1922 movie review

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, black writers week.

Now streaming on:

2017 has truly been the year of Stephen King , but the last in a long line of films and TV shows is, in some ways, the most surprising. A remake of “ It ” was inevitable, even if no one expected it to be the box office behemoth it became. “ The Dark Tower ” was in some state of pre-production for years, and Mike Flanagan personally brought his vision for “Gerald’s Game” to the big/small screen of Netflix. On TV, “ The Mist ” felt like an obvious choice in a post-“The Walking Dead” world (and was truly awful) while the bestselling success of “Mr. Mercedes” made that TV adaptation inevitable. Which brings us to “1922,” a 131-page novella contained in King’s 2010 anthology Full Dark, No Stars . It’s a decent piece of work, but not one that screams feature film, and the relative thinness of the source material hurts Zak Hilditch ’s film of the same name.

With leathered skin from working in the fields and a remarkable Southern drawl, Thomas Jane plays Wilfred James, a Nebraska farmer with a bitter wife named Arlette ( Molly Parker ) and a loyal son named Henry ( Dylan Schmid ). Arlette clearly dislikes life in the country and wants to sell her half of the farm to a local livestock company, but you can literally see Wilf’s skin crawl when his wife dares mention moving to the city. That’s for the dumb people, and the James family isn’t dumb.

Wilf commits his first despicable act when he weaponizes his son’s first love. Henry has fallen for a neighbor girl named Shannon Cotterie (Kaitlyn Bernard), and moving to the city will tear these young lovers apart. For reasons that aren’t completely captured in a believable way, Wilfred decides that the only way to make this dilemma go away is for Arlette to die, and he convinces his son to help him. “1922” is told primarily in flashback, as a clearly-troubled Wilfred has come to a hotel room like the protagonist of Edgar Allen Poe’s The Tell-tale Heart , haunted by demons he himself created. So there’s a sense that we’re being told a story from an unreliable narrator, although not quite enough is made of that cinematically. No, for the most part, “1922” draws a straight line down a hill from a violent act to complete insanity, a not uncommon theme for King, who has long been fascinated by what happens when men choose murder over reason.

There is a very fine line between a film that burns slowly and one that just drags, and “1922” falls into the latter category a few too many times. The fact is that it’s quite difficult to make a film about a man who may be going insane because you have to physically manifest what may just be the visions of a guilty man’s conscience. To his credit, Thomas Jane does a marvelous job of conveying what’s asked of him by material and filmmaker. At first, his slow drawl seemed a bit overdone, but the character work here is strong, especially as Wilf goes deeper and deeper over the edge of sanity. The problem is how little there is of interest here outside of Jane’s work, which is again indicative of the issues with bringing a confessional novella to feature film form. The film isn't visually striking enough, the dialogue isn't memorable, and the message of the film is the relatively straightforward horror classic: don't kill people.

Some of the imagery contained in the final half-hour of “1922” nearly justifies the journey to get there, I just couldn’t help thinking that there’s a tighter, more thrilling version of this story that runs much shorter, like an hour-long anthology horror series. Ultimately, it’s the familiar case of a short story stretched too thin in a feature film, resulting in what will likely be the least-remembered project from 2017: The Year of King. Well, except for that “The Mist” nonsense.

Brian Tallerico

Brian Tallerico is the Managing Editor of RogerEbert.com, and also covers television, film, Blu-ray, and video games. He is also a writer for Vulture, The Playlist, The New York Times, and GQ, and the President of the Chicago Film Critics Association.

Now playing

Sarah-Tai Black

Fancy Dance

Jourdain searles.

Banel & Adama

Glenn kenny.

Hummingbirds

Travis hopson.

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person

Rendy jones, film credits.

1922 (2017)

101 minutes

Thomas Jane as Wilfred James

Neal McDonough as Harlan Cotterie

Molly Parker as Arlette James

Brian d'Arcy James as Sheriff Jones

Dylan Schmid as Henry James

Zak Hilditch

Writer (short story)

Stephen King

Cinematographer

Ben Richardson
Merlin Eden
Mike Patton

Latest blog posts

KVIFF: Loveable, Tiny Lights, Windless

The Forrest Gump Soundtrack Hits Different in the Spotify Era

The Man Behind the Curtain: Robert Towne (1934-2024)

Female Filmmakers In Focus: Agnieszka Holland

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

What's the Tomatometer®?
Login/signup

Movies in theaters

Opening this week
Top box office
Coming soon to theaters
Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

Fandango at Home
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

A Quiet Place: Day One Link to A Quiet Place: Day One
MaXXXine Link to MaXXXine
Kill Link to Kill

New TV Tonight

Star Trek: Prodigy: Season 2
Grace: Season 4
Down in the Valley: Season 1
The Great Food Truck Race: Season 17
SPRINT: Season 1

1922 Reviews

The performances are great from top-to-bottom...this was a movie that probably should have been on the big screen.

Full Review | Mar 24, 2023

1922 is a new type of Stephen King movie, executed with as much artistic inventiveness as passionate faithfulness.

Full Review | Mar 10, 2023

1922 is an effective, chilling bit of work that boasts a revelatory lead performance and a compelling, gradual erosion of a man's psyche.

Ultimately, 1922 is not an earth-shattering film, but it’s a solid, well-crafted story featuring strong performances and a few moments of ick that will get under viewers’ skin.

Full Review | Jan 30, 2023

“1922” is a movie that gets under your skin. It maintains a menacing vibe from start to finish without ever relying on overused gimmicks or formulas.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Aug 24, 2022

1922 unsettles more than it scares and seeks to be a slow-burner, which is refreshing but it is marred by the tedious pace. '1922' is also too character-driven for its own good.

Full Review | Mar 9, 2021

For those King fans who know nothing is more horrifying than the horrors of man, 1922 delivers a mix between There Will Be Blood and Edgar Allen Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart, featuring Jane at his darkest and most disturbing.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Apr 22, 2020

1922 is easily the finest Stephen King film this year, and among the finest in recent memory.

Full Review | Apr 22, 2020

For fans of King, ghost stories, and small-scale cinema, 1922 is a real gem.

Full Review | Original Score: 8/10 | Dec 9, 2019

Almost unanimous praise aside, I will say that 1922's final chapter does run a tad too long...but what it does capitalize on is the root and themes of King's best works.

Full Review | Sep 10, 2019

1922 works well as a physical representation of the guilt that consumes the protagonist. [Full Review in Portuguese]

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Sep 3, 2019

The premise of 1922 isn't as instantly catchy as Gerald's Game or as flashy as It, but the adaptation is successful - I could hear Stephen King's voice coming through loud and clear.

Full Review | Aug 26, 2019

In cinemas, it might have been overshadowed by flashier rivals, but perhaps, on demand, this slow, but winningly bleak little tale will find the audience it deserves.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Aug 26, 2019

It is a tale of human guilt, divine consequence, and good old fashioned King-ly horror, with a performance by Thomas Jane that only solidifies his standing as a leading actor who Hollywood continues to underappreciate.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Aug 26, 2019

1922 is a compelling and gripping look at murder, the act and the aftermath, and its simplicity helps propel it in to one of the most sophisticated Stephen King cinematic adaptations.

It's a cheeseburger that knows it's a cheeseburger, and it's a blast.

Full Review | Aug 23, 2019

Its suspense treatment and simple and clear proposal deserve all the attention. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Aug 7, 2019

It's what comes after that killing that leads into 70 additional minutes of horror and misfortune for the James family.

Full Review | Aug 26, 2018

[If] you're looking for something engaging or haunting, 1922 is about as barren as Wilfred's fallow fields.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Jan 24, 2018

It may not be particularly original, but the details are well-realized, and the film moves along at a brisk pace. A minor King adaptation, perhaps, but a good one.

Full Review | Jan 24, 2018

an image, when javascript is unavailable

Film Review: Stephen King’s ‘1922’

A largely satisfying adaptation of Stephen King's novella about unappeasable guilt triggered by the mortal sin of murder.

By Joe Leydon

Film Critic

‘Heart Strings’ Review: Schmaltzy Musical Drama About a Rigged Reality Show Is Pleasant but Predictable 4 days ago
‘Kalki 2898 AD’ Review: Lavish Tollywood Sci-Fi Epic Is an Unabashedly Derivative Spectacle 6 days ago
‘Ride’ Review: A Texas Rodeo Family Turns to Crime to Fund a Young Girl’s Cancer Treatment 3 weeks ago

'1922' Review: Netflix Takes a Stab at Stephen King

Every generation gets its own version of “The Tell-Tale Heart,” but “1922” — writer-director Zak Hilditch’s workmanlike adaptation of the novella by Stephen King — almost certainly is the first iteration of Edgar Allen Poe’s classic story to include voracious rodents, hapless cows and a Bonnie and Clyde-like pair of young bank robbers.

Hilditch deserves credit for generating and sustaining suspense throughout a slow-burning drama that is more fatalistically tragic than traditionally horrific, and for delivering the goods when old-fashioned shocks are called for. In fact, it’s no small measure of the movie’s overall effectiveness that one can easily overlook, if not unreservedly forgive, a few fleeting moments when vermin balanced on their hind legs are only marginally scarier than the rodent gourmet in “Ratatouille.”

Right from the start, we know things aren’t going to turn out well for Wilfred James ( Thomas Jane ), a haggard and haunted fellow who checks into an inelegant Omaha hotel and proceeds to describe, in frantic scribblings and raspy narration, terrible events that occurred a few years earlier. In 1922, Wilfred is a hardworking but none-too-successful Nebraska farmer who finds himself under increasing pressure from Arlette (Molly Parker), his discontented wife, to sell their spread — or at least the 100 acres she brought to the marriage — and move to the big city. But Wilfred is loath to uproot (“Cities,” he claims with unshakable conviction, “are for fools!”), and his irascibility is amped when Arlette indicates that her Plan B involves divorce, a forced sale of the farm and her claiming sole custody of Henry (Dylan Schmid), their 14-year-old son.

