1922
It interested me more than it excited me. It has a very Stephen King premise: an isolated family, a farm, a horrible decision and guilt beginning to rot everything from within. I liked that aspect, because it does not present horror as a string of scares, but as moral degradation. But it did not seem like a huge film to me, nor an adaptation to praise without measure. It has atmosphere, ideas and powerful images, but it is also slow, somewhat stretched and quite predictable.
The best thing is the atmosphere. The countryside, the house, the soil, the dark interiors, poverty, silence and that feeling of isolation are very well built. The film manages to make the space weigh on you. It is not a bright farm or a postcard landscape, but a dry, rough, almost sick place, where everything seems doomed to rot. There I did find clear strength: the story feels physical, as if guilt smelled of dust, old wood, dampness and dead animals.
The idea that horror is born from a human decision, not from an external threat, also works. Wilfred is not a poor man dragged along by fate, but someone who chooses, calculates and manipulates. And that matters, because Henry does not carry the same moral responsibility. The father pushes him, contaminates him, pulls him into a crime that does not come from him and steals his chance to remain simply a son. That part of the story seems harsher to me than many of the horror images.
Thomas Jane holds the film together fairly well. I would not say I found him perfect or extraordinary, but he is convincing as a closed, stubborn man, dirty inside and increasingly trapped by what he has done. His voice, appearance and way of moving fit that rural world of guilt and obstinacy. What is interesting is that the character does not need to go mad in a spectacular way: it is enough to watch him being left alone with his lie.
The rats, the visions and the presence of the dead wife are the most memorable elements. I like that they do not work only as scares, but as the representation of a conscience that cannot rest. The film is stronger when it turns those elements into psychological punishment than when it tries to play conventional horror. The rats, above all, are a very effective image: small, persistent, disgusting, impossible to push away completely, like guilt itself.
The problem is that, even with all that, it did not always keep me gripped with the intensity I expected. The story advances with deliberate slowness, and I understand what it is aiming for, but at times it becomes too obvious that the material might have been better suited to a shorter format. There are moments when waiting creates tension, but others in which it simply stretches a fall we can already see coming. The film is atmospheric, yes, but not always intense.
It did not surprise me very much either. I do not need constant twists, especially not in a story about guilt, but I did need a little more emotional progression or bite. Here the path is marked quite early: crime, deterioration, punishment, the return of the past, moral descent. It can be followed with interest, but it rarely made me feel I was discovering something truly new. Its greatest virtue is its tone; its limit is that this tone is not always enough to fill the whole running time.
As a King adaptation, it seems correct and quite dignified. It preserves well his idea that evil can emerge in ordinary places, that a family can become a small hell, and that moral consequences have more patience than any monster. There is no need for castles or giant monsters. A farm, a family, an ambition and a conscience being devoured are enough. That mixture of dirty realism and moral nightmare is exactly what I liked most.
I do not see it as a bad film. In fact, it has much more personality than many routine adaptations. But I do not find it fully successful either. It left me with images, a well-crafted atmosphere and an unpleasant sense of guilt buried under the soil, though not an emotion strong enough to call it a great film. I saw it more as a well-told dark tale than as an experience that really hit me.
In the end, I would leave it at a solid but contained rating, no more. A slow, dry film with good atmosphere, one that works well with guilt, the father’s manipulation and inner punishment, but stretches too much and does not always sustain tension. It has rats, soil, remorse and an interesting moral darkness, but it did not strike me as powerful enough to get truly enthusiastic about. Good within its modesty, yes; great, absolutely not.
The best thing is the atmosphere. The countryside, the house, the soil, the dark interiors, poverty, silence and that feeling of isolation are very well built. The film manages to make the space weigh on you. It is not a bright farm or a postcard landscape, but a dry, rough, almost sick place, where everything seems doomed to rot. There I did find clear strength: the story feels physical, as if guilt smelled of dust, old wood, dampness and dead animals.
The idea that horror is born from a human decision, not from an external threat, also works. Wilfred is not a poor man dragged along by fate, but someone who chooses, calculates and manipulates. And that matters, because Henry does not carry the same moral responsibility. The father pushes him, contaminates him, pulls him into a crime that does not come from him and steals his chance to remain simply a son. That part of the story seems harsher to me than many of the horror images.
Thomas Jane holds the film together fairly well. I would not say I found him perfect or extraordinary, but he is convincing as a closed, stubborn man, dirty inside and increasingly trapped by what he has done. His voice, appearance and way of moving fit that rural world of guilt and obstinacy. What is interesting is that the character does not need to go mad in a spectacular way: it is enough to watch him being left alone with his lie.
The rats, the visions and the presence of the dead wife are the most memorable elements. I like that they do not work only as scares, but as the representation of a conscience that cannot rest. The film is stronger when it turns those elements into psychological punishment than when it tries to play conventional horror. The rats, above all, are a very effective image: small, persistent, disgusting, impossible to push away completely, like guilt itself.
The problem is that, even with all that, it did not always keep me gripped with the intensity I expected. The story advances with deliberate slowness, and I understand what it is aiming for, but at times it becomes too obvious that the material might have been better suited to a shorter format. There are moments when waiting creates tension, but others in which it simply stretches a fall we can already see coming. The film is atmospheric, yes, but not always intense.
It did not surprise me very much either. I do not need constant twists, especially not in a story about guilt, but I did need a little more emotional progression or bite. Here the path is marked quite early: crime, deterioration, punishment, the return of the past, moral descent. It can be followed with interest, but it rarely made me feel I was discovering something truly new. Its greatest virtue is its tone; its limit is that this tone is not always enough to fill the whole running time.
As a King adaptation, it seems correct and quite dignified. It preserves well his idea that evil can emerge in ordinary places, that a family can become a small hell, and that moral consequences have more patience than any monster. There is no need for castles or giant monsters. A farm, a family, an ambition and a conscience being devoured are enough. That mixture of dirty realism and moral nightmare is exactly what I liked most.
I do not see it as a bad film. In fact, it has much more personality than many routine adaptations. But I do not find it fully successful either. It left me with images, a well-crafted atmosphere and an unpleasant sense of guilt buried under the soil, though not an emotion strong enough to call it a great film. I saw it more as a well-told dark tale than as an experience that really hit me.
In the end, I would leave it at a solid but contained rating, no more. A slow, dry film with good atmosphere, one that works well with guilt, the father’s manipulation and inner punishment, but stretches too much and does not always sustain tension. It has rats, soil, remorse and an interesting moral darkness, but it did not strike me as powerful enough to get truly enthusiastic about. Good within its modesty, yes; great, absolutely not.
Mini Review: It interested me more than it excited me. It has a very Stephen King premise: an isolated family, a farm, a horrible decision and guilt beginning to rot everything from within. I liked that aspect, because it does not present horror as a string of scares, but as moral degradation. But it did not seem like a huge film to me, nor an adaptation to praise without measure. It has atmosphere, ideas and powerful images, but it is also slow, somewhat...
Watch the Trailer