Needful Things (1993)

Pretty Good

A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Needful Things isn't one of Stephen Kings better novels; it's overblown and leans heavily on gory horror and satanic menace rather than the compelling psychological tension that characterises his later work. The book's saving grace for me is the wit and charm of King's narrative style, which is inevitably lost in a screen adaptation.This film pares down the story considerably: not necessarily a bad thing, though it leaves several loose ends for anyone familiar with the novel. Bolstered by strong performances from Ed Harris and Max Von Sydow in the leading roles, the result is a good horror film that's worth a watch, though it's several leagues below the likes of The Shining and The Green Mile.

An adaptation of the only Stephen King novel I've ever finished (the only other one I started - and gave up on - is The Tommyknockers), Needful Things stars Max von Sydow as the Devil. He opens a new shop in the town of Castle Rock, selling people's deepest desire for them on the cheap. Well, not really. The asking price is always some bit of mischief that ends up turning neighbors against each other until they're ready to murder. From what I gather, this isn't one of King's better novels. I remember quite enjoying it back in the day, or at least it being a quick, fun read despite its excessive length. The film version hews fairly close, as far as I recall. It's overlong for what it is and it starts off a bit slow. It has several really good scenes and the cast is mostly very good. Von Sydow is a lot of fun as Leland Gaunt. Ed Harris stars as the sheriff and Amanda Plummer is memorable as one of the first citizens to go off the rail. Other good performances include those of Ray McKinnon and JT Walsh.

As soon as you get the idea that a masterpiece, "Needful Things" will not be, there are three possibilities: you enjoy the film for what it is, you despise it for what it is not, or both. I guess those who read Stephen King's original novel and noted all the deviations will stand on the second category. But it doesn't make any difference for me, since I've never read Stephen King, I can only base my judgment on my personal appreciation of the film, yet what I read about the novel confirmed a few regrets.For instance, there is a moment in the film where the 11-year old Brian tries to kill himself out of the guilt to have started the whole mayhem. After buying a Michael Mantle card dedicated to him, from Leland Gant, the mysterious new antiques stores owner, as a return, he's asked to commit two little pranks that eventually lead to the death of two women. Normally, in a true horrific King's film, he should be the third symbolical victim, to highlight the devilish manipulation he was victim of. But the hero of the film, the Sheriff played by Ed Harris, stops him at the last second. Now, what does 'knowing that he survived' add to the film? The relief that a kid's life was spared? You know there's a problem when a film doesn't have the guts to kill a child, especially when it's unfaithful to the novel.And that kind of sugarcoating is even more surprising from a film that is not afraid to shock the viewers. Let's get back to the two women who died, the hillbilly farmer and the shy waitress (played by a scene-stealing Amanda Plummer), they absolutely hate each other, we never know why but it doesn't matter, Vilma has something against Nettie's dog, and Nettie hates her in retrospect. Leland Gaunt know about their history, he even gave Vilma an old toy she broke after an argument with her late husband, and then, he exploits Brian's debt to make the two women kill each other. Brian throws apples (Nettie is renowned for her delicious apple pies) at Vilma's house, and in exchange of an old jacket that will revive the spirit of the 50's, the town's drunk has a more disgusting favor to accomplish, regarding Nettie's dog.The outcome of this part is extremely shocking, in less than ten minutes, we have the terrifying sight of a bleeding skinless dog gazing at a screaming Nettie followed by a horrific cat-fight, ending to (naturally) both women cutting themselves to pieces in the most gruesome way, worthy of the greatest horror flicks. The problem is that the sequence I described happens to be the highlight of the film, and it's never as shocking and frightening ever after. We're intended to believe that the rivalry between two religious members, that the prejudices between the deputy officer and the local mayor 'Buster' Keeton (J.T. Walsh) will lead to something, but strangely enough, it never adds up to the horror reached during the first part, and that's why the climax doesn't come as satisfying as it should have been, especially from a horror film.What lacked in "Needful Things" were a true direction and a better storytelling. Anyone could have seen that coming: a peaceful town like those cherished by Stephen King, even named Castle Rock, with the same iconic lighthouse and autumnal foliage, turning at the end into an urban battlefield, with people trading one item of personal worth in exchange of a deadly favor, following the eternal selling-soul-to-the-devil cliché. What do we have in between? A succession of situations that only fill time before an anticlimactic confrontation. Indeed, we already know Gaunt is the Devil, and then we have to wait for the moment the Sheriff will figure that to see how he'll handle it. And it's only when Gaunt is confronted, during the last five minutes that the film gets more interesting. And the last exchange between Max Von Sydow and Ed Harris is more chilling than the overdose of pyrotechnics and special effects, displayed for the sake of cheap thrills.I guess this is the mark of some wannabe directors eager to prove their talent by using special effects, while a much subtler and simpler directing would have served the story. Why make so obvious that Gaunt is the devil, by trying to suggest it through his mundane attitude and a few devilish innuendo. The devil's disguise couldn't have fooled us, so why not playing the game straighter from the start? How can a mousetrap provoke a better effect than a woman getting a cleaver on the forehead? How can a few explosions, two men shooting at each other, make you forget the sight of a skinned dog? Violence wasn't balanced enough and after Nettie died, no actor could really save the story, and what was left was the performance of Von Sydow and some gripping interactions with Bonnie Bedelia (as the Sheriff's fiancée).Maybe that's what the film should have had: more dialogs, less predictable relationships, and a few outbursts of violence. But the director, son of Charlton Heston, was probably so proud of his accomplishment he thought people would cheer at the chaotic over- the-top climax, but even by looking at the film with more indulgent eyes, the whole thing felt like a private joke, not even funny. Harris' speech was too explicative and repetitive, he was telling the townspeople that Gaunt was the Devil, did he say something we didn't know? That's the problem: we're always ahead of the characters, and except for the dog and Gaunt's last word, we can see everything coming.The film scared the hell out of me at 14, but now I've seen enough horror flicks to realize how much better the same plot would have been with another director. I enjoy it for what it is, but hell, it couldn't have been so much better.

I'm not a big Stephen King fan but the premise to this story is just great. It should make for a great film but for some reason the film disappoints. Not terribly but you feel like you should have gotten more.Enter Max von Sydow. The man is an absolute pleasure to watch in any film he is in and no matter how long he appears in a given film it is better for his involvement. Without question one of the world's greatest actors of the twentieth century. This is obviously not his best role but he lends a wonderful Old World charm to this American story, his turn as the shopkeeper saves this movie from being low- quality and brings it up to a decent spooky story.I have heard that the TBS version is much better as it feature more characterization (what I found to be the weakest part of the film) but I have not seen it. If anyone has any idea where to acquire it please leave a comment.