Popular on Variety

The actual killing of Arlette is rendered with a blunt-force savagery that underscores what emerges as the underlying theme of “1922” — murder is not merely a terrible crime, but an unforgivable mortal sin that will forever curse its perpetrators. (Ironically, Wilfred chooses to stab his sleeping wife, and slit her throat, because smothering her with a pillow might be “too painful.”) In developing this idea, Hilditch takes his cue from King’s novella and neatly balances standard-issue horror-movie tropes (Wilfred is periodically visited by Arlette’s rotting corpse and real or imagined hungry rats) with subtler and more discomforting scenes illustrating unappeasable guilt, mournful regret and resigned acceptance of damnation.

While Wilfred copes with psychological and physical pain (one of the very real rats bites his hand, with predictably awful results) in snowbound isolation, Henry runs off with the pregnant Shannon and launches a crime spree that suggests a grim determination that, after you help kill your mother, you’re irredeemably unmoored from petty concerns about right and wrong.

“1922” has a smattering of darkly comical moments, most notably a shocking-funny scene in which one of the aforementioned cows is used to hide Arlette’s corpse. Unfortunately, there are a few unintentionally comical moments as well, most of them (though not all) featuring trained rats that are supposed to be terrifying. Hilditch doesn’t use the cruel final twist of King’s novel, which arguably is an audience-friendly act of mercy. But what he offers in its place is something that would have been more appropriate for the seriocomic King-scripted “Creepshow.”

Still, “1922” — one of two King adaptations (along with “Gerald’s Game”) having its world premiere at Fantastic Fest this year — is strong enough to bear the weight of occasional miscalculations.

Jane persuasively devolves into madness, or something like it, as the hidebound and rawboned Wilfred, while Schmid and Bernard are aptly sympathetic in their supporting roles. Parker adds a sprinkling of playful sauciness to her otherwise tightly wound portrayal of Arlette, and McDonough works emotionally impactful wonders while underplaying Harlan’s final confrontation with Jane. Better still, the period detail is unassumingly impressive in this Netflix production, which uses Vancouver locations as reasonable substitutes for urban and rural Nebraska.

Reviewed at Fantastic Fest, Austin, Sept. 23, 2007. Running time: 101 MIN.

Production: A Netflix release and presentation of a Campfire production. Producer: Ross Dinerstein. Executive producers: Ian Bricke, Jamie Goehring, Samantha Housman, Kevin Leeson, Shawn Williamson.
Crew: Director, screenplay: Zak Hilditch, based on the novella by Stephen King. Camera (color): Ben Richardson. Editor: Merlin Eden. Music: Mike Patton.
With: Thomas Jane, Molly Parker, Dylan Schmid, Kaitlyn Bernard, Brian d’Arcy, Neal McDonough.

More from Variety

Former netflix execs fiona lamptey, bec mortimer, amber taylor and vinnie shergill launch new u.k. venture juno studios (exclusive), movies are dead wait, they’re back the delusional phase of hollywood’s frantic summer, joey chestnut vs. kobayashi hot dog-eating contest set by netflix after nathan’s bans the 16-time champ, netflix top 10: jessica alba’s ‘trigger warning’ is the most-watched title of the week, ‘bridgerton’ leads tv titles, how roblox is facilitating animated films’ domination of 2024 box office, ‘soul mate’ gay romance between korean and japanese men, set at netflix, more from our brands, the men who filmed ‘hawk tuah’ think they should be famous, too, wagyu steak, candy rooms and private clubs: inside the hidden world of vip perks at nba arenas, patrick bertoletti wins nathan’s annual hot dog eating contest, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, nathan’s famous hot dog eating contest: who won the annual fourth of july binge-a-thon (watch video), verify it's you, please log in.

1922 (2017)

User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

User Ratings
External Reviews
Metacritic Reviews
Full Cast and Crew
Release Dates
Official Sites
Company Credits
Filming & Production
Technical Specs
Plot Summary
Plot Keywords
Parents Guide

Did You Know?

Crazy Credits
Alternate Versions
Connections
Soundtracks

Photo & Video

Photo Gallery
Trailers and Videos

‘1922’ Review: ‘The Shining’ Meets ‘The Tell-Tale Heart’ in the Year’s Most Impressive Stephen King Adaptation — Fantastic Fest

Share on Facebook
Share to Flipboard
Share on LinkedIn
Show more sharing options
Submit to Reddit
Post to Tumblr
Print This Page
Share on WhatsApp

The Netflix-produced “ 1922 ” has jolts of violence and sweeping period details, but in a year overrun with Stephen King adaptations, it’s also the simplest of them: “It” features a ludicrous shapeshifting clown, “The Dark Tower” is an inter-dimensional sci-fi western fantasy, and “Gerald’s Game” has kinky sex gone wrong and a giant goal. In “1922,” a guy kills his wife and feels guilty about it. That’s the gist of its premise, and while nothing groundbreaking, the story mines a degree of profundity out of the traditional supernatural thriller tropes at its core.

As directed by Zak Hilditch (whose 2013 debut “These Final Hours” was an expressionistic apocalyptic tale), “1922” (originally a King short story) has the merits of a solid “Tales From the Crypt” or “Masters of Horror” episode, with a straightforward story that folds the delicate visual language of a rural Terrence Malick drama into the mold of existential horror. The result suggests what might happen if Malick took at stab at “The Tell-Tale Heart,” with a mentally disturbed male protagonist straight out of King’s “The Shining.” So while not the most original or surprising King story, it hits a lot of the right notes.

Related Stories ‘Kill’ Review: Indian Bandits Pick the Wrong Train to Rob in One of the Best Pure Action Movies Since ‘The Raid’ ‘Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F’ Review: Eddie Murphy Shines in a Netflix Sequel That Gets the Job Done

The bulk of the movie’s appeal, however, comes from Thomas Jane , delivering his most effective performance in ages. He plays tortured would-be lunatic Wilfred James, who lords over 80 acres of Nebraska farmland that his family has owned for generations. Within five minutes, a disheveled Wilfred establishes in voiceover that he’s confessing a crime, and by 10 minutes, it’s clear what he’s done. When Wilfred’s wife Arlette (Molly Parker) suggests they split the land and get divorced so she can raise their teen son Henry (Dylan Schmid) in the city, he goads the young man into a scheme to kill the woman so the two of them can stay put.

This premise takes shape against the startlingly beautiful backdrop of vivid green cornfields and sunny open country, captured by cinematographer Ben Richardson (“Beasts of the Southern Wild”) as if every shot were modeled on another setup from “Days of Heaven.” There’s a deep yearning to these early scenes indicative of the unreliable narrator’s utopian ideals.

Hilditch’s screenplay stays within Wilfred’s understanding of his family’s traditions, and as he establishes that comfortable world before it falls apart, his wife and son pose for the camera as if trapped in the confines of an American Gothic knockoff. That’s basically the crux of their conundrum: Wilfred’s so committed to maintaining his remote country life he’s willing to entrap his closest relatives in his scheme to keep things that way.

It doesn’t take long for Wilfred to advance his plans, and before long, Arlette’s dead in a messy, blood-soaked murder scene that Wilfred and his terrified son must cover up. Even as they do, Wilfred’s conscience slowly gets the best of him, especially once his son vanishes and the older man’s left on his own to contemplate his guilt. While a handful of characters come and go, the movie ultimately settles into a showcase for Jane, who spends much of the running time looking mortified in extreme close-up as supernatural forces swarm in.

With Hilditch shifting between the cramped hotel room where the character scrawls his confession and the crumbling wooden farmhouse, “1922” becomes a study in pure psychological dread. The warm imagery gives way to snowy landscapes, creaky floorboards, a sea of rats bursting from the ground, a slow-moving corpse caked in dirt. Wilfred’s losing his mind, and we’re right there with him.

Despite the setting, this is a pretty familiar routine, one that suggests the poor man’s “The Shining” in more ways than one. Yet again, a desperate middle-aged man goes insane at the hand of his own extreme desires, and it’s a given that he’ll never escape unscathed. Even so, “1922” manages to unearth the poetry of that formulaic trajectory. “In the end, we all get caught,” Wilfred sighs, and the movie amplifies what it means to experience that inevitability as a chilling slow-burn descent. It doesn’t take any shocking new twists, but musters just enough fresh polish to a classic scenario to make it worth one more ride.

“1922” premiered at the 2017 edition of Fantastic Fest. Netflix releases it on October 29.

Most Popular

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘1922’: film review | fantastic fest 2017.

The year's third Stephen King adaptation, '1922,' follows a farmer (Thomas Jane) plagued by guilt after murdering his wife.

By THR Staff

Share on Facebook
Share to Flipboard
Send an Email
Show additional share options
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr
Share on Whats App
Print the Article
Post a Comment

In this, the Year of Our King 2017, filmmakers have turned en masse to the back catalog of America’s most prolific best-seller. Two much-hyped Stephen King adaptations came this summer, while two under-the-radar ones debut this week at Fantastic Fest; and in October, the author’s influence will surely be felt in the second season of Stranger Things . Who knows what the holidays might hold, but in Zak Hilditch’s 1922 , based on the short story of the same name, we get one of the author’s most stripped-down works. The pulpy period piece, Poe-like in its focus on gnawing guilt, should rank in the high middle when scholars of King cinema judge it against other adaptations; casual moviegoers, though, may feel it a bit slight — not quite well-developed enough as a straight fiction, not quite scary enough to scratch the genre itch.

THR Newsletters

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Penn badgley, brittany snow have “gotten no call” for ‘john tucker must die’ sequel reportedly in the works, ‘despicable me 4’ director on spoofing superheroes, gentleminions and those crowd-pleasing cameos, ‘cabo negro’ review: a wispy, morocco-set tale of youth, sex and boredom, box office: ‘despicable me 4’ heads for sparkly $120m july 4 opening, ‘inside out 2’ crosses $500m in u.s., daniel brühl on his role in hbo’s ‘the franchise,’ a horror movie idea, and embracing his midlife crisis, lego unveils ‘jaws’ set timed for summer season.

