Needful Things (1993) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
126 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Sydow carries the movie
Chicky515028 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Needful Things is an unexpected gem of a movie. I think its subtlety worked against it. Looking at the comments here, I think people missed the point of Max von Sydow's performance.

The plot is simple. Leland Grant (the Devil) moves into a small town and opens up a shop that can get you anything you want, but he'll ask you for a favor. The favors exploit tensions in the town, causing people to turn on each other.

Ed Harris is solid as the town sheriff, but he isn't given a lot to do, neither is his fiancée Bonnie Bedalia. This movie belongs to its the villains, the town politician J.T. Walsh unravels over the course of the movie, and von Sydow is utterly brilliant.

This would be an easy role to overact on. You could be the mustache twirling villain quite easily, but Leland Gaunt is grandfatherly, likable, a complete gentleman. As he manipulates and torments, he never seems sinister which makes it a much more complex and rewarding performance. I think it was quite a choice to play him that way, he really took something on paper, and made more of it.

Some movies are great in their entirety, and some just have great performances. The movie isn't perfect, but has a great performance.
39 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very interesting classic concept, good smooth two-hour long picture
Horror-yo11 October 2018
Critics would always find this too mainstream just on account it's a Stephen King story and it deserved better.

I haven't read the novel, but I'd say the essence of the story and with it all of the various articulations of the morals are carried out well enough to produce an effect on the viewer. However classic the main theme is, "careful what you wish for", selling your soul to the devil for a mere material item (for 30 pieces of silver) etc... it's still developed in a way that is unique enough that it makes for a compelling watch.

Ed Harris (order) vs von Sydow (chaos) in a small town setting, with pretty relevant humor dished out on the side throughout (that guy and the jukebox, the priest and reverend feud, "BUSTER"...), in a good paced highly eventful film with spirit that never feels like it drags on, and with the metaphorical aspects (whether innuendos in the dialogue, or elements in the decor...) depicted with care during all two hours of it, all in all makes for a pretty good deal.
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Could have been better, could have been worse
Superunknovvn20 August 2006
"Needful Things" is a typical mediocre Stephen King adaptation. The drawn out book itself isn't among King's best work. Still, the fascination of the story lies in the detail and that had to be trimmed down for a 2 hours-movie version (there is another cut of the movie that's one hour longer, by the way). A lot of things had to be kicked out, but there was way too much changing around of events, items and characters. Ace Merril, a very important character for the novel's big finale, was ignored completely, for instance. I could understand things like that if they improved the movie. Kubrick made a lot of changes with his version of "Shining" and at least one could see why. With "Needful Things" the changes seem totally random and that's rather annoying for someone who has read the book.

If you don't know the story beforehand the movie will probably still seem rushed. You can't really make a connection with the many characters and Sheriff Alan Pangborn finding out what's going on in the town seems unbelievable. It didn't really work in the book, but in the movie it's just stupid that he would draw such far fetched conclusions so quickly.

The acting, on the other hand, is solid. Max von Sydow is a good choice for the part of Leland Gaunt, and Ed Harris is great as ever, although he has to work with a rather mediocre script. The sidecharacters are okay for the most part, even though Polly Chalmers and Wilma Jerzyck are maybe exaggerated.

Unlike a lot of latter King adaptations this one seems to have been made with a decent budget. The locations look good and there are a few nice special effects. At times the explosions and the score can be too much, though. It's as if director Fraser Clarke Heston realized his movie wasn't turning out as exciting as he hoped, so he decided to blow it up with some dramatic music and fire.

Well, as I've said in the headline. This movie could have been a lot better, but it could also have been a complete failure. As it is, it's good for one viewing but if you've read the novel you're going to be disappointed.
70 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An entertaining film.
G.Spider20 January 2000
I have never read the King novel 'Needful Things' and so can't compare it with this film one way or the other.

But this film, about a mysterious character who sets up a shop in which local residents find various treasures and are then tricked into perpetrating horrors against their neighbours, is entertaining and contains some good characters and marvelously black comedy. Though there are a few cheesy moments (like that ridiculous model which is supposed to represent a skinned dog), the film is still a winner. Max Von Sydow is good as the literally devilish owner of the Needful Things store and the climax is nicely-done.
41 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Max on Sydow saves this King adaptation
TransAtlantyk13 February 2012
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.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A hilarious dark comedy and maybe the most underrated movie ever
Kooozey6 March 2022
There's just nothing wrong with this movie, really. It's a rare case where critics absolutely blew it. It has a great plot idea, great actors and is generally entertaining as hell, even after having watched it four times or more.

