Outrage! Seriously, why didn't this get released theatrically?

I haven't seen the film yet, as I just became aware there even was a film when it showed up on this weeks Netflix as a new release.

That said, I must agree with your key points:

A) This is Stephen King here. Nuff said.
B) The actors involved definitely could have filled some seats.

I was shocked that such a beloved King story had been made into a film, and I am just now finding out about it. Has King's stock went down that far because of all the crappy TV , and some theatrical, versions of his work?





**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone

Just goes to show you that studios don't know what the hell they are doing because they are focusing on clogging the market with remakes and comic book adaptations. Because if this film was made in, say, '94 then it definitely would have been in theaters. Especially with Slater having come off doing his Tarantino (True Romance) and his work with Brad Pitt. But it's tragic that it ended up this way. I watched it this very morning not having heard much about it and I loved it.

Sadly, at the rate studios are going, we'll see the remake in about three years.

I have to assume this is a joke. I found the movie pretty unwatchable, but even if you liked it, I have no idea how you could claim this was "true to King's story." Staying true to the original isn't necessary for an adaptation, but it would have helped in this case since (a) the original has a lot of great flourishes and (b) all of them are completely left out of this film.

But let's look at your individual points:

1 - This film should have been in theaters because of Christian Slater? This movie was released in 2009, so Slater's status in the nineties (which I feel you greatly exaggerate) is no reason to promote this movie. Slater hadn't been in a decent film in over a decade by 2009 (and still hasn't, in my estimation) and was coming off of a terrible, failed TV show (My Own Worst Enemy). Speaking frankly, the fact that he received top bill is probably the reason the movie went straight to video.

2 - Bentley was in American Beauty, but he was the worst actor (and least interesting character) in an ensemble film with award-winning, significantly more talented actors. Much like Slater, Bentley hasn't been in a good film since American Beauty, so it's hard to know how his presence elevates this film.

3 - King may be a "big name writer," but many of his films are downright terrible (and, as a result, go straight-to-video). Hell, just look at the other movies released about the time of this one: the most recent theatrical films he released before this one were 1408 and The Mist, which were disappointing.

Add to all that the fact that this was a film produced by small companies and directed by a guy best known for the Canadian TV show Corner Gas, I think it's easy to see why this film was ignored by studios and viewers.

Seriously, why didn't this get released theatrically?


Because it's cr*p. From the acting, down to the basic camera shots. HS plays have better production value.