Screen Rant

1922 review.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

New Lord Of The Rings Movie Image Reveals Middle-earth Princess Who Leads Resistance Against Rohan's Enemies

Why warcraft 2 never happened, the $439 million fantasy movie adaptation 2x as big as dungeons & dragons: honor among thieves is now trending on netflix, 1922 is a fascinating exploration of what guilt does to a man, fueled by a strong lead performance from jane and compelling direction..

In the year 1922, proud farmer Wilfred James (Thomas Jane) and his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) inherit 100 acres of land in Hemingford Home, Nebraska. Wilfred sees this as a golden opportunity to increase the size of his property, envisioning a scenario in which he adds the 100 acres to his 80-acre freehold farm that he one day will pass to his son, Henry (Dylan Schmid). However, Arlette has other plans, and wants to sell the land for a sizable sum of money so the family can move to Omaha and carve out new lives themselves. Feeling the city is for fools, Wilfred refuses to part ways with his farm, facing the prospect of a divorce.

Unwilling to lose his land or his son, the conniving side of Wilfred hatches a scheme to kill Arlette and cover up the murder. Employing the aid of Henry, the men of the James household go through with their nefarious plot, and while they get to stay on the farm, life doesn't come easy for Wilfred. Consumed by the guilt of what he did, Wilfred descends further and further into madness, haunted by visions as his world crumbles around him.

Adapted from the Stephen King novella of the same name, 1922 is the latest screen adaptation of the author's work to release in 2017, following previous successes such as IT and Gerald's Game (which was also a Netflix original). The hope going into it was that the film could continue the "Year of King" on a high note, giving fans of the writer another creepy and unsettling translation of one of his stories. Fortunately, it is successful in achieving these goals. 1922 is a fascinating exploration of what guilt does to a man, fueled by a strong lead performance from Jane and compelling direction.

Zak Hilditch, who wrote the script, also calls the shots from behind-the-camera, and he does a great job of capturing the proper tone for the narrative. A sense of unrelenting dread permeates through the film, underscored by stark cinematography from Ben Richardson and Mike Patton's minimalistic, unnerving musical score. There's a palpable tension in several of the scenes - whether it's early on as Wilfred puts together his plan or later as he suffers the consequences of his actions. 1922 isn't exactly a thriller that will leaves audiences on the edge of their seats, but the filmmaking approach here commands viewers' attention with some disturbing (but effective) imagery that lingers in the mind after the credits have rolled. Those with a phobia of rats in particular will be quite uncomfortable - which is very much the intent.

While Hilditch's technical prowess is strong, the same cannot always be said for his writing. Though the screenplay is a faithful adaptation of the source material, that is both a pro and a con in this case. Despite there being a small cast, there isn't much characterization afforded to the female roles, who exist mostly as plot devices to help better define the motivations of their male counterparts than fully-formed individuals in their own right. Both Parker and Kaitlyn Bernard (who plays Henry's girlfriend Shannon) are fine in their parts and make the most of what they have to work with; there just isn't much for them to do in the grand scheme of things. The main story is also too straightforward and (at times) simple for its own good, and there isn't necessarily always enough going on to sustain a feature-length production. This makes the film's pacing drag at times, as it hampers on the obvious religious themes and slowly works its way to a conclusion.

1922 is very much the Thomas Jane show, and the actor is more than game for the task. His Wilfred is not your typical protagonist and isn't always the most likable figure, but he remains an interesting character to watch throughout. Jane is able to portray the farmer as a genuine, three-dimensional person, never falling into the trap of making his performance a caricature. It would have been very easy to play up the "slow" aspects of Wilfred's personality, but Jane and Hilditch find all the layers to make him a captivating presence, conveying a variety of emotions over the course of many scenes. Most viewers won't find themselves sympathetic to Wilfred's plight, though Jane's turn convincingly sells 1922 as a cruel morality play with a clear message to take into account.

Due to the small-scale nature of the movie, the supporting cast is quite thin, but Schmid stands out as Henry - a youngster unfortunately thrust into a grim and dark situation. Though is role isn't as prevalent as Jane's, he demonstrates a screen presence and maturity beyond his years as he plays against his onscreen father. Schmid is able to tap into the character's kindheartedness early on, before going down a troubling arc that makes him the most relatable figure in the film. Any shortcomings in Henry's portrayal are with the writing, as the script only scratches the surface of his romantic relationship with Shannon. The two don't share enough scenes together in order for this aspect to land with the intended effect, but they do have some good-natured charm in their brief moments.

In the end, 1922 is a solid Stephen King adaptation that should appease fans of the writer, as well as viewers in the mood for a slow-burn character study. Netflix seems like the perfect outlet for a film such as this, as it is perhaps too small to reach a wider, theatrical audience, but should gain traction on the streaming platform. Those who enjoyed the novella or were intrigued by marketing should definitely give it a watch, as its strengths make up for whatever weaknesses are there.

1922 is now streaming on Netflix. It runs 101 minutes and is rated TV-MA.

Let us know what you thought of the film in the space below and be sure to check out our ending explained post !

1922 is a Netflix original movie starring Thomas Jane, Molly Parker, and Dylan Schmid. The film tells the story of Wilfred James, who plots to murder his wife with the help of his son for financial gain. The film is based on Stephen King's horror novella of the same name.

Key Release Dates

Movie Reviews
3 star movies

1922 Review

While he's been known to be a master of the supernatural, Stephen King still has some more grounded moments in his literary showcase that are due for a good adaptation. After all, this is the man who brought us the sources The Shawshank Redemption , Stand By Me , and Apt Pupil , so he's no stranger to the horror that is the human condition. That's exactly where the scares lie in 1922 , a novella from King's Full Dark, No Stars collection, and the subject of a new Netflix film.

Wilfred "Wilf" James ( Thomas Jane ) wants to maintain the family homestead divided by his farm and the one left to his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) by her departed father. But Mrs. James has designs to move the family to the big city, a decision that she's dead set on following through, and with their son Henry (Dylan Schmid) in tow. But Wilf's not gonna let the matter go without a fight, and soon enough he enlists his son to help him murder his wife, so they can keep the farm. What starts as a murder turns into something much bigger, and more sinful, than either of them could have ever imagined.

The most important thing you need to keep in mind when going into 1922 is the fact that it's a slow burn of a film. Rather than shock the audience with jump scares, writer/director Zak Hilditch's adaptation of the novella is a tension-filled exercise in gorgeous minimalism. If anything, this seems like the most arthouse adaptation of a Stephen King work to date, allowing the audience to completely drink in the scenery and visual flourish of the American South.

In fact, there are two words that say everything you need to know about 1922 : quiet menace. The things that go bump in the proverbial night of this particular Stephen King story are very human, and very close to the hearts and minds of the audience. But while the film is very quiet in its movements, it isn't any less severe than some of King's more grandiose work. By the time 1922 has had its way with the audience, everything in the realm of the James family has spiraled into severe madness, leaving a path of destruction in its wake that's precise, but still extremely devastating.

Much like Gerald's Game before it, 1922 is a project that both relies on a fantastic supporting cast, but also focuses in on one, shining lead. That lead is King alum, and underrated character actor, Thomas Jane ( The Mist ). It's important to highlight the underrated bit, because if there is any film that's truly shown off Jane's full faceted talents, it's 1922 . His role as embattled farmer Wilf James is a rich tapestry of folksy family man, and the "conniving" side that he talks about throughout the story's entirety. One minute he's convincing his son to help him kill his wife, the next he's truly realizing what he's sewn and waiting for his final judgement, but every single moment he comes into frame, he commands the scene.

But if you're looking for scares, and let's face it what Stephen King fan isn't, there's still plenty to be afraid of in 1922 . You've got your choice of the pot-boiling dread of whether the James boys are going to get caught for their crimes, as well as possibly held responsible for the fallout of said crimes; or you've got good, old fashioned body horror. Both are accounted for in Zak Hilditch's film, and the writer/director of the piece handles both with equal dread. What humanity might let slide, fate certainly takes offense to.

The film version of 1922 is quite possibly the most impressive Stephen King project to have made its way to audiences this year. It truly feels like a corner of the famed author's works and universe that we've never seen, yet at the same time totally familiar to those who know every story to come from his hand. Most importantly, 1922 is another extremely solid hit from Netflix, who has gone 2 for 2 with auteurs that have done justice to King's work in the filmed medium. It is a tale of human guilt, divine consequence, and good old fashioned King-ly horror, with a performance by Thomas Jane that only solidifies his standing as a leading actor who Hollywood continues to underappreciate. It deserves to be held up alongside the greats.

Mike Reyes is the Senior Movie Contributor at CinemaBlend, though that title’s more of a guideline really. Passionate about entertainment since grade school, the movies have always held a special place in his life, which explains his current occupation. Mike graduated from Drew University with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, but swore off of running for public office a long time ago. Mike's expertise ranges from James Bond to everything Alita, making for a brilliantly eclectic resume. He fights for the user.

The Incredible Way MaXXXine Was Shot So The A24 Movie Could Make Money. Hollywood Should Take Note

Ahead Of Filming Fast X: Part 2, Vin Diesel Shares Cool Video With Dom's Cars

Travis Kelce Said He Might Go On The Eras Tour Stage Again, And I Have 3 Ideas For How That Could Happen

Netflix’s 1922 is a reminder of what Stephen King does best

And it hints at why so many of 2017’s king adaptations have failed.

By Tasha Robinson

Share this story

Welcome to Cheat Sheet, our brief breakdown-style reviews of festival films, VR previews, and other special event releases. This review originally appeared in conjunction with 1922 ’s premiere at Fantastic Fest in Austin, Texas. It is being reposted to coincide with the film’s Netflix release.