Much of the criticism doesn't make any sense to me. Someone wrote that the town was ugly from the beginning. Well, otherwise it would be way less realistic. Gaunt used the ugly stuff that was already there to destroy the place and it's citizens, that's what Ed Harris' whole soliloquy at the end was all about. Some critics say it's unpleasant and depressing. I just don't see how. Don't watch any movies about say war then, if this is too dark or too ugly for you. What the hell. Personally i laughed a great deal. It's not a master piece by any means, but a good dark comedy. A fun little movie.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I'm afraid I have a tendency to turn up the heat."
classicsoncall25 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
There was a time I used to force myself to read Stephen King books at night in the dark with no one else in the house just to see if I could do it. 'It' was the creepiest and 'The Shining' was a close second, but 'Needful Things' was a pretty good contender even if it wasn't an outright horror story. I survived those days pretty well, so now I'm watching this flick in the dark, by myself, and it manages to block out the creaky noises in the rest of the apartment. So far, so good.

I was a little surprised to see the amount of negative reviews for this picture by other reviewers on this board. A lot of them have to do with not following King's novel all that closely, but it's been so long since I read it that it doesn't make much difference to me now. The one thing I remember though has to do with the baseball card; in the book I think it was Koufax, not Mantle. I could be wrong, but when the scene came up I was expecting a Sandy Koufax card, so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, maybe not. Perhaps some day I'll check it out to be sure.

The interesting thing about this story was the way old Leland Gaunt (Max von Sydow) got all the folks in Castle Rock to turn on each other by not pitting likely adversaries against one another. Sort of like a domino effect where one unsuspecting citizen tripped up the next one in line with more and more disastrous results. The backdrop of the curiosity shop was a cool one for me because I like antiques and old things myself. The collecting urge isn't there any more though, so chances are I would have been a casual observer with all the insanity going on.

There was some good casting here besides Sydow who appeared to be having a devil of a time. I enjoy Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia in most any other movie I've seen them in, but I have to say, Amanda Plummer as Nettie and Valri Bromfield as Wilma were perfect for their roles. Their vicious tete a tete with the strains of 'Ave Maria' in the background was an inspired piece of work. Even old Raider managed to do a good job with his limited involvement. If you stuck around to catch the full credit roll, you'll notice that he was portrayed in the movie by a canine named K-Jin. Stuff like that just interests me to no end.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Needful Things
rhonda_karen2 May 2006
I love Stephen King, and I've tried to see as many of the movie adaptations of his books as possible. I haven't read a Stephen King book I didn't like - and Needful Things was the first Stephen King book I ever read, so it has a special spot for me. I think this was a pretty good movie, but could have been better if made into a mini-series and more of the stories in the plot could have been developed more fully. I realize this isn't always possible, but in the case of this movie, so many important plot twists were left out it was kind of hard to recognize the story. I think the casting was pretty good and this is a cute little movie to watch if you have some time to kill. But I definitely recommend that you pick up the book and read it if you want the whole story. You'll be shocked to see how much was left out.
51 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Hell Breaks Loose in a Nice Place to Live and Grow
claudio_carvalho21 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Castle Rock, New England, is a nice place to live and grow and Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) moves from the big city to the town expecting a quiet life. When Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) opens the store Needful Things, he seems to have the object of desire for each dweller. He charges small amounts to the things but requests a practical joke for each of them against another inhabitant. Soon hell breaks loose in town with deaths, violence and riot and Sheriff Pangborn discovers that Leland Gaunt is the devil himself. Further, Gaunt is manipulating the population like puppets exploring the weakness and greed of each person.

"Needful Things" is a horror movie with black humor with a story of greed and evilness. Max Von Sydow has a great performance and his personification of evil is scary. There are interesting characters and situations and this movie is entertaining and surprisingly underrated. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Trocas Macabras" ("Macabre Exchanges")
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A rare shopkeeper comes to a little American town happening weird deeds
ma-cortes15 April 2009
A strange person comes to a little town named Castle Rock(similarly the name of this movie production) , he's a shopkeeper(Max Von Sidow) delivering fantastic objects to the people, but the items surge an evil forces , terrorizing and originating wreak havoc. The sheriff(Ed Harris) suspects on the scheming seller and owner an antique shop, then he now encounters himself in the middle of a mayhem. The perplexing sheriff attempts to warn everybody his hidden intentions and malignant powers .

The fantastic picture packs weird events, fantasy, irony, some of humor and is quite entertaining. Cast is frankly excellent as Ed Harris, Max Von Sidow, Bonnie Bedelia and magnificent support cast as Amanda Plummer,Morgan Shepard,Ray McKinnon,Don S Davis and the deceased J.T. Walsh as an overacting character. Atmospheric musical score by Patrick Doyle including frightening chores coincidentally to Jerry Goldsmith's Omen film and colorful cinematography by Anthony Westman. This is an acceptable big screen directorial debut for Charlton Heston's son, named Fraser C Heston though the outcome isn't as good as you'd expect. Written by W. D. Ritcher, a Sci-Fi expert which seem doesn't improve in the transition from page to screen and based on horror master Stephen King's bestselling novel of the same title. King movies rendition are converting as prolific as his novels, from ¨Creepshow¨ along with ¨Cats's eye¨, ¨Silver bullet¨,¨Maximum overdrive¨ unique directed by King and various TV take on as ¨Rose red, The storm of the century,The stand,Golden years and Langoliers¨ have been numerous his adaptations. Rating : Passable and acceptable .
26 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Horror? Far from it...
imdb-148504 October 2022
This overly-long movie with a strong made-for-TV feel is as scary as bingo at your local church on Saturday night. It's supposed to be suspenseful, but I saw no evidence of that. It starts and seems to just go on and on.

A boring story set in a boring town with no interesting characters. In fact, it's typical of most of Stephen King's lackluster novels written in the past 30 years but maybe the book is more interesting and captivating than this barely watchable drama that isn't saved by the late, great Max Von Sydow. As for Ed Harris, he is, well, Ed Harris playing Ed Harris as he always does.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I've always enjoyed watching this movie.
Boba_Fett113816 September 2008
As an horror lover I never have been a too big fan of Stephen King or his horror movie adaptations, since I find his work to be very formulaic but I've always enjoyed watching this pleasant light little movie.

Without its fun the movie probably would had been a really terrible picture. If the movie had been all serious some of the moments within the movie for sure would not had worked out and would had been painfully bad and laughable instead. But it's as if the movie had foreseen this and went with an often light and pleasant approach instead. The movie never takes itself too serious, for which you can also thank director Fraser Clarke Heston, who indeed is the son of screen legend Charlton Heston.

The movie has a good story, in which the devil in flesh, played by Max von Sydow, is setting people up against each other by letting them perform tasks for them, so they can get their 'needful' thing from him. The story is nicely constructed and build up and shows a different but interesting portrayal of the devil, as a man who uses people their own sins to set them up against each other and let them commit horrible acts, without ever getting dirty hands himself.

The movie has a pretty amazing cast with actors such as Max von Sydow, Ed Harris, Amanda Plummer and J.T. Walsh all involved. Von Sydow plays a great role and so does Ed Harris, though for a 'main hero' he just doesn't have quite the screen time you would expect him to have. Also great was J.T. Walsh in a crazy role in which his character more and more starts to derail. These were the kind of roles he always was best at.

The movie has a kind of cheap look over it. A kind of look you would perhaps more expect from a TV movie, which might be due to Fraser Clarke Heston inexperience as a director, though it also is definitely true that this movie was just fairly cheap made and got never aimed toward a large audience and in many countries never made it to the cinemas.

Simply one fine and enjoyable movie, that you just don't need to take too seriously.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
'Needful Things' in my opinion is still quite good and entertaining
bryank-0484411 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a huge fan of Stephen King. My parents started me on Stephen King at an early age so that I could learn to love to read. Needless to say, I was sucker from the first one I picked up in the late 80s, even if I didn't quite understand everything at the time. One of the more fascinating Stephen King books was 'Needful Things'. I thought the idea was original and quite cool in that there was a store where you could buy rare items that did "odd" things along with a kooky store owner. I liked to pretend that my local comic book store that had the old vintage issues and rare action figures stored in the back had special powers, and that after I saved my allowance over several weeks, I'd purchase these rare items and I'd gain some sort of coolness or powers.

Granted, 'Needful Things' is much darker than that, but I liked to compare the two. In 1993, during the big string of Stephen King movies and TV shows that were adapted from his stories came 'Needful Things', which was one of the bigger budget and A-List starring projects of the Stephen King periodic table. The studio got Fraser C. Heston (Charlton Heston's son who played baby Moses in 'The Ten Commandments') to direct the film. Fraser's claim to fame was 'Treasure Island' and being a 2nd unit director on 'City Slickers'. They also hired on W.D.Richter to writer the screenplay who has an interesting resume. He adapted 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers', directed 'The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension', and co-wrote 'Big Trouble in Little China'.

With those three credits alone, you can tell he is a cult icon favorite in the genre. Rounding out the cast is an impressive Ed Harris playing the small town's sheriff and of course the legendary actor Max Von Sydow to play the main sinister character. I think the reason this movie receives the unsavory reviews and feelings is that the film version is too short to dive into the multiple character's story arcs. The film was made for television as well and was an hour longer, which gave us quite a bit more character development, but this is the theatrical version and runs at two hours. It keeps the pace quick, however the character development is lacking.

I think at one point, the studio was trying to secure the rights to the longer version, but everything fell through and is not on this release. Maybe another time, right? Like most Stephen King stories, this particular one takes place in Castle Rock, a small town in which everyone knows everyone's name and are quick to help out each other. Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is the sheriff of the town and keeps a close and calm eye on everything. An elderly man shows up in town one day and opens up a new store that sells one-of-a-kind antiques.

This man is known as Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow). He is quite humorous and spry. He quickly starts selling these interesting and mysterious antiques to the townsfolk and usually accepts payment in the form of the buyer pulling a simple practical joke or prank on their neighbors. In addition to these weird suggestions of payment, these one-of-a-kind objects seem to have special powers that coincide with the buyer's personal lives, but it all comes at a price. Sooner than later the practical jokes and pranks become bigger and the once peaceful town starts turning on each other, much to the happiness of Gaunt who watches from his home and storefront.

Sheriff Pangborn figures out that this all started with the arrival of Gaunt and begins to investigate further, only to find that Pangborn is definitely not who he says he is. What sells this movie so well are the performances, specifically that of Ed Harris and Max Von Sydow. Harris plays the town sheriff to perfection. He instantly comes off as the smart detective that seems to put things together from the get-go. He has a clam, but stern manner to him, and it plays out very well.

Then there is Max Von Sydow, and how do you not like him in anything? I know, it's impossible. It's no different here as he plays Gaunt flawlessly. You like the guy, but you can't help but be scared of him at every turn. 'Needful Things' in my opinion is still quite good and entertaining. It might not have the scares that 'It' does or the impact of 'The Shining' had on all of us, but it still holds its own with the performances and screenplay.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I loved the book - I hated the movie
xillib16 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I just reread this book as I've been gathering together all of the bits about Castle Rock to watch the show of the same name. I love the book. The characters are perfectly placed against each other and Leland Gaunt is a truly creepy character throughout. As I read the book I pictured Sheriff Alan Pangborn as portrayed by Michael Rooker in 'The Dark Half'.

When I finished the book I was excited to watch the movie as I'd never seen it before. I rented it and was Thoroughly disappointed. I know that a movie has a short amount of time (the book is massive) but the enormous changes they made to the characters was terrible to see. Also, while I like Ed Harris as an actor he didn't really match up to Michael Rooker. Rooker brings something grittier to the character. Also, one of the biggest problems was that they completely left out the Sheriff's pain from the death of his wife and son about 18 months prior to the events of 'Needful Things'. This adds another layer to the character that the movie is sorely lacking.

Also, Max von Sydow is possibly my favorite actor of all time but not even he could truly bring the evil to the character of Leland Gaunt that is shown in the book because the movie creators didn't use any effects to show showcase Gaunts's oddly shaped fingers, the changing color of his eyes or even his true demon form shown at the end of the book. How wonderful it would have been to see the 2 sides of von Sydow played off of each other as he was transformed into the kind of demonic evil that he fought as Father Merrin in 'The Exorcist'.

Also, for some reason I truly can't understand, they tried to create an affair between Polly and Gaunt. This was a huge disappointment as it then completely left out what happened in the book in regard to the charm that she buys from Gaunt to get rid of the painful arthritis in her hands. One of the best scenes in the book is when she throws the charm and it opens and a spider comes out. A spider which quickly begins to grow and Polly has to fight and kill. This could have been amazing onscreen but for some reason was just ignored and this weird tryst with Gaunt was inserted instead. Terrible.

The movie is a full 2 hours but the pace felt all wrong and the 2 hours were not used wisely. I think that this movie is ripe for a remake that would allow it to be much closer to the evil and tempo of the book. I hope that we see that sometime in the future.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Faust revisited
mermatt1 August 1998
Despite the fact that this film is based on yet another Stephen King novel, it is worth watching -- especially for the performance by Max von Sydow as the "old boy himself."

I watched the "director's cut" once on TV that had many scenes in it which were cut from the theatrical version. None of the restored scenes was especially good. It is interesting to note that practically every moment of Max von Sydow's performance is in both versions. He holds the screen with every sly look, every smooth utterance. He is a true joy to watch in this retelling of the Fause legend. It proves what a wonderful actor he is -- he has played Jesus (THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD), Ming the Merciless (FLASH GORDON), and many other parts. Playing the Devil allows him to chew the scenery in grand style.
19 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Very Enjoyable Trip to Castle Rock
gavin694210 March 2011
The small town of Castle Rock suddenly changes when Leland Gaunt (Max von Sydow) opens a store called Needful Things. Soon, everyone finds something they want, and have a high price to pay for it. The town turns itself inside out!

I enjoyed this film, watching it at a friend's house while swirling a glass of zinfandel. It is really made by having Max von Sydow as Leland Gaunt. Without von Sydow in this role -- looking very much the successful of Vincent Price -- the film may have become just another poor King adaptation. But I think this one is one of the better attempts, or at least above average.

I find it interesting that Sheriff Alan Pangborn, played here by Ed Harris, also appears in "The Dark Half" (1993), released earlier the same year, in which the part is played by Michael Rooker. I wish they would have kept the casting the same. King's novels overlap, and I think if the films did, too, it would create more of a demand for them, and make the overarching story more interesting. This story connects also to "Stand By Me", but you would never know it from the film.

The film was directed by Fraser C. Heston, the son of actor Charlton Heston. It was Heston's first project, and an admirable one. To me, it feels like many of King's films have a similar look or feel to them, and I wonder if this is intentional, or if I am just crazy. But if it is intentional, Heston nails it.

While there are other King adaptations I would recommend first -- It, The Shining, Carrie and Dead Zone, just off the top of my head -- this is still better than some, and a good deal better than a lot of the horror films out there. If you are unsure, I say go for it.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
You are disgusting, I like that in a person
Bored_Dragon21 October 2018
"Needful Things" is an adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same name. It is heavily judged by the fans of the book, but for us who didn't read it, this is a pretty good movie. Mysterious older gentleman moves to Castle Rock, King's fictional town in Maine that you can often encounter in his work, and opens some Kind of antique shop, where everyone can find what they desire the most. But the owner isn't interested as much in their money as he wants his customers to do some favors for him. These seemingly small favors, in mutual interaction, threaten to turn this peaceful town into the scene of the local apocalypse.

I can imagine that screenplay probably butchered the original material, but for us who didn't read it, this is quite decent and very imaginative story. There is a variety of interesting and quite well-developed characters, and cast and their performances are probably the strongest quality of this movie. Ed Harris is expectedly good in the role of the local sheriff that saves the day, and Max von Sydow is a perfect mysterious salesman. There's also Amanda Plummer, Honey Bunny from "Pulp Fiction", whose character is one of the most interesting ones and whose clash with Valri Bromfield is, in my opinion, the most powerful scene in the movie. In one of the main roles is Bruce Willis' wife from "Die Hard", sexy Bonnie Bedelia, as well as Duncan Fraser in the role of a priest. Directing and camera have several really good moments, effects are totally decent for their time, and also there are few quite nice slasher/gore scenes. Admittedly, the movie lacks some seriousness and suspense and overall atmosphere seems more like an adaptation of comic-book than a novel. For my taste, it's not a bad thing, although it's hard for me to consider it a horror movie. But to be honest, King essentially isn't a horror writer at all, King is a genre of its own.

7,5/10
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
CHEER! - (7 stars out of 10)
BJG-Reviews31 December 2019
The stage curtains open ...

This Stephen King adaptation gives us a lesson on how to play devil's advocate - and what better way to learn than from the devil himself! After such novels as "The Dead Zone", "Cujo", and "The Dark Half" (all of which took place in or around Castle Rock), we were given what was to be the last Castle Rock story with "Needful Things".

Leland Gaunt (Max von Sydow) has come to Castle Rock, opening up a quaint, novelty and antique store that contains just about anything for anybody. In fact, it contains something for everybody - something that is so endearing or special, that the customer might be willing do anything to possess it. The store is called "Needful Things". As his clientele grows, so do the problems around town, since there is more involved with simply paying a price. His customers must also do a special deed for him. Deeds that will soon throw this once peace loving community into total chaos. Fortunately, Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is there to restore order.

I know this particular film was not well received and was given some fairly bad reviews. I, for one, enjoyed it. I'm not saying it was one of the best Stephen King adaptations. I'm not even saying that it was a good movie. I'm just saying that I liked it. I felt it captured the mood and feel of a very dark time in Castle Rock's town history very well. The characters were developed well with decent performances, and the cinematography was perfect for this film.

This isn't one of my favorite movies, but I still get it out from time to time to watch. It truly is a fun story that comes from the imagination of one of the best authors of our time. "Needful Things" deserves its little slice of that pie and should be watched and enjoyed. 7 stars out of 10.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Painful...
jroywoodward14 May 2001
Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.
13 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Be Careful For What You Wish For - You May Get It At Great Cost
theowinthrop19 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit that having read of this horror film I approached it with some trepidation - Stephen King's work is not very familiar to me. I know his reputation, and I have meant to read him, but I have a large number of other books to read before I can make room for King. Probably the leading horror and Gothic novelist/short story writer of our time (the man who is the modern literary heir to Charles Brockden Brown, Edgar Allen Poe, Ambrose Bierce, and Lovecraft), it has become a common comment that his best work is between the covers of his books and not on celluloid. Most of the comments on NEEDFUL THINGS follow this - a general feeling that it is a let-down of sorts.

Yet I finally acquired a DVD of the film today, and it turned out that it is a really good film. Moreover, the horror has it's amusements. If I may suggest this to the readers, when you watch this film do what Max Von Sydow does in several scenes: watch it with a glass of fine old brandy or wine, or even a nice slice of apple pie (with or without Von Sydow's favorite - cheddar cheese), and try not to take it too seriously. Yes, the scene where the dog is found skinned (fake dead dog as it is) is not pleasant to view, but around it are some amusing bits.

It's the practical jokes that Leland Gaunt (Von Sydow's pseudonym - he is the Devil, and is playing the Devil correctly as the Devil is the best of correct gentlemen) plays that amuses us, even as they spread his brand of evil throughout the town of Castle Rock. They are not harmless jokes, but meant to torment his victims at each other's hands. But they include scenes like Brian Rusk (Shane Meier) breaking the windows and smashing the kitchen of the home of Wilma Jercyk (Valeri Bromfield) as though he is pitching for the Yankees in the World Series. They include a self-important, crooked businessman like Danford Keaton (J. T. Walsh) getting involved for a whole afternoon with an antique horse racing game (supposedly it will give him a winning series of horses for the track), and insulting his wife in the process when she innocently suggests he go out for some honey based donuts. They include the neurotic Nettie Cobb(Amanda Plummer) putting up accusatory papers around Keaton's living room and kitchen, while Keaton is busy, and then just barely getting out without being seen by him when he reads the same papers. Even Von Sydow gets into the fun of the horror - he goes into ecstasy thinking of the chaos he created in front of his fireplace while listening to "Ave Maria". His taste in music is fine - but the Devil enjoying "Ave Maria"?

Basically the chaos in the town is created when the Devil gives the luckless, self-centered townspeople what they want at his new store (a type of antique - collectibles shop called "Needful Things") and they have to do little pranks to help pay for their acquisitions. Brian sells himself for an autographed Topps 1955 Mickey Mantle card (I think he should have held out for the really rare 1910 or so Honus Wagner card that is worth about $100,000.00 if you find it). Nettie, whose abusive husband smashed her china collection seven years before, gets a second copy of her favorite statue. Polly Chalmers (Bonnie Bedelia) has arthritis, and gets an ancient Egyptian necklace that helps her condition improve. But then they have to do one evil after another after another. Sometimes one sympathizes with them (Brian is too young to fully understand what he let himself in for, and Polly really suffers from arthritis). But with people like the selfish, self-important Keaton one sympathizes more with others (like his wife) than himself.

There is increased violence in the film, and the death of Nettie's dog is the start of it. The next act is possibly the best recalled moment of the film. It is rare (really rare) for two women characters to kill each other in a movie. In the classic western JOHNNY GUITAR, Mercedes McCambridge was shot and killed in a showdown with Joan Crawford, but our sympathy was with Joan not Mercedes. In NEEDFUL THINGS Nettie and Wilma slaughter each other: Nettie believing Wilma has killed her dog (Wilma didn't) and Wilma believing Nettie first smeared Turkey excrement on her washing, and then smashed up her home (Nettie didn't). It makes the whole more believable that Nettie is considered a mental case who murdered her abusive husband, and Wilma is a violent, mental case as well. They are combustible types about to be mixed together.

The scene (it takes all of three minutes) is well done actually - Nettie showing up holding a bread knife behind her back to face Wilma in Wilma's home. Wilma has grabbed a cleaver. I read some descriptions of the sequence that don't go into the details, but basically the battle is a bloody one, with Nettie getting first blood (thrusting her knife into Wilma's belly), but Wilma swinging her cleaver and cutting Nettie across her chest. Both drop their weapons, and end up with each others, chasing each other to the second floor, and bleeding heavily. They end up falling out of the window with Nettie burying her cleaver in Wilma's face while Wilma pushes her knife into Nettie's chest (and it comes out her back). They are both killed, but they probably would have bled to death anyway.

The violence continues to escalate after that, though nothing as startling in it's violent confrontation. At the end the town is almost blown up. But at the end Mr. Von Sydow leaves town intact. Stephen King knows that the Devil may be thwarted, but evil always survives.
19 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fun stuff to do when you're old, bored … and plain evil!
Coventry13 March 2012
Where can you still get some kicks if you have already existed for many centuries and, thanks to your manipulative talents and supernatural evil forces, were involved in – or even directly responsible for - the greatest tragedies and cataclysms of our not-so civilized world's history? Here's an idea; why not install yourself in a remote little New England community, full of naive and easily influential villagers, and gradually cause them to exterminate each other! Meanwhile you just stand at the sideline and observe with a devilish smile on your immortal face! This is exactly Leland Gaunt's intention when his old-timer Mercedes arrives in the sleepy little town of Castle Rock, Maine. In his charming antique store named Needful Things, Gaunt offers a unique item per resident that they either always craved or desperately require, whether it's a rare collector's item baseball card, an authentic 1950's football jacket or a cure to chronicle pain. Leland Gaunt does not ask for a payment, he asks for a favor. And these favors are to bring harm to others, which eventually brings the entire community at a state of war. "Needful Things" is an adaptation of a Stephen King novel and that brings me to repeat my unpopular opinion that he's often a plagiarist… This is at least the third time already that I encounter a movie of which the basic premise looks an awful lot like that of a much older and far more obscure horror gem. King's widely acclaimed novel and movie "Misery" bears a lot of resemblance to a rare 70's exploitation gem entitled "The Strange Vengeance of Rosalie", his mini-series "Storm of the Century" is actually an elaboration of the forgotten 80's low-budget flick "A Day of Judgement" and this "Needful Thing" could pretty much be described as a re-telling of Ray Bradbury's "Something Wicked this Way Comes". The surrounding is different, with an antique store instead of a traveling circus, but the rudimentary plots are exactly alike: how ordinary people are so easily prepared to exchange moral values and sense of civilization in favor of petty desires. Although personified in a mysterious stranger passing through a small village, the real devil is called avarice and selfishness and he homes inside every person. If you watch both movies (or read both novels) back-to-back, it's nearly impossible to deny that Stephen King didn't just borrow Ray Bradbury's bright ideas and altered a few minor details. Of course by this I don't mean to say that "Needful Things" isn't enjoyable. In an overall weak decade for the horror genre in general, this is in fact one of the best efforts, mainly thanks to a terrific ensemble cast and a few ingenious fright-moments. Max Von Sydow depicts a splendid evil caricature and other respectable names like J.T. Walsh, Ed Harris, Don S. Davis and Amanda Plummer go over-the-top exactly the way they should. Admirable direction as well, by Fraser Clarke Heston. Yeah, Charlton's son!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
terrible adaptation
emptymask20 October 2003
Needful Things was one of my favorite Stephen King books. But this movie is one of the worst book to film adaptations I have ever seen they changed so many things around that it made me sick. Even the concept of the book being deception, things not always what they appear reminder throughout the book was not shown in the movie. Althogh it was enjoyable as many Stephen King films are, but as many Stephen King films this one did not follow the book and became a piece of Hollywood trailer trash. 2/10
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great adaptation of a great King novel Von Shadow and Ed Harris are excellent.
adanochoa5517 January 2020
Don't get some of the hate for this movie. Must watch for King readers and all other movie lovers.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than expected
nicholls905-280-54691120 October 2019
I was shocked that this film was okay. Strong cast and well developed storyline. Slightly annoyed there hasn't been a remastered extended edition as there has clearly been subplots removed. The film is long regardless so extending would be for fan service only. The cast treat the material with respect and it's this area that saves the film from being the normal King adaptation. This was good and I enjoyed it more than I had expected. The layers of twists and turns were interesting. I can see why it didn't do well, but it is worth a cult status label.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
What a bad movie. Hardly any redeeming qualities.
Dellamorte_Dellamore0720 March 2007
After the lush, inspiring aerial shot in fast motion in the opening of the movie, this slipped into utter boredom and a one tone note right till the end.

Where to begin, well I'll start with the characters. I really enjoyed them in the book, here they all were types and one dimensional morons that either had "Victim" or "Asshole" written on their foreheads from the get go. How any one didn't see through the store owner Lealand Gaunt (in a hammy and out of place performance by Sydrow)is beyond me.

This film lacks in thrills, suspense, and in some sense yes, entertaining values. It stretches itself for far too long with not a lot of pay off. Why introduce too many annoying should-die-quick type of characters and then forget about half of them half way through? In the book practically everyone that went into the store met a grisly fate. Here, besides one of the only decent scenes that translated well from the novel (the fight between Wilma and Nettie), was a letdown and didn't have much balls. I'm sorry but after, one off screen death,a boring shoot off, and some bickering and then a couple explosions just didn't do it for me. The brutality and mean spiritedness from the book was sadly missing. The explosion of the church scene was so over the top and badly executed, all of sudden the entire city was in a brawl? It made no sense and characters that weren't introduced all the way through suddenly are, who are these people and why should I care?

The story is all over the place and none of the scenes had momentum. I thought Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedeila were good actors in this, but the movie gives them not enough substance for me to give a damn. Amanda Plummer was credible but too pathetic to really be sympathetic (in the novel she was a sad and depressing character)here it was a too one note. J.T. Walsh was entertaining, but the role was far from interesting or layered. Too predictable.

The soundtrack was too classy for the material it was supporting. It stood out like sore thumb. Easy there buddy, easy. Something a little less theatrical I'd assume would have worked.

I will admit some of the gore it did manage to have was good enough I guess, The director seemed to hold back a lot of the times though. If your going to make a movie that reaches the 2 hr point be sure to have far more going on then this disaster of a adaption of on of Kings better novels.

I often found myself laughing at scenes that were suppose to be taken seriously (Ed Harris speech at the end, or the character Hugh Priest in general), and was bored and uninterested most of the other time. Personally the director should have done so much more with this story, his approach is too tame and hides behind too much crisp cinematography to ever come off as a decent movie. The movie looks good, but not the look I think this story deserved. I mean, this dude helmed ALASKA,not a good sign.

I'd rather just read the book, as you should too as if it is far more entertaining,layered character development, grisly violence and mayhem, a nasty sense of humour, and far more oomph. This is a butchered version, that has not much to offer.

** out of ****
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed