"I'd Rather Have Bad Than Boring:" Stephen King Is Totally Wrong About This Underrated Movie

Stephen King is no fan of John Carpenter’s adaptation of Christine, but he’s misjudged this 1983 horror gem. John Carpenter’s movie run from 1976 to 1988 is an all-timer, where he was firing off instant classics like Halloween, Escape from New York and The Thing. The issue is that many of these films underperformed or outright bombed upon release, with The Thing flopping in 1982 changing the course of Carpenter’s career. Carpenter was fired from the Stephen King adaptation Firestarter in the aftermath and took the first available gig he could find.

This came in the shape of Christine, another Stephen King novel. Despite being Carpenter’s longest movie, he still made many changes to the novel, condensing or dropping characters and streamlining the plot. Christine became a modest success, grossing over $21 million on a budget of $10 million (via Box Office Mojo), but it did little to advance Carpenter’s career. Like much of his 1980s output, Christine has amᴀssed a loyal following, even if King himself dismissed the movie.

Stephen King Slammed John Carpenter’s Christine As “Boring”

King lumped Christine in with The Shining as a “boring” adaptation

When it comes to adaptations of his novels, King is usually refreshingly candid with his thoughts. His hatred of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is also legendary, he dubbed 1984’s Firestarter “flavorless” and as for Pet Sematary 2, King stated, “I don’t approve of the movie and I didn’t want it made.” The author is also quick to praise these adaptations that he feels nail it – but he usually saves the catty comments for the ones he hates, While promoting the 2003 stinker Dreamcatcher (via Salon), King revealed his dislike of Carpenter’s Christine.

Others, I’m thinking chiefly of Christine and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, should have been good but just, well, they aren’t. They’re actually sort of boring. Speaking for myself, I’d rather have bad than boring.

In King’s mind, not only is Christine dull, it’s not even bad enough to be interesting. Pretty harsh, especially considering the amount of genuinely crappy movies based on his work. In general, King appears to be a fan of Carpenter’s work, but he clearly felt Christine missed the mark. Carpenter vented his thoughts on King to The Flashback Files in 2014 in his characteristically blunt way, when asked what the author’s opinion of Christine.

I don’t know. Stephen King loves everything and then he hates it. He’s a weird ᴀss guy. Just weird. Started out as a teacher. What the hell you want?

John Carpenter Isn’t A Big Fan Of Christine Either

Christine was purely a job for John Carpenter

Arnie (Keith Gordon) looking nervous in Christine in front of the movie's poster

The Thing was Carpenter’s first studio movie, and he had big plans for his career. The critical and commercial failure of the horror classic left Carpenter reeling, and he badly needed a gig after being dropped from Firestarter. Speaking again with The Flashback Files, Carpenter underlines that he only took the King adaptation because “It was the only choice! It was the only job I could get.” Carpenter felt little pᴀssion for Christine and struggled with the idea of making the тιтular car scary in any way.

Years after Christine, Carpenter admitted he did the movie for money and didn’t feel much connection to it. However, his views on the adaptation have softened over the years as it has found new fans. Even if he didn’t feel much of a personal link to the material, Carpenter is too interesting a filmmaker to simply phone it in. He clearly had more interest in the teen drama than the horror aspects, with Carpenter’s Christine being a metaphor for the various traumas of growing up (bullying, friendships ending, etc).

Carpenter is right when he stated the concept isn’t that scary, though he still stages some taut chase sequences; Carpenter’s self-composed music score is one of his finest, too. It will never be one of his favorites, but the director has made peace with a movie that was largely done as a career move.

Stephen King Is So Wrong About Carpenter’s Christine

Carpenter’s Christine is a wild ride

A character staring at Christine in the 1983 Stephen King adaptation

It should go without saying that King is more than enтιтled to his opinion on movie adaptations of his work. Part of the reason he dislikes The Shining so pᴀssionately is that the original book was a deeply personal one to him, so Kubrick’s many changes to the source material naturally bothered him. It’s possible Carpenter’s streamlining of Christine evoked a similar reaction, and while the movie has patient pacing, labeling it “boring” is pretty extreme.

Carpenter takes the time to show Arnie’s growing obsession and gradual transformation from lovable dork to hateful greaser, and the impact this has on his best friend and girlfriend. It’s not that frightening, but Carpenter still gives the film a creepy atmosphere, which is aided by his pulsing synth score. Keith Gordon is also great as Arnie, making his descent feel frighteningly real. Christine’s regeneration after being trashed by Arnie’s bullies is a marvel of practical, in-camera effects work too.

… Christine only gets better the more you revisit it and is a mature, creepy horror movie that tackles some deep themes.

Christine is neither the best adaptation of King’s novels nor John Carpenter’s best film. Even so, it’s a film that only gets better the more you revisit it and is a mature, creepy horror movie that tackles some deep themes. If King found it “boring” back in 1983, it might be time for the author to give it another sH๏τ.

Source: Box Office Mojo, Salon, The Flashback Files