1922 (2017) User Reviews

The diversity of Thomas Jane

[CountJonnie · 7/10 · 21 May 2018]

Those who know Stephen King, know that horror is only a small part of his writing. The most part is description of characters, relations and development. In this movie adaptation Thomas Jane is a father who convinces his son to help him murder his wife, to save their life and land. Only to discover that this takes a toll on their life, which will slowly crumble down and eat him from the inside.

Thomas Jane works in his 3rd Stephen King adaptation and after a number of movies he turns out to be a very compelling and convincing actor. All the so called action, happens in the beginning, after which it is up to Jane to showcase his ability to perform despair, fear, loss of hope and regret. In such a way, that with only a hint of horror, the movie keeps you on the edge. The fact that you know how it ends, doesn't matter. This only gives more power to the sense of an inevitable downfall.

A decent story, with good cinematography, great acting and a creepy atmosphere thanks to the brilliant music, makes this a must watch for all fans who can appreciate drama in thrillers.

Be sure your sins will find you out

[hi_im_manic · 7/10 · 21 October 2017]

Much like Stephen King's 1408 (a short story from his Everything's Eventual collection), 1922 is another short story that transfers well to the silver screen. 1922 is an American Gothic tale set at a family's comfortable farm in the mid-west. Hundreds of acres of pristine farmland, a thriving crop, a proud father, and blue skies as far as one can see. The husband has plenty to love about life here, except for his ill-contented wife. This idyllic scene becomes the backdrop of husbands conniving treachery, and a thematic string of mishaps and horrors which follow. The sweet life is not so sweet anymore. Thomas Jane churns out a strong and convincing performance not to be missed.

1922: An unexpected gem

[Platypuschow · 7/10 · 25 March 2018]

Despite Stephen King being one of my favorite authors I have to admit I'd never even heard of 1922 let alone read it.

I tend to enjoy Stephen King adaptations, they're not all flawless but many have been outstanding and therefore I do tend to seek them out.

1922 is one of two Stephen King Adaptations released by Netflix in the same year beside the disapointing Geralds Game. It stars Thomas Jane & Neal McDonough set in *Drumroll* 1922. It tells the story of a farmer who with the aid of his 14yr old son decides to kill off his wife to maintain the life he is acustomed to and for financial security.

The movie is dark, gritty and sombre as you would imagine and Jane may well be at a career best here.

If you're expecting horror you will find very little, that simply isn't what 1922 is. If it had to be compared to anything I'd say Edgar Alan Poe's a Telltale Heart would be a good fit.

It doesn't make for the easiest viewing and has elements from Of Mice & Men (That she tell you all you need to know) but regardless it is a powerful piece that managed to entertain even despite my initial concerns.

The Good:

Thomas Jane is excellent

Great narration

Looks fantastic

The Bad:

Not for animal lovers

Difficult viewing

Questionable pacing

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Not that I thought about it at all but he made some weird choices in covering up the murder *Ahem* not that I in anyway put deep thought into getting away with murder

"1922" loses steam in the second half

[javan23 · 7/10 · 23 April 2019]

Amazing performance by Thomas Jane and beautiful cinematography make this a perfect example of style over substance. The second half of the film lost a lot of its grip on me. The story is harrowing but feels underwhemling. Works better as a novella and perhaps should have been made into an 80 minute movie. Still worth a viewing.

Worth A Watch

[theopinionatedindian · 7/10 · 21 October 2017]

