Released: October 20, 2017
Director: Zak Hilditch
Screenplay: Zak Hilditch (based on the novella 1922 by Stephen King)
Cast:
Thomas Jane as Wilfred James
Molly Parker as Arlette James
Dylan Schmid as Henry James
Kaitlyn Bernard as Shannon Cotterie
Neal McDonough as Harlan Cotterie
Brian d'Arcy James as Sheriff Jones
A simple yet proud rancher recounts the dark and twisted events of his life in the year of 1922, including the murder of the wife for financial gain, the deception of his son, and the complete unraveling of his life, home, and sanity thereafter. We've got a whole host of familiar King tropes here, including paranoia as a result of extreme guilt, possible hauntings, and rats. So. Many. Rats.
This is going to be a divisive film among both diehard King fans and the general horror community. We've had a very successful year for King adaptations, on the whole, including much praised It and Gerald's Game, another Netflix project. This film isn't quite like those, relying heavily on atmosphere to the point where it doesn't feel like a King story at all. Not to say that King tales don't create good mood or setting--hell that's part of the reason It works as well as it does--but this is an altogether different kind of atmosphere. It's all about character here. There's little plot and so instead the movie is a slow, methodical look at the idea of guilt and the consequences of a compromised morality.
The James homestead, our primary setting, is richly brought to life by the film's gorgeous cinematography. It becomes a character in and of itself, oozing a sinister, almost omnipresent aura. From a technical standpoint, the film is well crafted and visually satisfying. Thomas Jane is also great as the unhinged good ole boy farmer driven deeper into rage and regret by his actions. His onscreen presence is mesmerizing and we are drawn to him as our focal point not because the script demands it, but because he earns that attention.
The film isn't without shortcomings, though. It's overlong by at least 20 minutes, possibly even an entire half hour. A common critique in recent years is that King's work is too drawn out and the reader loses interest well before the going gets good. It seems that problem can apply to King adaptations as well; while the look and feel of the story are right, the movie dwells too long on uninteresting points and takes its sweet time telling a story that could have been told in half the time. Maybe that's somewhat the point, to emphasize the meandering effects of grief and denial and their slow consumption of this man and his family; but it's just not interesting enough to warrant all that extra time, no matter how strong the acting or how professional executed the cinematography.
1922 is an assured and confident film, and that's always fun to watch. It trusts the audience to follow along on a psychological minefield, but dwells too much on the protagonist and thus fails to develop all of our supporting characters and nurture that oh-so-important emotional connection with the audience. It leaves the entire film feeling a bit underdeveloped, despite the gems it offers in terms of presentation and style.
1922
5-Totally Terrifying
4-Crazy Creepy
3-Fairly Frightening
2-Slightly Scary
1-Hardly Horror
No comments:
Post a Comment