King on Screen is an absolute must for any horror lover; more so for Stephen King fans. Whether an avid reader, watcher (or very likely both), you’ll sink hungry teeth into this documentary Pennywise-style. Even if not a follower, you’ll likely know about King’s first novel, Carrie, and the movie Brian de Palma threw viscerally at stunned cinema audiences in 1976, redefining horror in one clawing stroke. The novel was relatively unknown until then; I didn’t read it till the late 80’s, and it was even longer before I saw the film, but I’d wager it was something of a springboard for a sudden onslaught of interest into what else King was capable of.

Since then more than 50 directors have turned their talents to the tales of the Master of Horror (a title well-earned); resulting in excess of 80 films and series, making him pretty much the most adaptive author of our time. King on Screen reunites the filmmakers that have worked their magic with him for cinema and TV, including Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Walking Dead), Tom Holland (The Langoliers, Chucky), Mick Garris (The Stand, Sleepwalkers) and Taylor Hackford (Dolores Claiborne). It’s a homage to King’s dedication to his art, compiled and contributed to with passion and fervour by those who truly appreciate it.

Whether you’re a fan or not, King is so well-known and celebrated within such a wide scope that even those with little or no experience will spot at least a handful of the easter eggs that dot the opening scenes of this fascinating, insightful film. Those in the know won’t miss one, and will be grinning widely within minutes of the start. The balloons spilling out of the lift doors in a crimson flood, encompassing the essence of visual icons from two of his most beloved films? Absolutely PERFECT, and just one example of the deep empathy and passion that runs through every fan’s veins. If you know, you know, but even if you don’t it’s the sort of documentary so well constructed that I’d be willing to bet the curious but as yet uninitiated may seize upon the mood it creates and dare to dangle their feet over the edge of the bed in the midnight hours (metaphorically speaking; though if you’re any sort of sucker for a spooky story you’ll be at least vaguely suspicious of what may lurk there, fangs shining and claws bared and waiting).

One of the things you can rely on with any adaptation of a King story is the way the plot is messed with as little as possible; rarely straying from the original, practical purposes excepted. The castings also are literally picture perfect; I’ve never had the trepidation of wondering if one of my favourite stories will have its spell broken by seeing the film (a gamble if, like me, you usually read the novel before watching the movie). Why mend what’s not broken? If I’m correct, King was supremely pissed off at Kubrick’s version of The Shining; a sterling and cult favourite for many, but straying too far from the original plot was a sore point not only for King, but many who read the book first (including me). It changed the tone of the story for me, making it Kubrick’s work; not really etiquette, and in my opinion well worthy of the writer’s ire. If you have the notion, look up King’s ‘Dollar Babies’; what you’ll discover is a direct result of the bustup with Kubrick, and will please you, if you aren’t already aware of it.

I’ll just say one more time that King on Screen is brilliant and everyone should watch it.