Stephen King is considered as one of the best novelists in the horror genre & not without reason. Post the stupendous success of IT, Netflix has delivered another movie based on a Stephen King novella of the same name. The movie stars Thomas Jane & Molly Parker of House of Cards fame who plays Arlette James. The movie set in 1922's rural America is about a family of 3 - Wilfred James(Thomas Jane), his wife Arlette & son Henry. The movie is narrated by Wilfred - a farmer who owns 80 acres of land. His wife Arlette has been bequeathed 100 acres of land by her father. While the wife wants to sell all the land & move to the city, her husband & madly in love teenager son have other plans. Wilfred manages to poison his son's mind & conspires with him to brutally murder his own wife. What happens next forms the crux of the story. The movie starts off a bit slowly but picks up pace soon. The movie gets scarier as story proceeds further. The plot is well scripted & will keep you entertained. The characters are well etched & the screenplay is commendable. It does give you a feel of how America was in the 1920's, when it was yet to become the economic & military superpower that it is today. It does provide you a glimpse of rural America & highlights certain aspects of American rural life, hitherto unseen in any other movie. Special mention needs to be given to Thomas Jane for his performance. The movie does fall short in the spooks department. While it does have its share of scary moments, you are likely to be disappointed with the thrills. But if you are a sucker for horror movies, this one is worth watch.

Atmospheric but slow

[lordonia · 25 October 2017]

The movie is beautifully shot and very evocative of the period and location.

The plot summary tells you up front what happens -- a man kills his wife after coercing his son into helping. Who knows why he couldn't have just done it himself. As expected with a Stephen King story, things go downhill afterwards.

My primary objection is the accent used by Thomas Jane in the lead role. Was it supposed to be ... some kind of Midwest Okie? Others have praised his acting so mine is a minority opinion, but I could never get past it.

The story is narrated by the father, which isn't a device I particularly enjoy in general, plus it makes his weird accent and slowly deliberate way of speaking even more prominent.

Now, this was somewhat of a nice surprise...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 9 June 2018]

I didn't know what to expect from this movie, and I hadn't even heard about it prior to finding it on Netflix. I decided to sit down and watch it solely because of the fact that it had Thomas Jane in the lead role.

The movie has a very nicely constructed storyline, especially since director Zak Hilditch was so adept at letting the story carry itself and build up momentum.

There was some really good acting from an equally nice cast. I will say that Thomas Jane was expertly cast for this role, and he really lived up to the role in every sense. He was very believable and pulled it off quite nicely.

The rats were a fantastic image of Wilfred's guilt gnawing at him and gradually breaking down his psyche. There was a very good atmosphere throughout the entire movie.

The great costumes and make-up also helped the movie along quite nicely.

If I have to put my finger on something here, then I would say that the storyline did suffer from being somewhat predictable though.

Film adaptation of a little-known Stephen King novella

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 25 October 2017]

1922 is the most recent of the many film adaptations of the writings of Stephen King. This one's based on a novella that I hadn't encountered before and is very simple material, slightly stretched out to fill the feature length running time. The story sees a disturbed Thomas Jane playing a farmer in the early 20th century who becomes irritated by his wife's behaviour and constant antagonism, an irritation which finally develops into a full-blown murderous rage.

This low budget story goes for the psychological approach with plenty of depth and psychological intrigue. The cast is small and the performances carefully judged. Jane is unrecognisable as the lead character and probably gives the best performance of his career so far. The events depicted are unsurprisingly gruesome, albeit familiar; I didn't find them frightening in the slightest, although they are ghoulish and interesting.

Just Barely Made it to the End.

[jon-stokes21-539-17875 · 4/10 · 19 January 2018]

1922 is one of those movies you think or hope is going to pick up but never does. At some points it appeared to be building up some momentum but never delivers. At several points during the movie II nearly turned it off but it seemed to hold my attention just enough that I was able to make it to the end

I'm sure many will enjoy this film, it's very different and the Thomas Jane's acting and portrayal of the difficult role of Wilfred James was nothing short of exceptional. But at the end of the day I beleive far more people will find this movie slow and hard to sit through.

Watch it for a once in a lifetime performance by Thomas Jane

[raja_sarkar · 7/10 · 3 February 2018]

I wish the ending was more in accordance to the original Stephen King novella. I also think that somehow the foretelling by Arlette was not depicted as a foretelling, instead it was shown as a highlight whisperer. Nevertheless, the cast gave a solid performance, esp. Thomas Jane. I believe the movie has a low focus on ghostly horror rather than the repentance, misdeeds and escapades. The pace of the movie is bit inconsistent as well. Wish the screenplay and editing was better to make it a flawless supernatural flick. It was almost there..:)

A Rather Bland & Predictable Adaptation

[zkonedog · 5/10 · 6 November 2017]

Whereas the recent "Gerald's Game" was a remarkable adaptation of a Stephen King story, "1922"...wasn't. It isn't horrible, but it trends far too much towards predictable and plodding to be anything near good.

