1922

A rare spectacle, where the template is a melancholic gloomy story from the olden days, where distress leads a man of simple values to a desperate act, after which everything begins to deteriorate – and the adaptation is a melancholic gloomy story from the olden days, when the exact same thing happens. Perhaps the fact that Stephen King's novella is relatively short is to blame for it, but all the unforgettable images that I couldn't get out of my head even after years are here with the same power as on paper. The act, the cow, the trumpet, the visions, the hand, the revelation, and the finale. In both media, this ballad about a Nebraska farm suffers only from the fact that it mainly thrives on atmosphere and, in terms of plot, never quite surprises. (04/04/2021)

1922 is actually a simple story about how a farmer wanted to get rid of his wife, but it all went horribly wrong because she was still capable of causing evil even after death. However, 1922 is not so much based on King's novel, but rather on the performance of Thomas Jane, who shows that he should definitely not be underestimated. (01/27/2018)

Stephen King's adaptations have been on fire this year, and today we have another of his short stories, which didn't knock me on my ass, but is definitely more interesting than the recent and boring Gerald's Game. My favorite Thomas Jane is in the lead role, and for the first time in a while he has a role tailor-made for him, and without him the film would definitely lose its charm. The film is set in the 1920s on a farm somewhere in the middle of nowhere, which makes for an interesting atmosphere, but there were quite a few horror elements for my taste. The intense conspiracy murder in a bed and a couple of scenes with rats definitely stand out, I was expecting a lot more of these but unfortunately they were skimped on, which is a shame because a good horror film with rats would be more memorable. As a horror film it doesn't shine too much, but it does as a mystery drama with solid performances and decent cinematography. The slower pace may be a detriment for some, but I surprisingly wasn't bored. 65% (10/20/2017)

1922 suffers from the syndrome that a number of King's adaptations have. The author uses paranormal and horror elements to deepen the dilemmas and mental states of the characters, to amplify the drama, which otherwise has a "non-horror origin". At its core, 1922 is a hard ballad about guilt and remorse, a drama about a man's love for his son and his country that prevails over love for the mother. Despite the great visuals and good cast, the drama is very lame, it drags on and helps itself powerfully with Thomas Jane's voice-over. In particular, Wilf's conflict with his son is not intense enough that one experiences the subsequent "cellar revelation" as strongly as the director planned. Rats and ghosts simply look more like B-movie props and the conspicuous utterance of something that is otherwise closely tied to the inner core of the main character. As a redneck, Thomas Jane is sufficiently photogenic, but his performance certainly does not have (and cannot have) the parameters of a deeper drama. 1922 stays in its comfort zone, and the same goes for Mike Patton's soundtrack. Solid work, but a marginal result. (10/22/2017)

It’s fascinating how well Thomas Jane rehearsed his role of a total American redneck, including the melodious but barely comprehensible dialect. Really fascinating. Unfortunately, even though it’s based on a short story by Stephen King, which guarantees the quality of the topic, its execution was too gloomy and horribly slow. Given that the film lasts 101 minutes, nothing much happens in it, apart from one explicit scene. Everything else rises and falls with the atmosphere of 1922, and I must admit that’s very authentic. Undoubtedly an interesting piece, which has its pros and cons but is definitely worth watching. Moreover, you can’t miss several references to the legendary The Shining. For Stephen King’s fans, this film is definitely a must-see. (04/16/2020)