2017 has been a banner year for Stephen King adaptations, but the batting average hasn’t been so hot. It is easily the best of the bunch: in spite of its “more, and then much more” aesthetic, it hit big with audiences, and is now reportedly the highest-grossing horror film of all time . And Netflix’s Gerald’s Game does a startlingly impressive job of drawing out the novel with memorable performances. The Dark Tower , on the other hand, was a confused, generic would-be series-launcher , and Spike TV’s The Mist and the Audience Network’s Mr. Mercedes series have both been accused of stretching out their stories until their energies get lost along the way.

That criticism highlights the problem with virtually all of 2017’s King adaptations: they aren’t out to tell simple, direct stories. It is the first half of a two-film package, Dark Tower was planned as one installment in a sprawling film-and-TV cinematic universe, and Mr. Mercedes is in a position to continue its stories if the ratings justify the expense. (So was The Mist , but Spike TV eventually cancelled it.) Which is why 2017’s latest King adaptation, Netflix’s feature film 1922 , comes as such a comparative relief. It isn’t trying to lay the foundations for a grand, cosmic universe. It isn’t trying to build characters who can sell their own merch and carry their own spin-offs down the road. It’s just a simple, single self-contained horror story.

It’s also a phenomenally grim one, as King readers can already attest.

What’s the genre?

Gothic heartland horror. The exact nature of that horror is ambiguous, and left up to the viewer more than it is in King’s novella, but regardless, it’s a gory tragedy in the most classical sense.

What’s it about?

Thomas Jane was hilariously awful in the King adaptation Dreamcatcher , but he acquits himself memorably here. He stars as Wilfred James, a farmer grimly clinging to his family land in 1920s Nebraska. His wife Arlette (Molly Parker of Deadwood and House of Cards fame) has recently inherited a significant plot of farmland, which she wants to sell so the family can move to Omaha, “or even St. Louis!” Wilf, however, is disgusted by the idea of city living. He has his entire life planned out: work the farm, hang on to what he has, live without what he doesn’t have (indoor plumbing, for instance), and pass his farm on to their 14-year-old son Henry (Dylan Schmid) when he dies. Arlette’s plan to sell her acreage to a hog-farming combine would pollute his land, and giving in to her plan would mean either living in the city, or divorcing her and inevitably losing Henry to her custody. So Wilf quietly plans to murder Arlette, and to bring Henry in on the act to assure the boy’s silence and lock him to the land.

What’s it really about?

Consequences and guilt. 1922 is essentially a Midwestern riff on Edgar Allan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart , with its own considerable twists: Wilf doesn’t hack up his wife or bury her under the floorboards, and he isn’t caught because he loses his mind in front of friendly cops. But the movie opens with him sitting down in a hotel room to write his confession, and as the film progresses, it becomes clear that as locked in one place as he is, he’s never managed to outrun his shame. This is a story about conscience and sin, and the way murder tarnishes the soul. This is a fairly heady idea for a film made in a country where our films, TV shows, and video games all routinely feature heroes killing anyone marked as a “bad guy.” 1922 screenwriter and director Zak Hilditch doesn’t entirely draw out the theme, not as much as King did, but he certainly lets the audience know exactly how Wilf’s crimes poison his life and his planned future.

Is it good?

It has its problems, though they mostly stem from King’s source material. Hilditch sticks closely to King’s narrative, apart from a surprising change in the literal last second of the story. But that means he inherits King’s plot structure, which among other things has a considerable amount of the story only being revealed through a sort of magical vision, and only after the fact.

On the other hand, Hilditch doesn’t take as much time as King did in laying out the characters. Like The Tell-Tale Heart , the film version of 1922 races toward the mechanics of the murder without spending enough time on establishing who the protagonist is, and whether murder is naturally in his makeup, or he has to struggle his way toward it. Like virtually all the King adapters who respect his strikingly individual storylines instead of radically rewriting them into something more generic and obvious, Hilditch keeps some of King’s actual language, turning it into a voiceover where Wilf explains his inner thoughts. But that alone doesn’t go far enough toward explaining who Wilf is, or why his story should matter to viewers. He’s a much more quickly sketched character here than he is in King’s story, and that hurts the momentum.

But Jane’s lean, hungry, squinting portrayal goes a long way toward filling in the blanks. In a post-screening Q&A at Fantastic Fest, Jane said he worked with a vocal coach to get down the strange drawling accent he uses in the film — a Nebraska accent derived from period recordings, before mass media and worldwide communication started easing the variety and color out of regional speech patterns. It’s a highly specific choice, much like the way Jane occasionally punctuates his words with derisive spitting, or the lizardy, narrow-eyed way he watches and judges the world around him. He’s a powerful central figure, and his role here covers a range he hasn’t always achieved well, from anger to affection to determination to stark terror.

Schmid and Parker also do impressive work, with Parker in particular making conscious choices to sand some of the most uncomfortable edges off Arlette, making her strong rather than shrill. And Hilditch does sometimes let the story stretch out into the laconic fireside story it needs to be; he focuses on sunsets and cornfields, on the farm that’s Wilf’s entire world. He brings down the weight of time passing in a way that’s crucial to the story. And when the shocks start, they’re both well-timed and memorably staged. He has an eye for horrifying imagery. King’s novella centers in part on an image Wilf can’t get out of his head, and when Hilditch puts it on the screen, it’s easy to see why Wilf can’t shake it. 1922 gets rushed in both the first and the third act, and it achieves its best moments in the middle going, with character work between Jane and Schmid. But at its best, it’s a reminder that King’s biggest strengths lie in his unparalleled ability to build tension, create atmosphere, and tell a direct and brutal story, not in his ability to launch profitable many-branched franchises.

What should it be rated?

It’s bloody and disturbing, but also reasonably circumspect about most of the violence. PG-13 seems reasonable.

How can I actually watch it?

1922 debuted on Netflix on October 20, 2017.

I renewed my US passport in a single week with the government’s speedy online beta

Dear roku, you ruined my tv, the verge’s guide to amazon prime day 2024, amazon is bricking its astro business robots less than a year after launch, leak: basically every spec for samsung’s z fold 6 and z flip 6.

More from this stream Fantastic Fest 2017: reviews and interviews from Austin’s culty genre film festival

Radius starts with an unbeatable science fantasy premise, then gets weird, anna and the apocalypse is everything the words ‘scottish christmas zombie musical’ imply, the director of netflix’s zombie film les affames says people are scarier than zombies, mary and the witch’s flower is everything fans want from studio ghibli.

1922 Review

Farm-y of darkness..

Well acted and decently directed, 1922 might please audiences who haven’t seen other, better films about cold-blooded murderers who get their comeuppance. But audiences who are familiar with this subgenre will probably get bored quickly with this formulaic morality play.

More Reviews by William Bibbiani

Ign recommends.

Horizon Zero Dawn TV Series No Longer Moving Forward at Netflix - Report

1922: A Man Unraveled By Guilt

The circle of life: why the lion king still resonates 30 years later, july rhapsody: midlife melancholia, thelma: a moving intergenerational action film starring june squibb, how i roll: hits the gas on heart, the front room trailer 1, you are here: comedy in a cosmic revelation, isa top 25 screenwriters to watch interview with zoë hodge, princeton’s in the mix: anything for the kids, family portrait: a family under the influence, smile 2 trailer 1, seneca: on the creation of earthquakes: seneca just won’t shut up, the instigators trailer 1.

1922 begins with an older Thomas Jane sitting down to write out his story in a hotel room. The subject? His confession.

This one killed his wife. He lets the viewers know right away, and the deed is completed within the first twenty five minutes of the movie. 1922 isn’t about the before, it’s about the after.

Justifying A Sin

The answer? Murder.

As father and son their bond is strong, at least in the beginning, but as the movie progresses and their lives unfurl, it’s strained to say the least. Each battle their own emotions and eventually drift apart, but Henry feels the pressure first and the two young lovers are inevitably affected too.

Suffering The Consequences

Written and directed by Zak Hilditch , the hour and forty-two minute adaptation isn’t watered down. Depicted with a subtly that allows the suspense to build organically, 1922 commits to its psychological torment with precision.

About three quarters of the way through there is a bit of a lull, and there’s a Bonnie and Clyde like subplot with Henry and Shannon that doesn’t quite mesh. Within the context of the film, it feels a little out of place.

Conclusion: 1922

King’s usual talent can be felt guiding Wilfred to the edge of his sanity. It’s a mostly faithful transition to screen but as a fan of the novella, I felt the ending here didn’t quite bite the same way. Overall, it’s a satisfying climax. Like Netflix’s recent Gerald’s Game, this adds to a year of terrific adaptations of the author’s work.

1922 is now available to stream on Netflix.

Does content like this matter to you?

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

Get the app
Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

How to Help Kids Spot Misinformation and Disinformation

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

Common sense media reviewers.

Gruesome murder tale with horrific visuals; violence, gore.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Evil will not go unpunished: "Murder is not j

No positive role models.

Graphic violence and bloody mayhem. Spoiler alerts

A young teen gets pregnant. Fathers discuss the cr

"Goddammit," "Christ." A mothe

Multiple instances of drinking and drunkenness. Es

Positive Messages

Evil will not go unpunished: "Murder is not just a horrible crime, but an unforgivable mortal sin.... In the end, we all get caught." Innocents, even young people, are corruptible; they, too, pay the ultimate price.

Positive Role Models

Violence & scariness.

Graphic violence and bloody mayhem. Spoiler alerts : A murderous frenzy is central to the plot, with horrific throat slashing of woman: screaming, a fight to the death. Dead victim reappears, dripping blood, distorted in numerous flashbacks. Marauding rats are featured in multiple scenes. Gruesome visuals as rats inhabit the body of the victim in multiple shots. Man stomps a rat. A cow falls into a well. Its terrified cries are heard, then it's shot. A severely wounded hand is gangrened. A woman slaps her son.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

A young teen gets pregnant. Fathers discuss the crisis.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

"Goddammit," "Christ." A mother coarsely cautions her son against sexual intercourse (i.e., "keep your willy in your pants" and "rub it with your johnny, but stay out of home place").

