Le Bazaar de l'épouvante

"Needful Things" is a typical mediocre Stephen King adaptation. The drawn out book itself isn't among King's best work. Still, the fascination of the story lies in the detail and that had to be trimmed down for a 2 hours-movie version (there is another cut of the movie that's one hour longer, by the way). A lot of things had to be kicked out, but there was way too much changing around of events, items and characters. Ace Merril, a very important character for the novel's big finale, was ignored completely, for instance. I could understand things like that if they improved the movie. Kubrick made a lot of changes with his version of "Shining" and at least one could see why. With "Needful Things" the changes seem totally random and that's rather annoying for someone who has read the book.

If you don't know the story beforehand the movie will probably still seem rushed. You can't really make a connection with the many characters and Sheriff Alan Pangborn finding out what's going on in the town seems unbelievable. It didn't really work in the book, but in the movie it's just stupid that he would draw such far fetched conclusions so quickly.

The acting, on the other hand, is solid. Max von Sydow is a good choice for the part of Leland Gaunt, and Ed Harris is great as ever, although he has to work with a rather mediocre script. The sidecharacters are okay for the most part, even though Polly Chalmers and Wilma Jerzyck are maybe exaggerated.

Unlike a lot of latter King adaptations this one seems to have been made with a decent budget. The locations look good and there are a few nice special effects. At times the explosions and the score can be too much, though. It's as if director Fraser Clarke Heston realized his movie wasn't turning out as exciting as he hoped, so he decided to blow it up with some dramatic music and fire.

Well, as I've said in the headline. This movie could have been a lot better, but it could also have been a complete failure. As it is, it's good for one viewing but if you've read the novel you're going to be disappointed.

Despite the fact that this film is based on yet another Stephen King novel, it is worth watching -- especially for the performance by Max von Sydow as the "old boy himself."

I watched the "director's cut" once on TV that had many scenes in it which were cut from the theatrical version. None of the restored scenes was especially good. It is interesting to note that practically every moment of Max von Sydow's performance is in both versions. He holds the screen with every sly look, every smooth utterance. He is a true joy to watch in this retelling of the Fause legend. It proves what a wonderful actor he is -- he has played Jesus (THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD), Ming the Merciless (FLASH GORDON), and many other parts. Playing the Devil allows him to chew the scenery in grand style.

Critics would always find this too mainstream just on account it's a Stephen King story and it deserved better.

I haven't read the novel, but I'd say the essence of the story and with it all of the various articulations of the morals are carried out well enough to produce an effect on the viewer. However classic the main theme is, "careful what you wish for", selling your soul to the devil for a mere material item (for 30 pieces of silver) etc... it's still developed in a way that is unique enough that it makes for a compelling watch.

Ed Harris (order) vs von Sydow (chaos) in a small town setting, with pretty relevant humor dished out on the side throughout (that guy and the jukebox, the priest and reverend feud, "BUSTER"...), in a good paced highly eventful film with spirit that never feels like it drags on, and with the metaphorical aspects (whether innuendos in the dialogue, or elements in the decor...) depicted with care during all two hours of it, all in all makes for a pretty good deal.

There's just nothing wrong with this movie, really. It's a rare case where critics absolutely blew it. It has a great plot idea, great actors and is generally entertaining as hell, even after having watched it four times or more.

Much of the criticism doesn't make any sense to me. Someone wrote that the town was ugly from the beginning. Well, otherwise it would be way less realistic. Gaunt used the ugly stuff that was already there to destroy the place and it's citizens, that's what Ed Harris' whole soliloquy at the end was all about. Some critics say it's unpleasant and depressing. I just don't see how. Don't watch any movies about say war then, if this is too dark or too ugly for you. What the hell. Personally i laughed a great deal. It's not a master piece by any means, but a good dark comedy. A fun little movie.

"Needful Things" is an adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same name. It is heavily judged by the fans of the book, but for us who didn't read it, this is a pretty good movie. Mysterious older gentleman moves to Castle Rock, King's fictional town in Maine that you can often encounter in his work, and opens some Kind of antique shop, where everyone can find what they desire the most. But the owner isn't interested as much in their money as he wants his customers to do some favors for him. These seemingly small favors, in mutual interaction, threaten to turn this peaceful town into the scene of the local apocalypse.

I can imagine that screenplay probably butchered the original material, but for us who didn't read it, this is quite decent and very imaginative story. There is a variety of interesting and quite well-developed characters, and cast and their performances are probably the strongest quality of this movie. Ed Harris is expectedly good in the role of the local sheriff that saves the day, and Max von Sydow is a perfect mysterious salesman. There's also Amanda Plummer, Honey Bunny from "Pulp Fiction", whose character is one of the most interesting ones and whose clash with Valri Bromfield is, in my opinion, the most powerful scene in the movie. In one of the main roles is Bruce Willis' wife from "Die Hard", sexy Bonnie Bedelia, as well as Duncan Fraser in the role of a priest. Directing and camera have several really good moments, effects are totally decent for their time, and also there are few quite nice slasher/gore scenes. Admittedly, the movie lacks some seriousness and suspense and overall atmosphere seems more like an adaptation of comic-book than a novel. For my taste, it's not a bad thing, although it's hard for me to consider it a horror movie. But to be honest, King essentially isn't a horror writer at all, King is a genre of its own.

7,5/10