Over nearly five decades, adaptations of Stephen King‘s fiction have filled cinemas, but only seven Stephen King movie adaptations written by himself actually made it to the big screen. Of these select projects, just two have gained widespread respect and lasting recognition, while the rest fell short in execution or critical reception.
Stephen King’s Hands-On Adaptations Began with Strong Entries
Stephen King is one of the most frequently adapted authors, with 54 of his stories turned into feature films. Yet he has been quite discriminating about creating his own screenplays, writing scripts for only seven of them. Despite his reputation as the “master of literary horror,” King has a relatively modest list of screenplay credits, and his experiences with directly handling adaptations of his own material have yielded very mixed results.
Among King’s creative forays outside of direct adaptation, he notably penned the script for Michael Jackson’s eccentric short film “Ghosts,” under the direction of special effects legend Stan Winston. He’s also participated in television, scripting teleplays for adaptations such as “Desperation” and the television miniseries “The Stand.” In 1992, King wrote the original screenplay for “Sleepwalkers,” a standalone feature directed by regular collaborator Mick Garris. However, only seven films are based on stories King created and subsequently adapted to screen himself—one celebrated horror classic, a second praised fright feature, and five others that disappointed audiences or critics.
Only Two Stephen King-Penned Films Have Achieved Enduring Acclaim
King’s start as a screenwriter was notably strong. In 1982, he partnered with legendary horror filmmaker George Romero to create “Creepshow,” an anthology designed as an homage to classic EC horror comics. Of the film‘s five chilling segments, two were based on King’s existing short stories, specifically “Weeds” and “The Crate.” King even appeared as the hapless Jordy Verrill in
“The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill,”
although some felt his performance was less successful than the source material deserved.
The partnership resulted in box office success: “Creepshow” grossed $21 million against an $8 million budget. Critical reaction was slightly positive, with even noted genre skeptic Roger Ebert giving the film three stars. Over time, “Creepshow” has grown into a cult favorite, inspiring two theatrical sequels and a Shudder streaming series. Today, it stands out among King adaptations for delivering both commercial results and lasting fan appreciation.
King’s 1989 adaptation of “Pet Sematary,” a film based on a book he initially hesitated to publish because of its disturbing content, came out to far less favorable critical notice. Reviewers, including Gene Siskel, condemned it as “sickening,” but horror fans propelled the film to $57 million at the box office. While it drew criticism for veering into standard slasher territory in its final act, “Pet Sematary” has since been viewed more generously by horror audiences, often ranked among the stronger King adaptations.
King’s Screenwriting Falters with Less Collaboration
One explanation for King’s inconsistent results is the quality of his collaborators. The success of “Creepshow” likely stemmed from Romero’s direction and the anthology format borrowing from shorter, punchier stories. In contrast, King’s later adaptation efforts lacked similarly accomplished horror collaborators, which hurt the cohesiveness and impact of those films.
“Cat’s Eye,” released in the same year as “Silver Bullet,” illustrates the problem. Unlike “Creepshow,” it suffered from a lack of unified vision, and while some critics appreciated it—Roger Ebert, an avowed King fan, again awarded three stars—the film failed to achieve cult status or maintain long-term favorability.
“Silver Bullet,” adapted from King’s novella “Cycle of the Werewolf,” suffered further setbacks. Original co-writer and director Don Coscarelli, known for “Phantasm,” was removed from the project by producer Dino De Laurentiis. King, under significant time pressure, had to quickly provide a new script. Some believe that if Coscarelli had stayed on, the film might have achieved a standing akin to Romero’s work, but instead, it has faded in the King canon.
Other projects similarly stumbled. The path to adapting King’s zombie-themed novel “Cell” was turbulent, with director Eli Roth initially attached but ultimately unavailable. The final film, co-written with Adam Alleca, arrived with a limited theatrical release, bringing in just $1 million, and critics dismissed it as lackluster and directionless.