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Multiple instances of drinking and drunkenness. Escalating dependence on alcohol. Vomiting. Pills are consumed with alcohol. Main character smokes a pipe.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that 1922 is based on a novella by Stephen King and is a violent, gory tale of murder and insanity. Set in the year 1922 on a farm in Nebraska, intense conflict within a family leads to its destruction. Shot with every intent of shocking and disturbing its audience, the film basks in the macabre, including ( spoiler alert ) an abundance of rats -- climbing in and over corpses, coming through walls, marching together as a vicious army. Expect plenty of blood and horrific visuals of the undead as well as the dying. Guns and knives wreak havoc on the innocent and on the guilty. Some cursing ("goddammit," "Christ") is heard, along with a mother's coarse cautionary words to her 14-year-old son about not engaging in sexual intercourse (i.e., "keep your willy in your pants"). Central characters drink heavily, which leads to drunkenness in multiple instances. Lead character smokes a pipe. Stephen King's work seems a never-ending source of movie and TV material. Some stories, like The Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me , emphasize the drama rather than the horror. This movie merits a place among his grisly best. No kids. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

Parents say (4)
Kids say (13)

Based on 4 parent reviews

Gore with no purpose

A bit bloody, what's the story.

It's 1922 on an isolated farm in Nebraska when Wilfred James ( Thomas Jane ) determines that he must murder his wife, Arlette ( Molly Parker ). Arlette has inherited 100 acres of adjoining land from her father and insists on selling it and moving to the big city (Omaha), whether Wilfred wants to join her or not. She's not to be reasoned with. What's more, she promises her husband that Henry ( Dylan Schmid ), their 14-year-old son, belongs with her. Threatened with losing all he holds dear (the farm and his son), Wilfred manipulates young Henry into being his accomplice. After the deed is done, and Arlette's voluntary absence has been explained away satisfactorily to the locals, the relationship between Wilfred and Henry, complicated by the boy's devotion to a neighbor girl, begins to come apart -- as does Henry's sanity. A series of ghastly misadventures sends both father and son on the road to retribution.

Is It Any Good?

Terrifyingly demented, with standout performances, this slow-moving but devastating tale of murder and insanity from a Stephen King novella is solid fare for fans of the horror genre. Thomas Jane creates a vivid portrait of a man bound by the limits of the world into which he was born and the constraints of his judgment. The length to which he will go to meet his "needs" is infinite. And he's paid back like a rat in a trap. Supporting players, including the fine Brian d'Arcy James and Neal McDonough , as well as Parker and Schmid, are first-rate. Director Zak Hilditch, working from his own adaptation of King's book, doesn't mind the unhurried pace -- all the better to make his audience squirm and recoil. The "ewww" factor is relentless as the story takes shape. 1922 is definitely not for the squeamish.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the grisly scenes in 1922 . Do the gory scenes make you laugh? Disgust you? Make you turn your head away? Why do you think people, including many teens, respond to horror movies like this one? What ages do you think can handle this type of violence? Why?

In what ways do the creators of the story and movie effectively show the psychological consequences of murderous behavior? How did both Wilfred's and Henry's lives become forever changed after their evil act? How much of what Wilfred "saw" do you think was real, and how much was in his head?

How did the farm setting contribute to the overall atmosphere of the movie? Think about how the director, Zak Hilditch, moved the camera among the wheat fields and the wide shots of the farm. How did both the photography and music help convey the horror Hilditch was after?

Movie Details

On DVD or streaming : October 20, 2017
Cast : Thomas Jane , Molly Parker , Dylan Schmid
Director : Zak Hilditch
Inclusion Information : Female actors
Studio : Netflix
Genre : Horror
Run time : 102 minutes
MPAA rating : NR
Last updated : February 18, 2023

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Best horror movies, scary movies for kids.

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Latest News

Entertainment
Real Estate
Team India Victory Parade Live
Budget 2024
The Interview
Web Stories
Virat Kohli
Mumbai News
Bengaluru News
Daily Digest
Election Schedule 2024

1922 movie review: A haunting horror film; Stephen King’s hot-streak rages on after It, Gerald’s Game

1922 movie review: after the record-breaking success of it, and fellow netflix original gerald’s game, stephen king’s remarkable success streak continues with this haunting new horror film..

1922 Director - Zak Hilditch Cast - Thomas Jane, Molly Parker, Dylan Schmid Rating - 4/5

In 1922, Thomas Jane turns in a remarkably nuanced performance.

For years, one of the most famous legends surrounding Stephen King was about the time he sat on his writing desk in the early ‘80s, proceeded to embark on an indefinite cocaine binge, and when he regained consciousness, found a complete manuscript laying in front of him. Even years later, he barely remembers writing it, he said. The book was Cujo, which, like most of King’s works, was soon adapted into a film.

That was the Golden Age of Stephen King adaptations when landmark films such as The Shining and Carrie were produced. And while there has never really been a lean period for King adaptations in the decades that followed, 2017 will, in hindsight, always be seen as being the bringer of a new Golden Age.

Such is the appeal of his stories that in one year alone, his work has inspired the highest-grossing horror picture of all time (It), a critical and commercial disaster (The Dark Tower), and two films that weren’t released in theatres at all – the fantastic Gerald’s Game, and the movie we’re going to be discussing here, 1922, both of which were released on Netflix.

“In 1922,” growls Thomas Jane in a voiceover that looms, like a tragic Greek chorus, throughout the film, “a man’s pride was a man’s land.”

Wilfred James, the tobacco-chewing, perpetually sweating character Jane plays, lives on his sprawling property with his wife and teenage son. He is a proud man, as he says in that voiceover, because of his land, and his son, Henry, who will inherit it when the time comes. He works the fields in the days, and sits on his porch in the evenings, sipping cold beers and surveying his vast kingdom.

And then, all of a sudden, his wife snatches it all away. She proposes that the family sell their land and move to the city, an idea that Wilfred reacts to as a demon would to the sight of Holy Water. He tells her as much, but receives only an ultimatum in response: If Wilfred does not comply; she would file for divorce immediately and take their son to the city with her.

So Wilfred is left with a choice, which is a key theme in the film: To give in, and be emasculated by a woman, or to listen to that voice in his head, a voice that reminds him that he is the man of the house.

“Every man has a choice,” he booms. And in 1922, Wilfred James makes the wrong one: Together with his son, whom he coerces into joining him in his foolhardy plan, he attempts to murder his wife in cold blood — and makes a mess of it. After slicing the wrong arteries, too feebly to leave a mark, Wilfred resorts to hacking away at her general direction, mauling her face beyond recognition. She dies a horrible death, and is laid to rest among hungry mice in a forgotten well.

1922 is a terrific example of just how powerful horror movies can be. Not only does writer-director Zak Hilditch employ a gorgeous, psychological slow-burn approach to the storytelling, he punctuates it with sudden bursts of visceral horror. It’s a film that strides just as confidently through scenes of duplicitous dialogue as it does in moments of shocking gore.

Unlike It, which at 1,300 pages is a monumental work of horror fiction, 1922 is based on a 117-page short story, written in the manner of a confession by a man utterly consumed by the guilt of his actions.

By murdering his wife, and attempting to cover it up in front of suspicious lawyers and lawmen, Wilfred sets into a motion a chain of tragic events that take away not just his pride, but also his sanity. And Thomas Jane is quite terrific in the central role. He adds tiny, almost unnoticeable nuances to his performance - frowns of confusion, sharp looks of warning - nuances that help create a character that is both conniving and pathetic at the same time.

His crimes haunt him, often literally, and he turns into a paranoid wreck of a man, plagued with the sound of scurrying mice, and the smell of rotting flesh, and the sight of his decomposed wife.

Together with the lush visuals of DP Ben Richardson, and the equally grand score by Mike Patton, Hilditch has made a stately horror picture about broken families, jealousy, and the sins of the father — all staple Stephen King themes.

And that’s what makes King’s stories so universally terrifying. They could be transported to any time, to any place, and still resonate, always uncomfortably close to the truth. The ideas he toyed with in 1922 could easily be brought to modern day India — in all its toxic patriarchy and systemic inequality. Notions of honour, of manhood, and of a woman’s place in this world — they’re all just as relevant to us today as turn-of-the-century America.

Sometimes, it takes a horror movie to remind us.

Watch the 1922 trailer here

Follow @htshowbiz for more The author tweets @RohanNaahar

Get World Cup ready with Crickit ! From live scores to match stats, catch all the action here. Explore now!

Get more updates from Bollywood , Taylor Swift , Hollywood , Music and Web Series along with Latest Entertainment News at Hindustan Times.

Join Hindustan Times

Create free account and unlock exciting features like.

Terms of use
Privacy policy
Weather Today
HT Newsletters
Subscription
Print Ad Rates
Code of Ethics

Live Cricket Score
Cricket Teams
Cricket Players
ICC Rankings
Cricket Schedule
Other Cities
Income Tax Calculator
Petrol Prices
Diesel Prices
Silver Rate
Relationships
Art and Culture
Taylor Swift: A Primer
Telugu Cinema
Tamil Cinema
Board Exams
Exam Results
Admission News
Employment News
Competitive Exams
BBA Colleges
Engineering Colleges
Medical Colleges
BCA Colleges
Medical Exams
Engineering Exams
Horoscope 2024
Festive Calendar 2024
Compatibility Calculator
The Economist Articles
Lok Sabha States
Lok Sabha Parties
Lok Sabha Candidates
Explainer Video
On The Record
Vikram Chandra Daily Wrap
Entertainment Photos
Lifestyle Photos
News Photos
EPL 2023-24
ISL 2023-24
Asian Games 2023
Public Health
Economic Policy
International Affairs
Climate Change
Gender Equality
future tech
Daily Sudoku
Daily Crossword
Daily Word Jumble
HT Friday Finance
Explore Hindustan Times
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Subscription - Terms of Use

Flickering Myth

Geek Culture | Movies, TV, Comic Books & Video Games

Movie Review – 1922 (2017)

October 24, 2017 by Liam Hoofe

1922 , 2017.

