Critic Consensus: Thanks to director Zak Hilditch's patient storytelling and strong work from lead Thomas Jane, 1922 ranks among the more satisfying Stephen King adaptations.
Watch it now
News & Interviews for 1922
Critic Reviews for 1922
 is a credible addition to a filmography where practically every thought the writer commits to paper is, seemingly, deemed fit for the screen.
The familiar case of a short story stretched too thin in a feature film.
The film is not lurid in its scares, and instead depicts its protagonist's suffering mostly as a slow rot.
It doesn't take any shocking new twists, but musters just enough fresh polish to a classic scenario to make it worth one more ride.
Too often actors playing rural roles mistake "slow" for "stupid," but Jane pinpoints Wilfred's mental acuity without rushing through reactions that feel anachronistic or phony.
Audience Reviews for 1922
A totally satisfying Stephen Kill story. Beautifully filmed and acted.
Thomas Jane's accent might be pretty hard to understand, and the story is just a just a plot you've already seen put through the Stephen King's Children of the Corn wringer, but that doesn't stop 1922 from being another Stephen King adaptation we can put in 2017's "Good" column, alongside It and Gerald's Game (and decidedly not alongside The Dark Tower).
A decent Stephen King adaptation that takes perhaps a bit too long to kick in, yet when it does it can be quite atmospheric and somber in the way it shows the gradual decadence of a tormented man who starts to succumb to the weight of guilt in rural Nebraska, 1922.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.