“A Good Marriage,” another King-scripted adaptation, was also relegated to a limited release before hitting home video. Featuring talented actors Joan Allen and Anthony LaPaglia, and inspired by the notorious real-life criminal Dennis Rader (known as the BTK Killer), the film presented a dark premise. However, reviewers found the directing uninspired and noted that the characters‘ dialogue felt stilted and unconvincing, suggesting that King’s distinct narrative voice does not always translate into compelling screen conversation.
Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel both played a part as critics evaluating these films, with Siskel particularly harsh about “Pet Sematary.” Joan Allen and Anthony LaPaglia did their best to work with the material in “A Good Marriage,” yet were consistently undercut by dialogue that did not ring true for adult characters. The stylized speech patterns that King uses in his novels may work well in the hands of screenwriters who adapt and filter his dialogue, but in his own scripts, the effect can often be jarring or artificial.
Looking at the numbers, the performance gaps are evident. “Creepshow” earned $21 million, “Cat’s Eye” drew $13.1 million, and “Silver Bullet” managed $12.4 million. “Maximum Overdrive,” King’s lone attempt at directing, grossed only $7.4 million, while “Pet Sematary” emerged as the outlier, generating $57.5 million. Both “A Good Marriage” and “Cell” saw only limited releases, with minimal box office response.
King’s Writing Process Challenges the Demands of Film
Over the years, King has openly discussed his characteristic approach to writing, explaining that he never outlines his stories and instead drafts them without a firm plan. This improvisational method—suitable for novels, where sprawling narratives and the weaving of ideas are accepted—often clashes with the tighter structures required for impactful movies. Films demand well-shaped plots and sharply-defined character arcs, which are not King’s usual strengths.
Experienced screenwriters who adapt King’s novels often excel at distilling complex, layered narratives and translating them into the tighter three-act structures familiar to moviegoers. When left to his own devices, King’s scripts tend to lose focus, spinning out too many ideas or delivering uneven pacing that can be frustrating in a cinematic context. King’s storytelling skills work best in their original, expanded form or when guided by others who know how to refine and reshape his work for the screen.
King’s Directorial Experiment: “Maximum Overdrive” Missed the Mark
King stepped behind the camera only once in his career, choosing not just to adapt his short story “Trucks” but also to direct the film adaptation, “Maximum Overdrive.” The story centers on a group of people trapped at a truck stop, besieged by vehicles that inexplicably come to life with homicidal intent. King tried to craft an action-packed horror movie from a minimal premise, resulting in a production marked by wild energy but ultimately lacking in quality.
Upon its release, critics lambasted “Maximum Overdrive,” and audiences were similarly unenthused; the film earned just $7.4 million against a $9 million budget. In a candid interview, King revealed the personal struggles that impacted the film’s production:
“I went into it, and the thing is, at that time, I was doing a lot of cocaine and I was drinking a lot. You can tell! But, the thing is, man, I thought I knew how to make movies, and I realized if I did that again, I learned so much making Maximum Overdrive, it was like this intensive seminar.”
—Stephen King, Author/Director
Despite its failings, “Maximum Overdrive” has developed a reputation for its over-the-top style and unintentional humor. It has become a cult oddity among King fans rather than a respected horror achievement.
The Possibility of Redemption: King’s Adaptations Keep Evolving
Stephen King’s legacy as a writer endures, and the stream of adaptations from his extensive bibliography continues to flow. His son, Joe Hill, himself a successful author, has even discussed the idea of remaking “Maximum Overdrive,” updating the story for the age of smart technology and artificial intelligence. Such a remake could offer a fresh take, possibly surpassing the original’s reputation given its broad room for improvement.
While King’s talents as a novelist are unquestionable, his direct involvement in adapting his own material to film has produced only two lasting successes: “Creepshow” and “Pet Sematary.” These films managed to capture the fear, wit, and style that define King’s books, largely thanks to strong directorial collaboration and the inherent strengths of the stories themselves. With most of King’s self-adapted screenplays failing to make a significant impact, it’s evident that the most memorable Stephen King movie adaptations written by himself remain the exceptions rather than the rule.
