I just watched The Long Walk movie and disliked it more than I thought.
To preface this post, I did read the book before watching the movie and genuinely enjoyed it. I've liked and read other Stephen King books before but most of them were short stories, and this book was one of the few full-length books I've read written by him. That being said, my take is definitely biased since I'm both outwardly and subconsciously comparing the movie to the book, but I still wanted to express my opinions.
Over the past year, I heard a lot of people talking about the movie so I finally decided to watch it tonight, and like the title says, I disliked it. Now, it's nothing like the book (which I don't really mind) but it's just not as compelling of a story as the book.
This may be a weird criticism, but I kinda wish the characters were meaner to each other in the movie (especially McVries). The Long Walk always reminded me of competition between peers who wanted the same goal, but instead of the stakes being deemed a "failure" by society, the stakes are death. For example, in any place where there is academic competition, most people will naturally be civil with each other. And, yes, there will be a couple of people who genuinely want the best for others, but a large portion of people either don't care about what happens in your life, want you to fail, or just want you to do worse than them because most people are either inherently selfish, want to feed their egos, or just simply want to be successful in such a hard world. This is a byproduct of a society that's so cut throat and expecting perfection, which is exactly why I think that it makes sense that the Long Walk follows this formula.
In the Long Walk, you are placed in a world that's survival of the fittest, controlled by the government and "The Major". Most of the Long Walkers are familiar with this, and signed up knowing they were going to die if they lost. When I first read a couple of chapters, I did think that they were a bit mean to each other, but it made more sense when I realized they were teenagers (already hormonal messes) who understood that, in order to win, they have to surpass everyone and there is no such thing as making "friends" when they're going to have to die. However, much like in places brimming with academic competition, they were still civil to each other and still don't lose their humanity because it's in their human nature. That's why scenes like the watermelon scene (where they split the watermelon they get from the vendor and share it all around) and when they tried to overtake/shoot the soldiers, were so impactful because it proves that they still held onto their humanity despite being exhausted and knowing it went against their "survival of the fittest" mentality. Plus, it made every time either Garraty or McVries save each other more impactful because they were choosing each other despite their agreements of not saving each other or being "musketeers". Additionally, I thought they would naturally get more agitated as the movie goes on because of how exhausted they are (kinda like the book), but it seemed like they got more talkative/upbeat which I found strange.
This is a smaller criticism but I kinda wish they tried to show more of how much the walkers suffered throughout the walk (especially Garraty and McVries). It's pretty clear in the book how much they went through, and I did think the movie did a really good job of showing how gruesome everything was, but I feel like they could've showed more. I wish they showed Garraty and McVries getting cramps or also screaming out in agony (like some of the other walkers in the film) cause by the time I got to the end of the film (even though they were both drenched in rain), it didn't seem like they suffered as much as the others despite the blood and dirt on their clothes. Strangely enough, I also wish they complained more, so it seemed more realistic that they walked for so long nonstop, and they struggled more to speak to each other, overtime.
If I'm going to get really nitpicky, I also disliked how much they focused on Garraty and McVries because it took away from the development of other characters (like Stebbins, Garraty's gf, and others), but I understand that they can't fit every single character into a movie that's not even 2 hours. However, from a movie standpoint, I still think that would've made a more captivating story as opposed to focusing on Garraty and McVries the whole time.
Overall, the movie was okay, but I wished it was just as compelling as the book (even if they both don't go in the same direction). I just thought the movie could've done so much more even with the changed concept/ending and could've been much more impactful.
I was also pretty shocked to find out about how many people liked the film, and even heard of some people liking the movie more than the book, which surprises me since I think the book is definitely written better, compared to the movie. Anyways, I just wanted to post my thoughts about the film/book, and everything is fully my opinion + biased so take it all with a grain of salt!
