1922

My thoughts:

1 - the movie was very similar to the novella which is a great thing.

2 - The actors portraying Wilf and Hank nailed the characters.

3 - No CGI that I could notice. The movie relied on subtlety and didn't try to explain everything detail.

4 - My wife enjoyed it, and she is a tough big to crack.

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.

Based on Stephen King's novella of the same name, 1922 is like Stephen King's own version of Allen Poe's timeless classic THE TELL-TALE HEART story that set around here Wilfred James, a Nebraska farmer with a bitter wife named Arlette and a loyal son named Henry. This hardworking but not-too-successful farmer finds himself under increasing pressure from his wife when she clearly started to express her frustrations living in the country and wants to sell her all of the 100 acres of land that she got inheritably and move to the big city. Through their disagreements, when Arlette threatens to divorce him, taking the son with her, Wilfred plots to murder her and methodically persuades his son to become his partner in crime. This is beautifully done, an effectively slow-burn horror-drama directed by Zak Hilditch and like the way Carla Gugino turned GERALD'S GAME into her own showcase of versatile acting talent, this time almost an unrecognizable Thomas Jane delivered one of his best performances in career, IMO. His deeply sincere & committed performance as an early 1920s manipulative, desperate farmer with a slowly rotten psyche…was not only an absolute treat but surely this year's one the best so far that deserve some recognition in the coming award season.

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.

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.