Directed by Zak Hilditch. Starring Thomas Jane, Molly Parker, Dylan Schmid, Kaitlyn Bernard, Brian D’Arcy James, and Neal McDonough.

A Nebraskan Farmer, Wilfred James, convinces his son, Henry, that the only way to preserve their way of life is by murdering his bitter wife, Arlette. However, once the two have committed their crime, they are haunted by guilt and plagued by visions of their victim.

Following hot on the heels of last month’s Gerald’s Game , 1922 is the latest Stephen King work to be adapted for the big screen by streaming giants Netflix. King adaptations are all the rage at the moment, with this being the fourth King movie to hit our screens since August.

1922 is one of King’s lesser-known works and that is perhaps because it is one of his most recent. The novella, released in 2010 as part of the collection ‘ Full Dark, No Stars’ is a slightly more updated take on Edgar Allan Poe’s iconic ‘ The Tell-Tale Heart ‘, the story of a man trying to convince his reader of his sanity, while he is haunted by a murder he committed.

Thomas Jane, giving us his best movie performance in quite some time here, plays Wilfred James, a Nebraskan farmer who spends his days working in the fields. His wife, Arlette, is not happy with their current set-up and she isn’t afraid to let him know about it, while his son, Henry, has fallen in love with a local farm girl and like his father, is desperate to stay at the farm rather than moving to the city with his mother.

This leads, for various reasons, to Wilfred convincing his son to help him kill Arlette, so that can both be free of her wicked ways. This isn’t a spoiler, don’t worry – the opening scene of the movie pretty much establishes this – with a guilt-ridden Wilfred writing his confessional in a hotel room, once again harping back to that Edgar Allan Poe classic.

The set-up is great, and the film’s opening twenty minutes, especially thanks to a scene-stealing performance from Molly Parker as Arlette do a great job of drawing the audience into the movie. The problem, however, is the movie’s pacing. While those opening twenty minutes are a brilliant depiction of the family’s life, once the film’s central act – the murder of Arlette – has taken place, it loses steam pretty quickly. The following 80 minutes are basically a meditation on one man’s guilt and while Thomas Jane does an excellent job of portraying his character’s difficulties, the film’s central theme, which is essentially ‘don’t kill people’ is not interesting enough to hold up over a 100-minute runtime. Had the film been able to trim 20 minutes from its time, then it may have been much more enjoyable, but in its current state, it just becomes incredibly repetitive, incredibly quick. There’s a big difference between slow building a sense of dread that will haunt your audience, and boring them into submission by over-dwelling on something, this, sadly, falls into the latter category.

It’s a shame that this is the case because the rest of the movie has a lot going for it. The period setting is beautifully established, the source material is good, and the actors are all on the top of their games here. Jane and Parker, in particular, are superbly cast and young Dylan Schmid, as the son corrupted by his father, is a good young talent who is perhaps not utilised as well as he should be. It’s just a shame that the movie’s story is not strong enough to hold up over the runtime.

1922 should have been a success. It’s based on a solid King novella and it has a cast who are nothing if not committed to their roles, sadly, while aiming for a slow-burning tale of dread, director Zak Hilditch has just delivered a rather unenjoyable endurance test.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Liam Hoofe is a writer and teacher currently living in Madrid, you can follow him on Twitter, here- @liamhoofe

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

The Essential 80s Action Movies

10 Essential Films From 1994

Takashi Miike: The Modern Godfather of Horror

Essential Demonic Horror Movies To Send Shivers Down Your Spine

Underrated 2000s Cult Classics You Have to See

House of the Dragon: All the Dragons and Their Riders Ranked by Power

The Essential 1990s Superhero Movies

Fox Marvel Characters Who Need Redemption in Deadpool 3

5 Underrated Jean-Claude Van Damme Movies

MTV Generation-Era Comedies That Need New Sequels

Comic Books
Video Games
Toys & Collectibles
Articles and Opinions
About Flickering Myth
Write for Flickering Myth
Advertise on Flickering Myth
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy

Consequence

Film Review: 1922

Zak Hilditch retains the weirdness in the latest Stephen King adaptation for Netflix

Directed by

Zak Hilditch
Kaitlyn Bernard
Bruce Blain
Spencer Brown

Release Year

At one of Zak Hilditch’ s talkbacks during Fantastic Fest, an audience member pointed out that the three successful Stephen King adaptations on the big screen this week ( It , Gerald’s Game , and now 1922 ) all managed to keep the Master of Horror’s weirdness intact. In the past, the filmmakers of so many lesser King adaptations approached his work from a stance of normalization and sanitization: How do you tone something down, rather than honor the vision of the writer?

Not to beat a dead horse, but look at It and compare that film to this summer’s The Dark Tower . In one instance, you have a production where the studio allowed the filmmakers to show graphic violence towards children — an essential element of the novel when conveying the terror of the story’s antagonist. Even if there wasn’t the screen time to dive into the cosmic origins of the creature, Andy Muschietti kept its spirit intact by creating a film that is, at the end of the day, strange as hell, especially for a Hollywood blockbuster.

In The Dark Tower , though, no one had the balls to tackle the violence, surrealism, or extended multiverse of King’s most beloved series. Instead, the film suffered from the creators simplifying everything. And lo and behold, audiences didn’t buy it. When comparing the box office returns of both films, it turns out the movie-going public — and, to a larger extent, millions of Stephen King fans — didn’t want simplification. They didn’t want their King adaptation to be streamlined and dumbed down. They wanted the grisly violence, the twisted lore. They wanted the weird.

Not surprisingly, the other two films that make up the holy triumvirate of the King Renaissance were granted the same freedom as It , which can be chalked up to their partnership with Netflix. Every day, the studio’s original programming becomes a stronger force to be reckoned with, and it’s not because everything they churn out is solid gold, either. In fact, some of it sucks. But the blame can usually be placed on the creative team, and that’s a good thing, people. You want a studio to put faith in its storytellers, and you want those same storytellers to feel permitted to be brave, while also feeling permitted to fail. Nothing defangs a horror movie like a studio lording over you, expecting to turn something shocking into something more ubiquitous and (shudder) family-friendly. Maybe that results in some blunders. But it also results in films like 1922 .

To be clear, the source material from which 1922 is based upon is King at his nastiest. There’s a reason it’s part of a collection called Full Dark No Stars . Like the book’s other three stories — two of which have already been made into lesser King adaptations — there is no light at the end of the tunnel for many of its characters. The texts are more drawn to the idea of reckoning; of depicting the worst in humanity and making them pay for their sins. Or, even more frightening, allowing them to get away scot-free.

In 1922 ‘s case, the despicable protagonist is Wilfred James ( Thomas Jane ), a Nebraskan farmer in the early 20th century. When his wife Arlette ( Molly Parker ) wants to sell her neighboring land to a meatpacking company from Chicago, he knows it will make his own land unfarmable. But Arlette remains steadfast, wanting to break free from rural life and move them and their son, Henry ( Dylan Schmid ), to the city. Divorce is discussed, no compromise can be made, and Wilfred eventually decides to slit his wife’s throat with the help of his son, and then throw the body in a well.

All of this happens early on, and the rest of the film finds the father and son tormented by their actions. If we boil the movie down to its elevator pitch, it’s essentially a piss-and-vinegar riff on Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Telltale Heart”, only with the beating heart switched out with the rats that keep burrowing into Arlette’s corpse.

Spending so much time with a homicidal farmer who’s more concerned with his pride than his moral integrity likely isn’t for everyone, and writer/director Hilditch knows this. Even so, he never pulls any punches for his depiction of the James family, and it’s a wise move on his part. Wilfred and Henry are flawed for obvious reasons, but even Arlette proves to be cold and sharp-tongued. In fact, it’s her crude comments about Henry’s girlfriend, their neighbor Shannon Cotterie ( Kaitlyn Bernard ), that finally convinces the boy to go through with their crime. As such, Hilditch is never concerned with keeping any of them likable — just realistic. And by keeping the snail’s pace of the novella intact, he’s able to realistically trace why murderers commit their horrible sins. It’s not an endorsement, just a nihilistic and accurate presentation. The more we buy into the act itself, the more we’ll buy into the inevitable spiritual fallout.

It helps that Hilditch cast Jane in the central role. Along with Carla Gugino’s turn in Gerald’s Game , Netflix has two of the strongest performances in any King adaptation to date. But where Gugino’s performance combined the emotionally raw with the physically grueling, Jane’s role is more about quiet calculation. He says every line without moving his jaw, sucking on his teeth to convey the image of a vulpine-eyed killer who views everyone as a threat to his land.

Even with Jane’s strong performance, 1922 still could have been a sober, fairly unremarkable story about rural crime, and that brings us back to that crucial element of weirdness. Also like Gerald’s Game , Hilditch relies on King’s bizarre imagery to make an otherwise normal setting unique. 1922 isn’t supernatural, per se (any paranormal elements come from Wilfred’s unreliable narration), but the camera slowly creeps around the cornfield as if Randall Flagg is lurking behind each stalk. Remember, Hemingford Home, Nebraska, is the setting of many King stories that do happen to be supernatural. Flagg and other dark beings have walked these rows many times before. The Chicago meatpacking plant even has the name “Farrington” tacked to it, one of Flagg’s many aliases.

