Needful Things

I love Stephen King, and I've tried to see as many of the movie adaptations of his books as possible. I haven't read a Stephen King book I didn't like - and Needful Things was the first Stephen King book I ever read, so it has a special spot for me. I think this was a pretty good movie, but could have been better if made into a mini-series and more of the stories in the plot could have been developed more fully. I realize this isn't always possible, but in the case of this movie, so many important plot twists were left out it was kind of hard to recognize the story. I think the casting was pretty good and this is a cute little movie to watch if you have some time to kill. But I definitely recommend that you pick up the book and read it if you want the whole story. You'll be shocked to see how much was left out.

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.

I have never read the King novel 'Needful Things' and so can't compare it with this film one way or the other.

But this film, about a mysterious character who sets up a shop in which local residents find various treasures and are then tricked into perpetrating horrors against their neighbours, is entertaining and contains some good characters and marvelously black comedy. Though there are a few cheesy moments (like that ridiculous model which is supposed to represent a skinned dog), the film is still a winner. Max Von Sydow is good as the literally devilish owner of the Needful Things store and the climax is nicely-done.

"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.