fhm-65706

The story Needful Things is my favorite example of Stephen King's genius. What a concept, to begin with. And the movie is very faithful to the novel, which is the best thing about the movie. The cast is superior, the direction is perfect. I'm tempted to decide that my favorite player in Needful Things is Ed Harris, but. Brian Rusk provides a most powerful, very moving performance. I love this movie.

Out of 10 stars... Directing: 4 stars Writing: 3 stars Acting: 5 stars Entertainment: 5 stars

Of the players, there are a few well-known actors (Al Pacino, Carol Kane, Saul Rubinek, Lena Olin, Judd Hirsch, William Sadler, Dylan Baker), and these are very good in their roles, with the possible exception of Baker, whose performance challenges suspension of disbelief. The rest of the actors are not particularly good; though, in their defense, to make bad writing look good cannot be easy.

The first episode is well-written, well-directed, and well-acted, and seemed a promising production. I looked forward to following the series. However, subsequently, the writing seems to logarithmically decline with each episode. It becomes more and more cliched and sophomoric. For instance, the writers are guilty of abuse of profanity, which suggests a lack of fundamental writing skills. I assume they are trying to appeal to a young audience - or maybe in real life they all simply talk that way; that is, badly. That is a shame since the rest of the production needs a more sophisticated language to compliment the visuals (sets, costumes, cinematography, effects) which are quite good, and the story itself, which is an historical melodrama set in many scenes in Nazi death camps; no setting for flippant, careless speech at any point in a such a story.

Mostly, when I say "cliched" I mean that any premise which includes a "Crack Team" is done to death, suggesting a stale, unoriginal idea. At times, the characters say very predictable things. I've already mentioned the unnecessary, unrelenting profanity, of which it presumably seems too many people can't get enough.

A story with as many characters and different historical time settings as this one is difficult to tell without it becoming confusing, and the directors are not up to the task. At times, scenes from the past seem inappropriately placed, to come out of nowhere. The direction is choppy and difficult to follow. And there are bizarre, ill-conceived interjections and music choices, including even a ridiculous dance routine (to the Bee Gees' "Staying Alive", of all things) as well as surreal TV commercials. I get the feeling that the writers and directors wanted to be avant garde but didn't know what they were doing, exposing lack of experience and/or vision or both.

In Hunters' favor, there are Mission Impossible-like sequences which are good action, and there are some unexpected plot twists, which are refreshing.

My verdict for Hunters is that, considering my above words, it's entertaining and worthy enough.