I bring all this up not to perpetuate some King shadow conspiracy that 1922 is a spiritual cousin of The Stand . What I’m getting at is Hilditch — like Gerald’s Game director Mike Flanagan — knows that, even with the pathos behind it, this is still a horror story. Keep the morally reprehensible characters. Keep the violence. Keep the corpse hallucinations, even if they become a bit much in the final shots. Keep the rats and all the grisly things they can do to both Wilfred and his livestock. Keep the weirdness.

Personalized Stories

Around the web, latest stories.

Eddie Murphy Is Older, Deeper, and Still Funny in Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F: Review

July 2, 2024

MaXXXine Is a Limp Close to Ti West's Trilogy of Terror: Review

July 1, 2024

I Have 9 Nice Things to Say About Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1

June 28, 2024

Thelma Review: A Grandma Goes Full John Wick In Light and Fun Action Comedy

June 24, 2024

Kinds of Kindness (Searchlight Pictures) Yorgos Lanthimos Review

Yorgos Lanthimos Offers a Trilogy of Transgression With Kinds of Kindness: Review

June 20, 2024

Inside Out 2 Review Pixar Disney Amy Poehler Maya Hawke

Inside Out 2 Physicalizes Mental Health Struggles in a Thoughtful, Compelling Way: Review

June 12, 2024

Dakota Johnson and Sonoya Mizuno Are Electric in the Thoughtfully Grounded Am I OK?: Review

June 6, 2024

I Saw the TV Glow Review: An Eerie Reflection on Pop Culture's Power Over Us

May 16, 2024

Get the Reddit app

The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.

Official Discussion: 1922 [SPOILERS]

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll.

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here.

Wilfred James is convinced that his wife Arlette is scheming against him. He tries to manipulate his son to his side and the results will change his life forever.

Director: Zak Hilditch

Writers: screenplay by Zak Hilditch

based on the short story by Stephen King

Thomas Jane as Wilfred James

Dylan Schmid as Henry James

Molly Parker as Arlette James

Neal McDonough as Harlan Cotterie

Brian d'Arcy James as Sheriff Jones

Rotten Tomatoes: 82%

Metacritic: 70/100

After Credits Scene? No

VOD: Netflix

1922 Movie Explained (Plot And Ending Analysis)

Zak Hilditch’s 2017 adaptation of Stephen King’s novella 1992 is a psychological horror about crime and punishment. It delves deep into the effects of guilty consciousness, its manifestations, and its impact on the lives of perpetrators. This article will take you through the movie’s most important themes, motifs, and symbols . Here’s the plot and ending of the movie 1922 explained; spoilers ahead.

Hollywordle – Check out my new Hollywood Wordle game!

Where To Watch?

To find where to stream any movie or series based on your country, use This Is Barry’s Where To Watch .

Oh, and if this article doesn’t answer all of your questions, drop me a comment or an FB chat message, and I’ll get you the answer . You can find other film explanations using the search option on top of the site.

Here are links to the key aspects of the movie:

– Plot Synopsis
– The Theme of Crime and Punishment
– The Recurring Motif of Irony
– Symbols Explained
– Rats
– Blood
– Ghosts
– Ending Explained

1922 Movie: Plot Synopsis

1992 is a modern subversion of Crime and Punishment.

Wilfred (Wilf) James lives on a farm in Nebraska with his wife, Arlette, and their son Henry (Hank). Arlette hates farm life and intends to sell her part of the land (her dowry) and move to the city .

She unsuccessfully tries to convince Wilf to sell his share, as well, and move to the city with her, but this doesn’t really matter, seeing as how she has the final say by default. As a mother, 14-year-old Henry falls under her custody. She intends to sell the farm to a livestock company, whose operations would pollute even Wilf’s part of the property (making it infertile and useless).

Hank, who’s fallen in love with the neighboring farmer’s daughter , and Wilfred, who stands to lose everything if Arlette gets her way, plot to kill her. Because this happens on a remote farm, the duo successfully commits the crime, only to be haunted by their conscience.

In the end, Hank and his pregnant sweetheart are killed during a robbery (trying to mimic the life of Bonnie and Clyde). Wilf loses his property , his son, and, ultimately, his sanity , making the only logical conclusion that “In the end, we all get caught.”

1922 Movie: The Theme of Crime and Punishment

In Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment , the Russian author deconstructs the concept of punishment in modern times. When we hear the word punishment, the majority of us immediately switch to thinking of legal consequences. Here, like in Dostoyevsky’s work, there are no legal consequences. Does this mean that the punishment is not present either? Of course not!

The fact that the three of them live on a remote farm is a perfect setup that, on its own, poses an additional temptation . After all, Wilf and Henry know they can easily evade being discovered. They would have a huge problem keeping this hidden if they lived in an apartment building or a tight-knit suburb. Even with the blinds on and effective sound absorbing panels on the walls, getting rid of the body unnoticed would be nearly impossible.

As we already said, a crime without a punishment seems tempting to them. However, this is only so because the two fail to consider different forms of punishment . Their guilty conscience turns out to be too heavy of a burden to bear and soon takes a toll on Wilf’s sanity.

The Recurring Motif of Irony

One of the most dominant motifs in the movie is irony. Wilf kills his wife to keep the farm but loses it anyway, mostly as a domino effect caused by the killing. When he falls ill, he becomes incapable of taking care of it, leading to its decay. Faced with this, Wilf gets indebted, and eventually, the farm ends up in the ownership of the livestock company that Arlette originally intended to sell her land. In other words, he lost everything and achieved no effect in the process .

Another of Wilf’s motives for the murder is his desire to keep his son on the farm . A combination of his actions and Henry’s guilty conscience eventually drive Henry away and to his death. Moreover, under the guise of protecting Henry (doing what’s best for him), Wilf involves his own son in one of the most heinous crimes imaginable .

Namely, Hank helps kill his mother for being an obstacle to his love for his sweetheart Shannon. However, when Shannon gets pregnant, both of their fathers refuse to permit them to wed, thus making his own sacrifice completely useless. So, after killing his wife and “driving away” his son, he remains alone on the farm .

Lastly, the most subtle example of irony is the fact that Wilf managed to avoid legal prosecution only to succumb to the judgment of his own consciousness .

1922 Movie: Symbols Explained

The film itself is filled with symbolism of all kinds. Here are the three most common and significant symbols in the movie 1922.

Rats are the manifestation of Wilf’s guilty consciousness. They first appear shortly after the murder and seem to come from where they buried Arlette. Symbolically, this represents their conscience sprouting from a buried secret.

Still, the nest soon seems to not matter, as we are shown that Wilf can never run away from rats, no matter where he stays or how far he goes. This just further goes to illustrate their role as the manifestation of his own guilt . A similar thing happens to Robert Pattinson’s Winslow in The Lighthouse (2019) , where he cannot escape his past, no matter how far he goes to hide.

The form of a rat is not an accident either. Firstly, it’s a rodent towards which humans almost universally feel disgusted. A reaction of a guilty person feeling physical disgust when faced with their own crime is not unheard of.

The ending of the book and the movie are slightly different, seeing as how, in the movie 1922, it appears as if Wilf is devoured by rats. The same happens in the book, with a brief clarification that all the “rats” bite marks on his body were actually self-inflicted. In other words, in the book, King tells us more directly that Wilf is delusional rather than faced with some sort of supernatural punishment.

Right after the murder, Wilf and Hank seem shocked at how much work it takes to destroy the evidence of the murder. All the packing, lying, coming up with an alibi, and, finally, removing blood are incredibly difficult. The motif of the guilty party’s inability to remove blood is prevalent in literature. For instance, when driven mad by her conscience, Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth compulsively scrubs her (physically clean) hands, believing she can never wash off the blood.

Even though they manage to conceal the murder from the world, they can never hide it from themselves . In other words, while no one else can see the blood on their hands, all three of them (Hank, Wilf, and Lady Macbeth) know it’s there.

Throughout the story, Wilf encounters two ghosts – Arlette’s and Hank’s. What these two ghosts have in common is the fact that they:

Appear when he’s alone
Represent people whose lives were directly ruined by Wilf’s decisions

Based on these two features, it would be logical to conclude that the ghosts represent his guilty conscience, similar to the above-discussed rats . The problem is that these ghosts have one more supernatural feature:

Omniscience

Hank’s ghost knows the exact time and manner of Hank’s death, while Arlette’s ghost knows the conditions of Hank’s death (the event that neither she nor Wilf was present at). Here, both the author and the director leave some room for the supernatural, speculating that this might also be some sort of a divine punishment sent upon Wilf.

1922 Movie Ending Explained

The ending of the movie 1922 shows us that Wilf has lost his mind due to the guilt of murdering his wife and pushing away his son. His greed makes him lose everything, and he dies a slow death haunted by his conscience.

Finally, while definitely terrifying and a powerful deterrent, legal action is not the only thing keeping people from engaging in crime. Our own conscience can have just as menacing of a presence, even for those whose moral compass doesn’t seem to function at times. This is precisely what both King and Hilditch did their best to show.

What were your thoughts on the plot and ending of the movie 1922? Drop your comments in the section below.

Stacey is a talented freelance writer passionate about all things pop culture. She has a keen eye for detail and a natural talent for storytelling. She’s a super-fan of Game of Thrones, Cats, and Indie Rock Music and can often be found engrossed in complex films and books. Connect with her on her social media handles to learn more about her work and interests.

Celebrate Silent Film

The Black Tulip (1921) A Silent Film Review

A lesser-known Alexandre Dumas novel brought to the screen as a Dutch-British co-production. Set at the start of the reign of William of Orange, it is a tale of death, jealousy and flowers.

Home Media Availability: Stream courtesy of EYE.

Tulip Mania

Tulip Mania has entered the vernacular as a shorthand for a frenzied speculative bubble. From Beanie Babies to NFTs, the crazes are intense, brief and eccentric. However, unlike subsequent bubbles, tulips remained popular even if their value became far more realistic.

