The Dark Half (1993)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

the audience applauded

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

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.

Stephen King, baby! For many years I re-watched this movie, even owned the DVD at some point and still The Dark Half is a personal classic to me. The fact alone that Timothy Hutton plays both, Thad and George, and displays both of these characters so differently, shows how good he is as an actor. If you haven't seen this one yet, you definetely should check it out, for it is one of the better Stephen King adaptations with a brilliant atmosphere, at times hilarious over the top acting and a storyline that keeps you engaged in what is going on at the screen.

There was more than once while watching the film that I thought Alfred Hitchcock could have used George Romero when he was filming "The Birds". With at least a half dozen scenes of sparrows massing in the sky or threatening the Beaumont home, they appeared a lot more threatening than Hitchcock's birds. But that was an earlier time and George Romero was just getting started in the Sixties and wouldn't have been a name to contend with yet.One thing that bothered me about this story was the premise set for the existence of George Stark, the evil alter-ego identity of Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton). The foreign tissue removed from the young Thad was described as an 'absorbed fetus', formed of a rare tumor manifesting a tooth and other grisly organic remains. Then later, Thad's university friend Reggie proclaims George a conjuration, created by the force of Thad's will. I haven't read the King novel, so it seems to me the film's story line was going in too many different directions with these arguments. Personally, going with just the latter idea would have worked well enough for me.Fred Clawson's blackmail scheme didn't hold much water with me either. Obviously Beaumont's publisher knew he was using a pseudonym, and to my thinking, what was the big deal anyway? Stephen King uses at least a couple I'm aware of - Richard Bachman and Peter Straub - and it never hurt his career. So that was a little muddled in the execution too.But you know what, the evil guise of George Stark was really cool, wasn't it? Looking like a deranged Elvis impersonator, I thought Hutton's transformation into the warped madman was pretty impressive. I had to wonder though about the Mississippi plates on his Toronado, where did that idea come from? Tennessee (Graceland) would have made more sense and I wouldn't even have questioned it. Oh, well.Anyway, old George came to a ghastly finale there at the end of the picture, but even then I had to contain a chuckle among all the gruesome imagery. For the very first time ever I saw it dramatically illustrated what it means to be a pencil necked geek.

An above-average adaptation of the Stephen King novel, this is a gory, disturbing little movie which sticks closely to its source. The story is an intelligent, unpredictable one which remains one of King's most genuinely horrific tales, and director George Romero makes a good job of the film version. The gore and violence is used in a shocking, unpleasant way instead of being there just for the sake of it, and the spot-on acting elevates the film above being just another schlocky horror tale.Timothy Hutton in particular is very good both as innocent writer Thad Beaumont, plagued by visions, sounds, headaches, and nightmares, and also as his demonic alter-ego George Stark, who is something like an evil version of Elvis Presley. Stark is a totally ruthless and villainous character, one of the most despicable I've seen (he reminds me somewhat of David Hess) and spends the film either slashing people up with a straight-razor or simply bullying them. Amy Madigan lends solid support as Hutton's endangered wife, while Michael Rooker also puts in a strong turn as Sheriff Alan Pangbourne, who investigates the crimes.The film gets off to a good start with an unforgettable horror special effect of a milky-white human eyeball blinking inside somebody's brain; a simple enough effect to create, but one which stayed with me afterwards. From then on, things get relentlessly darker; this film has a real hard edge to it which makes for uncomfortable viewing at times. Another horrific highlight includes a dream sequence in which a doll's face shatters to reveal a human skull underneath - very unsettling. The special effects are used well, from some realistic wound-makeups which look very painful, to the masses of sparrows which fill the sky on occasion and play a crucial part in the suspenseful finale. Incidentally, the ending (which will have you cheering) is also very horrific: good special effects make this a conclusion worth waiting for. CGI is occasionally used to animate the sparrows but doesn't intrude too much.In conclusion, I would call THE DARK HALF a true "horror film" and miles away from the cheap gorefests and unscary slashers which populate the rest of the '90s, in that it actually manages to be frightening and disturbing at times. It also serves as proof that George Romero still has the power to make good movies on occasion, which makes it seem odd that he has so much trouble attempting to do so. Highly recommended for King fans as one of the better adaptations of his work.

Perhaps, it was me, but damn, The Dark Half, one of the very few Stephen King film adaptations I hadn't seen until now, was so hard to get into. The story about a boy who had another boy living in his head – literally, began to make less and less sense as the movie progressed. Worse, the movie was sooo long.Now, I do own this book and, though I hadn't read that yet, it'll probably piece together some of the holes I couldn't follow. But, this movie did not encourage me to pick up Stephen King's novel any time soon.The movie was delayed in my viewing because, well, I am not a Timothy Hutton fan. Knowing he's playing a duel role, didn't add to the excitement I should've had for this. But, since it's October, I figured I'd finally see what this was all about 20 years after its release.From what I can recall, and forgive – it's been a couple of days, a boy's writing leads to headaches and mystical sounds of birds. Upon further examination, there was a twin lodged in his brain. We are to believe the second child, the "dark half" twin had been extracted and disposed of. Fast forward many years, and that boy, Thad (Hutton,) has grown up, married, had twins of his own and is a writer. Of course, in King fashion and true life, Thad has an alternative and secret name he writes under, darker stuff. Stuff that sells.But, when the idea to "kill" off this other penned name to avoid a blackmail subplot, all hell breaks loose. This "George Stark/Dark Half" writer doesn't want to "die," so he kills people and (inadvertently or not) pins the murders on Thad.Where I had a problem was: was this George a split personality? Or a ghost, or made up/made real being? Or, a grown up version of that twin in the brain that was supposed to be disposed of? That last one is the farthest stretch, and yeah, even more than a ghost. For, the twin in the brain was just an eyeball and cavity-infested teeth. Take that out, and in the 1960s, I doubt they could've reconstructed, somehow, the whole male.As I began this review, I stated this is perhaps this is my fault. Perhaps, my mind was elsewhere and it was hard to concentrate. It was over two hours and not well paced, after all. But, if this movie was interesting enough, I'm sure it would've engaged me away from real life. Sadly, it was not.* * * Final thoughts: Not recommended. Maybe read the book. I'm sure that's a ton better and there's no Hutton there.