Sun 7 May 2023
A VHS Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: SILVER BULLET (1985).
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Reviews[6] Comments
SILVER BULLET. Paramount Pictures, 1985. Gary Busey, Everett McGill, Corey Haim, Megan Follows, Terry O’Quinn, Lawrence Tierney, Bill Smitrovich. Narrator: Tovah Feldshuh. Screenplay by by Stephen King, based on his novel. Directed by Dan Attias.
This is a quintessentially Stephen King movie. What do I mean by that, exactly? Well, for starters, the official title of the movie is Stephen King’s Silver Bullet. Or so that’s what it says on the VHS box cover. Also, the screenplay is by King, adapted from his novelette, “Cycle of the Werewolf†(1983). The movie is well-entrenched in the horror genre, set in a small town where evil lurks just under the surface, and where kids can be insightful, cruel, and far wiser than adults. Sounds like King to me.
The plot. Evil comes to Tarkers Mills, a small town with the usual coterie of King characters. Here the darkness comes in the form of a judgmental local religious leader, Reverend Lowe (Everett McGill) who – it just so happens – also is a werewolf.
Ultimately, it’s up to wheelchair bound teenager Marty Coslaw (Corey Haim) to both discover Lowe’s dark secret and to convince his skeptical Uncle Red (Gary Busey) that the local minister is a lycanthrope. There’s also a subplot about Marty’s strained relationship with his older sister Jane, who is weary of having to play second fiddle to her paralyzed younger brother.
Look for Lawrence Tierney as a bar owner who joins a vigilante mob that tries to hunt down the serial killer responsible for a number of local gruesome slayings. (Hint: it wasn’t a serial killer). Tierney has an oversized presence in any movie that he’s in, so much so that even though he probably doesn’t have more than forty or fifty words of dialogue, he’s very much a primary character.
Watching on VHS was an experience. It gave the movie that subdued analog feel that seems fitting for a 1980’s King movie. This wasn’t the first time I watched Silver Bullet. I remember watching it when I must have been eleven or twelve. It must have been on HBO. And I was absolutely terrified. Well, I can say I was less scared this time. Time and age has a way of doing that to people. But it’s still a hair-raising experience. Pun intended.
Silver Bullet isn’t really a good movie, per se. But it’s a highly nostalgic one. Both in terms of my own childhood memories and in terms of its content.
May 8th, 2023 at 2:24 pm
That Lawrence Tierney fellow sure got around, didn’t he?
As far as my watching this, Tierney is by far a big plus. But Gary Busey is an even bigger negative, as far as what I’ve ever seen from him on the screen.
Verdict, probably not, but I never say no.
Question: Are the movies for which Stephen Kind did the screenplay better than those for which he didn’t?
May 8th, 2023 at 2:50 pm
Steve,
I ain’t seen too many–so I ain’t no expert. Horror ain’t my genre. But for my money Kubrick’s The Shining is one of the best films ever made (although to me anything by Kubrick qualifies as one of the best films ever made). And King not only didn’t write the screenplay–he disliked the film from veering too far from the novel.
May 8th, 2023 at 6:36 pm
Busey is acceptable in this as in anything I’ve seen him in, and it works fairly well as a sort of family dynamic with werewolf.
There was a handsome comic book adaptation by illustrator Berni Wrightson that is worth a read too.
I like this one quite a bit, it avoids too much gore and the excess of some King books and films and feels more in line with STAND BY ME or SHAWSHANK than CHILDREN OF THE CORN or IT.
It’s Stephen King light, more playful than serious, just a good old fashioned werewolf story with a touch of the Boy Who Cried Wolf and a coming of age tale.
May 11th, 2023 at 7:31 pm
Mea culpa. I’ve read this little novella.
I made the original book purchase because I was curious to see what ‘the Master’ could do with the rather corny theme of lycanthropy. It would have been impressive if he had re-invented that hoary ‘ole standby.
Unfortunately in this case, no. He didn’t “make it his own” –he didn’t “re-brand” it –as he did with so many other supernatural archetypes.
When King is good, he is really good; and when he’s bad …well, I’ll still forgive him.
Sadly, the King is no longer even himself the King anymore. I don’t know where his heart is these days. I reckon he has sold out.
When I see the feeble titles churned out lately –still somehow bearing his name –it’s embarrassing. Fans may swear otherwise but I know this latest string of trash comes …nought from his hand.
But today’s media landscape is now so paltry, that I find myself craving his directness and energy.
Ultimately, ‘Cycle of the Werewolf’ contains remarkably deft graphic pen illustrations and that’s what I still respect about it. Superb.
They are what caught my eye in the first place. But the writing was shallow, and low-end. I was left nonplussed.
Gary Busey: always like him in just about anything. He has a natural, slack-jawed, Fess Parker, “stupid-simple” ease under any lens, which many another actor might crave. Eminently reliable in this. He gives solid support work in probably a dozen films I admire.
Don’t know much about his starring lead-male roles but I can name one comedy where he is utterly hilarious: “Foolin’ Around” with Cloris Leachman and Tony Randall. This traditional, feel-good screwball comedy, I’d recommend to anyone. One single instance of an off-color word. Otherwise, sweet and wholesome and rib-tickling.
Kubrick: yes. Another past-master so transcendent and sublime at what he did that –in almost every case –the bar is still set exactly where he left it. Arguments are still raging about every one of his works.
Okay, he didn’t always charm every single filmgoer every single time. Viewers are quirky and cinema is always subjective.
Still, I never heard a valid complaint from Stephen King re: ‘Shining’ other than that he didn’t like Nicholson’s casting.
Seems mighty small from where I stand. Puny and chivvying and ungrateful. That flick is still m-e-s-m-e-r-i-z-i-ng; still holds up as a complement to King’s novel which was arguably King at his very best. He should be a little more generous, I say.
May 13th, 2023 at 1:54 pm
Another reason king hates the shining is that king accentuated the evil of the hotel and tries to show how external, evil demonic forces corrupted Jack Torrence. Kubrick, on the other hand, doesn’t believe in literal ghosts, demons and haunted houses. For Kubrick, the evil is within. Which is why Kubrick wanted Nicholson for his command of insanity—and king didn’t because of the insanity implied by Nicholson’s mere presence.
May 14th, 2023 at 12:40 am
That’s a very delicate question. I’m glad you raised it.
I had heard that King’s pick for Jack Torrance was Michael Moriarty. I might have liked to see that. I admire Moriarty.
But this does not mean, I go so far as to admit that I support King’s overall formula.
It’s a very tough call but when it comes to a ‘Shining’ adaptation I would probably still lean with Kubrick’s judgment.
It might just have been serendipity –and “director having final say” –but I think Kubrick chose the better motif.
“The Shining” is better with an “evil from within” theme.
Admittedly, Nicholson’s performance for most of the film bears out King’s assessment more s than it does, Kubrick’s faith in Nicholson.
As King says, ‘Nicholson looks crazy right from the start’. That’s kinda true. He does.
But (I say), that is still probably not the fault of Nicholson but more the fault of his crazy madman hairline.
Nicholson is otherwise, so fascinating that –for me –he digs out the ‘harmless nice-guy’ nuances which a Moriarty would have brought.
On the other hand, I don’t know that Moriarty could have carried the rest of what the role demanded, in the way that Nicholson did.
Anyway: a thoughtful topic. Thank ya!