For a basic plot summary, "1922" tells the story of a family of farmers. Wilfred James (Thomas Jane) and his son Henry (Dylan Schmid) are died-in-the-wool farmers. The problem? Wife/mother Arlette (Molly Parker) is not...and she's the one who just inherited a bunch of land (which = money in the 1920s). With Arlette threatening to move to the big city to open a dress shop (and take Henry with her), father and son concoct a plan to stop this from happening. But how far will they go to keep their simple farm life...and what consequences will it bring if they go too far?

At its literary heart, "1922" is a tale of consequences and morality. The problem here, however, is that everything seems so telegraphed that nothing feels unpredictable or exciting. I had read the King story previously, but very long ago and thus I honestly remembered next to nothing. In this adaptation, though, I felt like I knew everything that was going to happen within the first 15- 20 minutes. There are no twists, turns, or surprises...just very straightforward.

So, for an adaptation that seems "right down the middle", I'll give it an equally "right down the middle" grade of five stars out of ten. I could never say "1922" is out-and-out bad, but I'm not recommending it to others, either, due to the blandness and predictability.

1922 review.

[Ben-Hibburd · 8/10 · 20 October 2017]

1922 is a slow, methodical look at guilt and the consequences of moral compromise. Adapted from Stephen King's novella, 1922 is a film that will divide certain audiences. After a summer of successful, suspenseful King adaptations (IT, Gerald's Game), this is almost an anti-king film, it's a film that basks in its atmosphere. It's also a film that's solely focused on its characters rather than plot. Thomas Jane stars as Wilfred James a dedicated ranch owner who conspires with his son Henry (Dylan Schmid) to murder his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) when she starts the process of selling the ranch.

1922 is written and directed by Zak Hiditch. Hiditch and his cinematographer Ben Richardson do a wonderful job of nailing the time period. The film's setting is gorgeous to look at, and the homestead has an almost omnipresent feel to it. It becomes a character in and of itself as the corn fields glisten against the backdrop of beautiful sunsets, whilst hiding darker secrets in the cracks of its foundations. The technical aspects of the film are expertly crafted.

Thomas Jane is fantastic is his role as a somewhat unhinged man filled with rage and regret. Every time he's on-screen he pulls you in with his mesmerising presence. As the film increasingly focuses on him it becomes more of a character study than a thriller/horror film. Whilst I feel this may be divisive, I enjoyed the direction it took. The films eerie, nihilistic tone makes up for the lack of urgency in the script.

1922 is a film that's assured of itself, thankfully being on Netflix the creators don't have to worry about turning this film into a lowest common-denominator jump-fest. Instead it respects its audience and asks them to come along on a journey through the protagonists mind. The only downside with the film is with so much focus given to Jane, the rest of the cast aren't fully developed, and some of their plot threads felt under-developed. However the film does a fantastic job of developing Jane's character which makes up for the short-comings of others. The films attention to detail makes 1922 an effective psychological (horror) film.

secrets will surface no matter what

[abdallahsoliman · 7/10 · 15 August 2018]

Its a movies that shows how greed and stubbornness can ruin not only the person's life but it ruins the lives of everyone related or knows him. Wilfred james is a farmer who lives with his wife arlette and their 14 yrs old son henry he decides one day to take an action that would turn his and his family's life upsidedown just for a financial benefit and drag his son with him to aid him in this act. We see through the movie how this affected him and his son in an unforgiving destiny and how their minds were twisted out of guilt and the fear that the truth would be exposed. Thomas jane performance was amazing 9/10 Molly parker performance was not complete ( as the focus on the protagonist) 6/10 As for dylan schmid in my opinion he portrayed the character maybe much more better than it was written 9/10 Overall the movie is entertaining if you're a fan of the psychological thrillers thats a good one Thanks

Had potential but ultimately quite unengaging and dull

[grantss · 4/10 · 21 April 2019]

Nebraska, 1922. Wilfred and Arlette James and their teenage son Henry move to a farm after Arlette inherits it from her father. After a while Arlette decides to sell it and move to the city, as the farming life is not for her. However, Wilfred is determined to stay, and will kill to ensure that this is the outcome. This reaps a whole lot of unintended consequences.

