie got to use King's title, but I won't bore you with that because mostly everyone already knows the tale. But back to the "good" ones. Dolores Claiborne is not a movie that gets a lot of attention, but I think it's a DAMN good film. It's been many years since I read the novel, so I can't comment on how "close" they are, but both are quite excellent in their own right. One that seems to get knocked around a lot is the movie version of Needful Things; a movie I think is perfectly entertaining - if laden with more than a few slippery plot holes and other small problems. If I remember correctly, King was not too thrilled with De Palma's Carrie or even Kubrick's The Shining...yet both certainly seem well-liked by movie fans. I still think that Mary Lambert's Pet Sematary is as creepy and entertaining as its sequel is pointless and ugly. I was prepared to rattle off a dozen more, but then I figured it might be better to save some for the next chap into this thread. OK, one more: Cronenberg's The Dead Zone = Just awesome.