Like most movies, if you've never read the book, You'll Love It. If you have read the book, you'll be like WTF??? [spoiler] Changing the locale of the story from Pittsburgh to California sucks a lot of the life out of it. The deaths of Buddy and Darnell are extremely cheapened without the snowstorm. Combining the LeBay brothers into one character cuts out half of the intrigue and discovery. The confrontation of Buddy and Arnie before he buys the car also loses revelation as the ghost of LeBay infiltrated Arnie and changed him. The resurrection of Christine also loses meaning, along with the reversing odometer, when she just sits there and heals. Even the hamburger scene is lessened without the hitchhiker. Don't even start with the New Year's Eve drive through hell that never happened, the Thanksgiving meal that lasted 5 seconds, discovering Christine AFTER school started and not having Petunia and Sir O-Cedar in the final scene. Even Arnie's death is a cheat, as he was miles away from the final confrontation and Junkins' non-death in the ending scene ruined a plot point.[/spoiler]

If you want the real experience, read the book. It's a shame Hollywood only remakes good movies looking to capitalize on previous success. This movie, with the available CGI technology available today, screams out for course correction and a version that is true to the original work. It would only work as a TV mini-series, like the remake of The Shining accomplished in the late 90s. Trying to translate a 500+ page book into a 90 minute movie just doesn't work. The only shame is that Keith Gordon isn't of the proper age to play Arnie anymore. He pulled the character off perfectly. Carpenter worked well with what he had, it just wasn't true to the original source material.

Christine

No Strawberry Girl, She’s Plymouth Fury. CQB 241.

Christine is directed by John Carpenter and adapted to screenplay by Bill Phillips from the novel of the same name written by Stephen King. It stars Keith Gordon, John Stockwell, Alexandra Paul, Robert Prosky and Harry Dean Stanton. Music is by Carpenter and Alan Howarth and cinematography is by Donald M. Morgan.

How Do You Kill Something That Can’t Possibly Be Alive?

1983 was a busy year for Stephen King adaptations to the screen, along with Christine there was also Cujo and The Dead Zone, so for fans of the legendary author there was plenty to chew on. Christine tells the story of a possessed car that takes over the life of the school nerd, with devastating consequences. As a story that’s pretty much all there is to it, the beauty of the pic is how Carpenter ensures the car really does have a malevolent life of its own. The theme at work such as automobile obsession and the bonkers love story at the narrative heart, are not sacrificed for cheap shocks and gimmickry, but Carpenter rightly made the car the star and she doesn’t disappoint.

Christine’s move from being a knackered old banger to super shiny speedster runs concurrent with Arnie Cunningham’s (Gordon) transformation. Where once was the misfit being bullied, is now a supremely confident dude, he even dates one of the school babes. But with Christine’s love and protection comes great danger, and this lets Carpenter craft some super scenes. From self healing to fiery vengeance, the director brings his lensing skills to the party. Music, unsurprisingly for Carpenter, plays a key part as well. A ream of 50s Rock “n” Roll tunes play out of Christine’s radio to align with what is unfolding on screen, while the score is distinctly Carpenteresque.

Cast are very good in their efforts, though more of the wonderful H. D. Stanton should have been a requisite. Unfortunately the screenplay doesn’t afford many character instances to run smoothly, it sometimes feels like the studio demanded that Carpenter hurry up to the next Christine is evil scene instead of building the character bridges! However, it’s a film that may be undeniably 80s in tone of film making, but it has aged surprisingly well. Suspenseful, exciting and devilishly playful, this is another Carpenter movie worthy of re-evaluation. 8/10

One of the most intriguing coming-of-age stories in cinema, and this tends to be overlooked, both as a Stephen King story and horror film, in place of the more sensationalized frolic and mayhem of works such as 'The Shining', 'Carrie', 'Misery' and 'The Shawshank Redemption', which is a crying shame, because: a) John Carpenter is probably the finest director (at least Top 3) ever involved with King adaptations; and b) it perfectly conceptualizes, like earlier short experimental films by the likes of Kenneth Anger, the downright uncomfortable sleaziness and fetishism that has existed, mainly in America, between men and their cars.

Keith Gordon does some really fine acting here (as he did previously for Brian De Palma in 'Dressed to Kill') as all possible dynamics along the range from nerd to psycho. It's impressive that, while growing up in film, he obviously learned some of the tricks of the trade from such cinematic greats (at least of American film of the past 50 years) and ended up becoming a decent film helmer himself.

9/10 for me; Grade A Carpenter. It simply isn't top-tier for me, of his oeuvre, because I know he, like Sir Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma and other greats, is capable of cinematic perfection (Halloween, The Thing, etc.).

As with most Carpenter movies, the directing is the clear highlight. Very atmospheric, love how wet and rainy this film is, good variety of shots and the music’s great. I also like this idea of the car being used as a metaphor for teenage rebellion/rock ‘n roll and almost being like a drug to the protagonist, even if the movie ultimately fails to make a profound statement about any of that and reminded me way too much of _Carrie_ in that regard. The horror element is decent, but not mindblowing. It takes a while to even get there, as this movie has a long build that I frankly think could’ve been a lot shorter. Where it falls apart for me though is with its acting and writing. The acting in particular is absolutely atrocious, it’s so stiff and amateurish, and every character is written like a gigantic cliché (yes, a lot of 80’s classics are guilty of that, but this felt like a parody to me). The main arc of the character is also super predictable, and I don’t think Keith Gordon did a good job of playing the transition of his character. He just goes from playing one stereotype to playing another stereotype. So, it doesn’t work as a nuanced drama, and as a horror movie it’s kinda half baked.

4.5/10

As far as I'm concerned "Christine" is probably the most cruelly overlooked John Carpenter film. Maybe I'm just a little biased as I'm a big fan of classic cars and Christine is truly a classic. She's a Plymouth Fury complete with big body, big tail fins, big engine, and even a push-button automatic transmission. My parents had a few late '50s, early '60s Mopars, and I remember their high-speed crusing, tire-smoking personalities.

With that bit of nostalgia stated, Carpenter creates a scary bitch of a monster. Christine is a red, sometimes fiery demon. I love the way the car attacks her victims, plowing over and through everything. Jealous and relentless, she'll have her man and no one will stand in her way.

The special effects of Christine "rebuilding" herself are still very convincing. It's so refreshing...no CGI. The most effective card Carpenter plays is the way he builds the suspense. Christine is practically a cobra ready to strike, you're just not sure when. Carpenter films the car beautifully, especially the sequences when she slowly idles, nearly stalking those she sees as a threat to her man Arnie. And speaking of Arnie, Keith Gordon is too physically wimpy in his transformation into "evil" Arnie, but he sells it with his psychotic dedication to the car.

"Christine" is a movie that I can watch over and over again but I don't think I'd ever want to get behind her wheel.