Subscriber temporarily unavailable The number of adaptations of the novels of Stephen our King can envy any modern writer. At the moment, there are about thirty films based on the works of the king of horrors and Hollywood does not even think to stop there. Actually, why not make King a movie, if his name is popular and profitable, and the writer sells the rights to his books for almost one dollar. But most producers and directors naively believe that since they got the book of the eminent author, you can not steam and without much effort to cry over it more or less profitable movie. Naturally, this approach does not work, because much of what is going on in King’s head is difficult to clearly transfer to the screen – hence the large number of passing film adaptations of his novels. Especially bad things are if a novel is taken as a basis, over which even the writer did not particularly try. Yes, we are talking about the mobile phone.
Note: The author uses a mobile phone. Everything is fine with his psyche.
With King, it’s always like this: an unexpected idea comes into his head and needs to be put on paper as soon as it’s fresh. Those are his words, not mine. You'd think I was speaking for a writer. In addition, the King of Horrors admitted that the publisher constantly rushed him to work on “Mobile” – hence the small volume of the book, poorly written characters and a crumpled ending. The film adaptation, on the contrary, in cinemas was in no hurry. Back in 2006, immediately after the release of the novel, Dimension Films bought the rights to it and the production of “Mobile” was launched into production. Here, the project was joined by the losing popularity of John Cusack, who decided to act as a producer, and at the same time the lead actor, and Eli Roth was a director for a long time. Just imagine what an adaptation of one of King's most depressing and bloody books from the creator of "Hostel" and "Fever" might have turned out to be. Alas, Roth chose to work with Tarantino on Inglourious Bastards and it seems that from that moment on Mobile was doomed.
Director Tod Williams, who directed the second part of “Paranormal phenomenon”, banally lacked skill and experience in working on the adaptation of the novel. The ineptitude of the director is visible to the naked eye, and even more striking is the penny budget of the picture. Seriously, the cheapness of production climbs from everywhere: the scenery is monotonous, the makeup is poor, and the special effects are so disgusting. Even the cheapest video game can afford to show explosions more realistically and convincingly than in this film. But a talented director, even in the absence of decent funding, can make a movie fascinating, scary and even cult, as George Romero did in Night of the Living Dead, to whom Stephen King dedicated his novel. It is a pity, but Tod Williams did not manage to skillfully direct even just to distract the viewer from the shortcomings of the picture. On the contrary, it is impossible not to pay attention to numerous flaws, and therefore the phrase of the hero Tom Cruise from Soldiers of Failure compulsively gnaws into thoughts: “Give this cut to the Pseur in the face with all your heart.”
The screenwriter should also get in the face, who, probably, as the source material, got a crumpled, torn and gnawed by mobile psychos. In contrast to the smooth narration of the novel, the script of the picture jumps just seven-mile jumps, and such dynamics instead of drive drive drives the viewer into boredom and bewilderment. The initial scene of the incident lasts less than ten minutes, after which the main character runs somewhere, meets strange fellow travelers, immediately loses them and now turns from a frightened victim into a fearless enemy fighter, with a calm face pressing hundreds of mobile psychopaths behind the wheel of a truck. Although, there is a possibility that everything was fine with the script (King himself had a hand in writing), and the editor ruined everything, mercilessly cutting the film with the footage. One scene replaces the other with some incredible speed, the dialogues are cut in the most inappropriate places, and simple film fools (like, in this frame the hero with glasses, and in the next one is no longer) are full here. And when during the first viewing you begin to pay attention to the film, then the film can already be buried without any honors.
But there are a couple of bright spots in this whole mess. If you’re not a loyal fan of King, you’re likely to be interested in the actors in the lead roles. And they are trying as they can, but idiotic dialogue and clumsy directing cut off any attempts of actors to give a great performance. John Cusack is no longer the age to stand with a boombox over his head under the windows of schoolgirls, but to see him in the movies is always nice. It’s a pity that a good actor is stuck in G movies, but we still remember his best roles in Being John Malkovich or in the same King’s 1408 film adaptation, where he delivered a convincing and frightening one-actor theater. Samuel L. Jackson also appeared there for as much as five seconds, but in "Mobile" he received an equal role with Cusack and the same amount of screen time. As always, cool Sam Jackson may not play anything - he frowned a couple of times, joked a couple of times, and we'll still be happy. And when he begins to quote the Bible involuntarily there are amusing analogies with “Pulp Fiction”. I would also like to note the nineteen-year-old Isabelle Furman, whom many could see in the good horror “Child of Darkness”. The girl is extremely talented and manages to demonstrate almost the most pleasant character in the whole film.
The sad conclusion suggests itself: like the writer himself, who has not released anything worthwhile for a long time, his film adaptations cannot boast of freshness and originality. The upcoming "It" fell into the hands of debutants, and "Dark Tower" with a probability of ninety percent will be a disaster that fans of the writer hated even in the pre-production stage. “Mobile” is banally unlucky: for ten years of production, the picture lost all talented people, and the original theme of the novel from frightening turned into ridiculous. In the end, it all rightly boils down to the favorite book snobs phrase: the book is better. In this case, it is difficult to disagree with this statement.
5 out of 10
Original