Based on a Stephen King novella, this movie had heaps of potential. The guilt, the unintended consequences, the paranoia - all these had the potential for a tight, engaging, profound drama. Yet it doesn't deliver, just feeling listless and unimaginative. There's no real engagement, as the main character doesn't really do anything to deserve our support and empathy.

The Henry-Shannon sub-plot did provide some characters to follow but that received too little screen time.

The ending does tie everything together and provides a point to it all, but that point is quite predictable and was already apparent.

Not Perfect

[akshatmahajan · 7/10 · 20 March 2021]

1922 is a type of movie which some viewers will like and some will not. Movie was different and the Thomas Jane's acting and portrayal of the difficult role of Wilfred James was exceptional.

The story goes will in the first half but in second half it appeares to be building up some momentum but never delivers. There was some problem with pacing and editing. Film could have been more short.

Overall, I can say that it was different experience watching this movie. Will not say that I enjoyed it but yes it was a different one.

An HONEST review

[nmalik-99759 · 6/10 · 29 May 2023]

1922 left me somewhat underwhelmed, to be honest. As a viewer, I was hoping for a more entrancing experience.

The film starts off with promise, setting the stage for a dark and haunting tale. However, as it unfolds, I found myself longing for a stronger narrative and clearer direction. The story seemed to meander without a clear sense of purpose, leaving me somewhat perplexed and disconnected.

While the movie had its moments, particularly in terms of atmosphere and period details, it failed to sustain my interest throughout. The pacing felt sluggish at times, and I found myself wishing for more compelling twists and turns to keep me fully engaged.

On a positive note, the performances were commendable, with the actors bringing a certain authenticity to their roles. The cinematography also captured the somber tone effectively, creating a visually striking experience.

In conclusion, while 1922 had its merits, it fell short of delivering a truly captivating and memorable viewing experience for me. While I appreciate its attempt to delve into the psychological depths of its characters, it left me wanting more. Would I watch it a second time? No. Would I recommend you to watch it for the first time? Yes.

not bad

[trashgang · 7/10 · 19 February 2019]

I had this for months in my list on netflix but not realy into King adaptions is what made it wait in that particular list. But after my wife read the book she saif-d, go ahead give it a try.

And I must say, not bad after all. A bit creepy here and there but what made it for me was the accent used and the heat alsmost coming out of your screen. As did winter.

Can't say that it is scary but I really was into the movie from start to the end. Everybody can watch this, a nice surprise.

Gore 0,5/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

There's always another way than murder

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 25 October 2018]

Two members of a corn-farming family in 1922 Nebraska commit a crime and get away with it, but do they really? Thomas Jane and Molly Parker play the parents while Dylan Schmid is on hand as the son, who's about 15.

Released in 2017, "1922" is a haunting crime drama/period piece with elements of horror, unsurprisingly based on a Stephen King story of the same name. The confined farm location, tone and even genre are akin to films like "The Messengers" (2007), "Husk" (2011) and "Signs" (2002). There's also a nod to "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967).

Thomas Jane should've gotten an award for his performance, as he literally disappears in the role and is unrecognizable. His farm hick accent is so thick I strongly recommend using the subtitles.

The themes revolve around disloyalty, the danger of allowing hostility (hatred) to fester, the abuse of authority/manipulation and the power of conscience.

The film runs 1 hour, 42 minutes and was shot, believe it or not, in Western Australia. Additional cast: Kaitlyn Bernard appears as the kid's neighbor girlfriend and Neal McDonough her father.

