Watch Needful Things For Free

So much average

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

"Needful Things" is the kind of horror film you can't forget. Its shocking scenes of violence and the way in which so-called civilised people tend to be amongst each other, gave me a slight chill (not many horror films can do that). Max Von Sydow takes the acting honours as the supernatural and sadistically evil creature in human form. He oozes a kind of demonic charm that most of the locals can fail to resist. He was born for this role. Ed Harris as the police officer who welcomes the change of pace after being transferred to a seaside town, is ok but I've never really been a fan of his work. The atmosphere is carefully created and sustained throughout and the climax is unforgettable. The only thing that I would have liked, would have been for the film to have been made into a mini series. Doing this would have meant that more story from the novel could have been included. One of the better cinema adaptations from a Stephen King book.

Leland Gaunt has come the whole way from Akron to Castle Rock to open an antique store called "Needful Things." Everything he sells gives you exactly what you want, but you need to pay him back with a favor. If that's not the most Stephen King sentence ever — minus 50's slang like daddy-o or references to comics and rock and roll — then I'm not sure what is.This 1993 movie was directed by the baby Moses. No, seriously, director Fraser C. Heston played that role alongside his father in The Ten Commandments.Anyways, Leland (Max von Sydow, who will forever be Ming from Flash Gordon) gets the townsfolk to play pranks on one another, like when Brian Rusk has to play one on Wilma Wadlowski Jerzyck (Valri Bromfield, former comedy partner of Dan Ackroyd and one of the first Second City stage members) for a Mickey Mantle card. Or how he helps Danforth Keeton pay off his gambling debts. From books that people have always dreamed of to helping continue the rivalry between a Catholic priest and a Baptist minister, Leland's objects get into the hands of nearly everyone in town.This brings everyone into conflict with one another, in particular, the battle between Nettie Cobb (Amanda Plummer, So I Married an Axe Murderer) and Wilma, which is so intense that they end up killing one another.Leland even cozies up to Sheriff Pangborn by giving his fiancée Polly (Bonnie Bedelia, Die Hard, Salem's Lot) a necklace that cures her arthritis. When Pangborn tries to warn Polly that Leland may not be what he seems, Gaunt ends up seducing her and reveals to her that the Sheriff has been stealing money from the town, so she breaks off their engagement. Read more at bandsaboutmovies.com

I hate all these idiot directors thinking they can make a story better than the writer! Nobody likes your tampering with good stories! We do not think you are creative! We think you are the hacks that you are! Ace was the best part of the whole story! So to remove the greatest part of the story is a big xxx- up ! I will never pay a dime for this movie! I will never watch this movie if someone gave it to me! And these directors should be homeless and starving on the streets! Because they do not deserve a dime from of our hard earned money! However with most actors today reading the book is the only way! Every time a movie adaptation of a King movie comes out I automatically know it is going to be a butchered version because some arrogant director and producer!

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.