1922 2017

Thomas Jane's accent might be pretty hard to understand, and the story is just a just a plot you've already seen put through the Stephen King's Children of the Corn wringer, but that doesn't stop 1922 from being another Stephen King adaptation we can put in 2017's "Good" column, alongside It and Gerald's Game (and decidedly not alongside The Dark Tower).

Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go.

— Gimly

There’s always another way than murder

Two members of a corn-farming family in 1922 Nebraska commit a crime and get away with it, but do they really? Thomas Jane and Molly Parker play the parents while Dylan Schmid is on hand as the son, who’s about 15.

Released in 2017, “1922” is a haunting crime drama/period piece with elements of horror, unsurprisingly based on a Stephen King story of the same name. The confined farm location, tone and even genre are akin to films like “The Messengers” (2007), “Husk” (2011) and “Signs” (2002). There’s also a nod to “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967).

Thomas Jane should’ve gotten an award for his performance, as he literally disappears in the role and is unrecognizable. His farm hick accent is so thick I strongly recommend using the subtitles.

The themes revolve around disloyalty, the danger of allowing hostility (hatred) to fester, the abuse of authority/manipulation and the power of conscience.

The film runs 1 hour, 42 minutes and was shot, believe it or not, in Western Australia. Additional cast: Kaitlyn Bernard appears as the kid’s neighbor girlfriend and Neal McDonough her father.

GRADE: B

— Wuchak

This isn't so much a movie, as a stark - almost biblical - lesson on the reap and ye shall sow principle. Thomas Jane is unhappily married to Molly Parker. When she decides it is time to sell up their small ranch (complete with fields of tall corn!), he hits on the idea of disposing of her. He ropes in his 14 year old son Dylan Schmid and what follows is a rather beautifully shot story of retribution (divine or man-made) on the pair. This is more of a cross-thread of what happens to the two men dealing with the consequences, than a story with a narrative, and that is where the film really slows down to a rather ponderous grind. It was only ever a short-ish story from Stephen King so it was always going to be tough to properly string it out for 100 minutes and though atmospheric, it is really just a rather procedural plod of a film with little about the two men to engage sympathy. At times the imagery is graphic, but not in an especially potent way, and the dialogue seems to take for ever to make the point we have long guessed for ourselves much earlier. More of a moral message than a movie...

— CinemaSerf