GRADE: B

Not bad, but only average

[ashleamary · 4/10 · 18 March 2018]

This movie is okay, is very slow up until maybe the last half hour. This whole movie could have been jammed into half an hour... Not worth the watch unless you're in for something not highly entertaining, and are a die hard fan of Stephen King. Being one myself I wasn't a huge fan of this film. I'm sure the book is better if there is one.

Getting ratty

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 21 October 2017]

Adapted from a Stephen King short story, 1922 is a slow burn psychological thriller of a conniving man who once made a wrong decision.

Thomas Jane plays Wilfred James, a poor farmer in Nebraska. His wife named Arlette (Molly Parker) dislikes the farming life and just wants to sell her share of the farm and leave to the city with her son. Her husband can rot for all she cares.

Their son Henry is sweet with the young girl in the neighbouring farm which makes it easy for Wilfred to manipulate his son to do a dastardly deed in killing Arlette.

This despicable act unhinges Wilfred, plunges the family and even his neighbour into a spiral of darkness. Wilfred sees visions of his wife and his house is plagued with rats. His son runs off with his pregnant girlfriend and on to a life of crime.

A fog of doom overhangs them all, Wilfred is slowly being driven insane. The film is well acted by Jane, there are some disturbing scenes with rats. It is essentially a gloomy ghost story.

Had potential but fell flat

[retababyagyare · 4/10 · 1 September 2023]

Started off quite boring yet had potential. Got interesting as time went on. However, I don't know how they managed to make the movie fall so flat and dry.

The whole thing became so boring. I expected more drama from the spirit of the wife yet absolutely nothing!

She appeared and reappeared for absolutely no reason.

For a movie of its genre, they could have put in more effort.

The path the son took and the end was just unimpressive.

They could have done way better but I was dissatisfied and disappointed.

I expected more cuz the story line had great potential.

I gave it a 4/10. Yeah so that's it.

Incredible movie. Gotta read the book ASAP!

[jonathancg-12884 · 9/10 · 22 October 2017]

I loved it from start to end. Thomas Jane gives another excellent performance!

The plot is thrilling and makes you want to keep watching even if it's a slow-paced film. It reminded me a lot of old school horror/suspense films from the 80's. The ones that didn't depend on jump-scares or stupid demonic creatures to make the whole movie.

Don't listen to those few people arguing the film was boring because it was slow. Maybe they're used to jump-scares and serial killers. This is a very simple but deep plot that is worth seeing.

slow but manageable

[ops-52535 · 6/10 · 20 October 2017]

1922 is a bit narrow, but severely tragic family history.there are some gruesome and some funny scenes,a bit slow second half,like it chilled down at the end.though the title is 1922,it doesn't tell much of how living in 1922 was.

what i really liked was the setting of light and picture,which makes it feel like you're in the movie settings. the actors were OK,especially the use of Nebraska dialect. a decent redneck psycho not to horrifying horror movie.

Opposite of "it's a Wonderful Life"

[Opinion02122 · 2/10 · 6 March 2020]

Over 90 minutes of slow, plodding story telling with the theme that one man's actions can ruin the lives of all around him. So boring and depressing, more punishment than entertaining.

Harmless but forgettable

[jtindahouse · 6/10 · 23 October 2017]

Let me start by saying I have not read the novella of '1922' by Stephen King. I am reviewing this purely as a film. How do I feel about it? I'm middle of the road. I neither loved it nor hated it. I found it a pleasant viewing experience (in terms of quality I am of course talking) yet I doubt that it will hold much memory space for me. It's also not a film I would recommend to people. There are better films out there that need to be seen before this. That's not a slight on the film, it's simply a fact.

It certainly feels like a King film. All the usual quirks are there. There have been an abundance of King based works being released lately and they all have that similar feel and atmosphere.

Thomas Jane in the lead role was impressive. I've never really thought of him as an actor with a lot of depth, but he certainly proved me wrong in '1922'. The rest of the cast were also up to a high standard.

There really isn't a lot to say about '1922'. I suspect it would have worked better as a book, with the insights of the characters minds likely being very interesting. Still, it works fine as a film and it certainly isn't harming any body.