The Black Tulip was published by Alexandre Dumas in 1850, on the heels of his popular classics The Three Musketeers (and sequels) and The Count of Monte Cristo . A thin volume with a simple plot, it never won the same popularity of the author’s big hits but since those books are famously difficult to fit into just one picture, perhaps its tale was better suited to the cinema.

While it is set over three decades after the height of tulip mania, the story revolves around a rare form of the flower and a prize offered to the gardener who can grow one. (Most “black” flowers and fruits are actually very dark purple, just as any “blue” rose is actually very pale violet. I want a historical swashbuckler about the race to grow the first yellow sweet pea , thank you.)

Dumas opens his novel with the horrifying events of 1672, in which Johan and Cornelis de Witt, brothers and leaders of Dutch politics for decades but bound for exile, were dragged from prison in the Hague by an angry mob. They were murdered, mutilated and partially eaten.

Now that he has your attention…

The film version, a Dutch-British co-production, opts for a gentler opening, loving shots of flowers and an announcement that a rich prize is being offered for anyone who can grow a black tulip. Finally, we get an introduction to the novel’s hero, Cornelius van Baerle (Gerald McCarthy), a gentleman gardener and tulip fanatic—and the godson of Cornelis de Witt.

With the political climate of the Netherlands in turmoil, William of Orange (Frank Dane) makes his move to gain power. The brothers de Witt (Eduard Verkade and Dio Huysmans) resist but violent protests force their hand.

Here we have some inclination that this movie is going off the rails. The stressful protests are just some people waving their arms a bit. Are they calling for the deaths of their former masters or jostling to buy Eurovision tickets? Either is possible, given their demeanor.

Anyway, the de Witts had been corresponding with Louis XVI, which wasn’t a good look seeing as how he has invaded the Netherlands, so they send the incriminating letters to be stored by van Baerle, who is noted for caring about his garden and nothing else.

However, van Baerle’s neighbor, Boxtel (Harry Waghalter) is jealous of his garden and suspects that he is attempting to grow a black tulip. He sends an anonymous letter of denunciation after eavesdropping and learning of the French correspondence. When van Baerle is arrested, Boxtel attempts to steal his tulip bulbs but discovers that they are nowhere to be found.

Circumstances have grown more dire for the de Witt brothers, with Cornelis tortured and Johan trying to get him out of prison and into exile. Gryphus (Coen Hissink), the corrupt jailer, is no help and seems to actually support the mob but his beautiful daughter, Rosa (Zoe Palmer), is horrified. Angered citizens storm the prison and the brothers die off-camera.

The mob gets slightly more animated at this point but I am still not buying that this is an enraged army of cannibals. I understand why the deaths of the brothers de Witt were not shown—this is a family film, sir!—but what follows is simply a sober proclamation that their deaths were a black page in history, followed by showing a black page in a book.

This literal imagery is unintentionally humorous. The black page was a phrase in common use at the time and a first edition of the 18 th century work Tristram Shandy famously used a black page to mark the death of a character ( as did several earlier texts from the 17 th century ) but, as is the case with trunkhose and codpieces, it is possible to be historically accurate and still distracting.

The sequence carries no narrative weight and this film was designed for foreign release, so non-Dutch viewers need a helping hand to understand the infamy of these deaths. This is not helped by the fact that the grievances of the crowd (the Dutch did not, in fact, like being invaded by the French) are left vague other than a demand for William of Orange to be granted power.

With the de Witts dispatched, the film returns its focus to van Baerle. It’s love at first sight when he sees Rosa and she reciprocates. She gives him his godfather’s bible and he decides to will her his black tulip bulbs, writing a letter explaining what he is giving her and their value. It’s an abrupt sort of romance but that sort of thing was popular at the time. “I just met you and this is crazy but here are my tulips, which will be your dowry when I die, etc.”

Things take another turn when van Baerle’s death sentence is commuted to life in prison and Rosa personally entreats William to post her father as his jailer so they can remain together. The rest of the picture is a bit of a slog with Rosa and van Baerle exchanging sweet nothings in prison, flowers being grown and Boxtel skulking about trying to find the bulbs.

The last ten minutes, the film wakes up and becomes a race between Rosa and Boxtel to deliver the blooming tulip to the prince. Boxtel steals it, Rosa steals it back, he locks her in a windmill, she climbs down the blade to escape. It’s the most fun to be had in the entire picture and I just wish there had been more of it. (Co-director Maurits Binger had earlier helmed The Secret of Delft , a far more enjoyable picture which likewise featured a stolen cultural item, an action heroine and windmill antics. The man knew what he liked.)

The Black Tulip ’s resolution involves a deux ex Orange with the prince stepping in to right all wrongs. That’s fine in theory, it’s hardly the first or only story of its era to be resolved via royal intervention. However, Dumas painted himself into a narrative corner with his opening scene and the film, even though it rearranged the sequence of events, fell into the same trap.

The Black Tulip wants to have it both ways: condemn the brutal deaths of the de Witts but not grappling with the fact that William of Orange, even if he didn’t directly order anything, benefited from the killings while failing to punish and in some cases actually rewarding the masterminds. Do I really have to explain RICO? (I know, I know, it’s American but William died when his horse tripped on a molehill and his political rivals toasted “the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat” so the concept of indirect killing was known.)

The essential, related problem is that The Black Tulip is not Dumas’s finest adventure and this production does little to elevate it. It especially pales in an apples-to-apples comparison with other mob-filled historical pictures from the same era. Scaramouche (1923) and A Tale of Two Cities (1917) both portrayed their furious mobs in a suitably frenzied manner.

I understand balking at portraying a pair of extremely bloody deaths but the film consistently failed to drive home what could have been emotional moments. What was the point of putting van Baerle in prison while his godfather is being murdered if his reaction is not shown? It could have added poignance to the scene without graphic violence. The infamous gore of 1919’s Behind the Door was suggested by shadows and shocked reactions, after all. Further, why was Rosa’s initial contact with William treated so nonchalantly? Sneaking into the royal presence should have created a bit of suspense if it hadn’t been treated as a hand-wavey flashback.

The black tulip is a MacGuffin in the classic sense with no particular emphasis on its rarity or beauty. People are willing to lie, cheat and steal for this thing, yet the film doesn’t even give us a closeup once it flowers and is unveiled. Red photographed black during this, period, so it would have been rather easy to shoot loving images of the rare flower. In fact, floral motion picture photography had been popular since the 1890s, so this was hardly a difficult task. We are not shown the process of flower breeding, which could have been made cinematic utilizing the style of actualities, which were so popular at the time.

Indeed, the characters are generally dragged from Point A to Point B with few emotional beats offered simply because the story requires them to be there. The Black Tulip falls into the historical film trap of emphasizing events and scenery (which is quite good) over the inner lives of the protagonists.

In the plus column, the end of Boxtel is more satisfying in the film. In the book, he died of a heart attack when Rosa was named owner of the black tulip but van Baerle does not learn of his betrayal until much later. In the film, we get the whole “take this man away” business with Boxtel trundled off to prison before the main cast. (Nineteenth century novelists loved their “possibly divinely struck down or maybe a heart condition” ends for villains.)

Other changes to the novel are inexplicable and not for the better. For example, in the film, van Baerle is being led away for execution when he receives word that his sentence was commuted. Fine. In the novel, he is actually lying with his head on the block when the last minute reprieve comes. Whose idea was it to remove all the suspense from the scene like that?

In theory, a production about guerilla tulip gardening should have been ideally suitable for a Dutch-British co-production but in practice, much of the already weak novel’s meagre suspense is excised adn nobody involved seemed to have been particularly excited about the story or characters or even tulips. And if they didn’t care, how can the audience?

Where can I see it?

Stream courtesy of EYE. And I want to emphasize that even if this film wasn’t my favorite, at least I know that from personal viewing experience and not guesswork based on a textbook and a few vintage reviews. Archival access is priceless, even if all the films can’t be winners.

Like what you’re reading? Please consider sponsoring me on Patreon . All patrons will get early previews of upcoming features, exclusive polls and other goodies.

Disclosure: Some links included in this post may be affiliate links to products sold by Amazon and as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

1922 movie review

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Movie Reviews

Brian Tallerico

Now playing

Sarah-Tai Black

Fancy Dance

Banel & Adama

Hummingbirds

Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person

1922 (2017)

Writer (short story)

Cinematographer

Latest blog posts

KVIFF: Loveable, Tiny Lights, Windless

The Forrest Gump Soundtrack Hits Different in the Spotify Era

The Man Behind the Curtain: Robert Towne (1934-2024)

Female Filmmakers In Focus: Agnieszka Holland

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Email not verified

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

1922 Reviews

Film Review: Stephen King’s ‘1922’

Related Stories

Popular on Variety

Reviewed at Fantastic Fest, Austin, Sept. 23, 2007. Running time: 101 MIN.

More from Variety

1922 (2017)

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

Recently Viewed

‘1922’ Review: ‘The Shining’ Meets ‘The Tell-Tale Heart’ in the Year’s Most Impressive Stephen King Adaptation — Fantastic Fest

Most Popular

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

site categories

Related Stories

THR Newsletters

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Screen Rant

New Lord Of The Rings Movie Image Reveals Middle-earth Princess Who Leads Resistance Against Rohan's Enemies

Key Release Dates

1922 Review

Most Popular

Netflix’s 1922 is a reminder of what Stephen King does best

Share this story

What’s the genre?

What’s it about?

What’s it really about?

Is it good?

What should it be rated?

How can I actually watch it?

I renewed my US passport in a single week with the government’s speedy online beta

More from this stream Fantastic Fest 2017: reviews and interviews from Austin’s culty genre film festival

1922 Review

In This Article

More Reviews by William Bibbiani

1922: A Man Unraveled By Guilt

Justifying A Sin

Suffering The Consequences

Conclusion: 1922

Does content like this matter to you?

Or browse by category:

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Common Sense Selections for Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

How to Help Kids Spot Misinformation and Disinformation

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories