Thanks to the success of IT, Netflix has jumped on the Stephen King adaptation bandwagon.

This leads us to the most recent Netflix original release, 1922, an adapted novella from the short story collection Full Dark, No Stars. Warning – moderate spoilers ahead.

A review of a movie based on a book is tricky because I can look at whether the adapted screenplay does justice to the source material or review the movie as a standalone. In this instance, I’ll do a “source check” for each sub plot.

The script adaptation is written and directed by Zak Hilditch.

The Plot

1922 tells the tale of farmer Wilfred James (Thomas Jane) and his spiral into a guilt ridden existence.

Wilfred explains what has happened through a confession/memoir, which results in a flashback narrative.

It all has to do with a plot of land (100 acres) that his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) has inherited. Arlette wants to sell the land and move to the city. Furthermore, she wants to sell to a company that Wilfred loathes, who would make his land unfarmable.

A demand from Arlette to have their son Henry (Dylan Schmid) move with her if they are to have a divorce forces Wilfred to turn to his inner ‘Conniving Man’.

Wilfred hatches a plan and begins to work on Henry to be his accomplice in the murder of Arlette. Reluctantly, Henry agrees and messily the plan is actioned and Arlette is “buried” in an old abandoned well in the backyard (King must have seen The Grudge).

But both Wilfred and Henry soon become overcome with guilt, with the focus on Wilfred having visions of his dead wife and the rats that now obey her.

The narrative changes tact into Wilfred’s isolation when Henry abandons him to reunite with his pregnant girlfriend. Thus the bank robbing ‘Sweetheart Bandits’ are born.

A supernatural plot device is used (we don’t expect anything less from a Stephen King story) where Wilfred’s dead wife tells him the exploits of his son and his girlfriend and their subsequent deaths.

The adapted screenplay follows the source material closely. But as evidenced by several failed King adaptations, the moment the writers majorly diverge from the source material, the movie just won’t live up to the original story.

Unfortuantely this is the case with this adaptation of 1922.

The Good

If there was ever a phrase to describe 1922, it would have to be “slow burn”. A copious amount of the 142 minutes runtime is spent on Wilfred and his descent into guilt ridden madness, the result of both the murder of his wife and the responsibility he feels for how his son became a bank robbing murderer.

I loved the first appearance of the rats in the well.  How I imagined it based on the source material held no contest on how the filmmakers showed the “King” rat burst out of Arlette.

The pace of the film is slow and drawn out, but that was true to how 1922 was written.  The tension that was built up had a release that was well worth the wait.

In the adaptation, this release is taken away for reasons beyond comprehension.

The Bad

To the point of the film’s ending, I was happy with how the adapted screenplay followed the source material. But Zak Hilditch for some reason, decided to alter the ending.

More to the point, he completely changed it.

What was supposed to be a shocking and gory ending to Wilfred’s confessional session (which pointed to his guilt ridden state of mind) was changed to a rather tame and badly lit final shot of all of Wilfred’s ghosts coming home to roost.

The Verdict

The source material had so much promise of being effectively adapted into film: The protagonist’s descent into madness, a dead wife and her harem of rats as the antagonists, and the Sweetheart Bandits as a product of Wilfred’s manipulation.

With King struggling with endings most of the time, 1922 needed its bloody and shocking ending to justify its slow pace.

The adaptation changing the ending made me feel like the whole movie was a waste of time. The production values were top notch, the acting was great. Unfortunately, in this instance, when the story’s ending is a let down, the entire existence of the film comes into question.

If you’re a King fan, it’s worth viewing to see how your vision of the story translates to screen. However, for others, it’s a just a slow, boring film with a weird ending.