- YouTuber allegedly filmed himself abusing and killing his cat Sunday 5:49 PM
- Would you buy a Popeyes chicken sandwich from Quavo for $1,000? Sunday 3:05 PM
- Someone set up a Spider-Man memorial outside D23 Expo Sunday 2:15 PM
- A$AP Rocky just isn’t texting Trump back Sunday 1:24 PM
- Hong Kong protesters knock down alleged ‘facial recognition tower’ Sunday 12:35 PM
- PewDiePie becomes the first YouTuber to hit 100 million subscribers Sunday 11:35 AM
- ‘Breaking Bad’ movie will show us what happened to Jesse Pinkman Sunday 9:39 AM
- How to stream ROH Wrestling’s Honor For All Sunday 7:30 AM
- How to stream Steelers vs. Titans in NFL preseason action Sunday 7:00 AM
- How to stream ‘Good Eats: The Return’ online Sunday 7:00 AM
- How to stream ‘Power’ season 6 Sunday 6:00 AM
- Your best bets for finding discounted and refurbished Airpods Sunday 6:00 AM
- How to stream Barcelona vs. Real Betis Saturday 11:31 PM
- How to stream Tottenham Hotspur vs. Newcastle Saturday 11:21 PM
- All of the ‘Avengers: Endgame’ Easter eggs discovered by fans Saturday 6:52 PM
In 1922, Wilfred James killed his wife. And then the rats came.
Zak Hilditch’s film adaption of the Stephen King novella, pulled from 2010 collection Full Dark, No Stars, is the latest in a revolving door of King revisions this year, but it might be the simplest. Thomas Jane is Wilfred James, a lean, leathered farmer who inhabits a speck of Nebraska farmland circa 1922 with his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) and teenage son Henry (Dylan Schmid). Wilfred is all narrowed eyes and stubborn pride, a hungry dog trying to protect his scraps, and his marbled Midwest cadence is certainly memorable. (When the film debuted at Fantastic Fest last month, Jane explained that he had to learn a period-specific Nebraskan accent. He was also barefoot.)
The viewer knows right away that Wilfred has committed a terrible crime, but we also see the murder in brutal detail, when perhaps a little restraint might have worked better. And there’s dialogue that hints at what’s coming: “There’s another man inside every man,” Wilfred drawls, “a stranger.”
That line could sum up most of King’s work, but it provides a parallel to Gerald’s Game, Netflix’s other recent adaptation. Director Mike Flanagan actually improved on the source material, but 1922 is a little trickier. Hilditch stays with the story’s narrative (for the most part) and magical realism, and gets the mood down with a score from Mike Patton, but we don’t have any real sense of who these people are, or what life was like before. Did Wilfred already have murderous tendencies? How did he and Arlette meet?
The narrative is told from Wilfred’s point of view so Arlette and Henry are rendered as one-sided characters (and Wilfred might be an unreliable narrator), which leaves the film a little thin. Arlette’s demise comes because she wanted a better life in the city and some personal identity. After the Fantastic Fest screening Parker explained that she “didn’t want to play her like she ought to be murdered,” and she’s successful in giving her agency at a time when that wasn’t widely accepted for women. But 1922 hinges on a King specialty: men losing their minds in isolation.
And so Wilfred’s guilt becomes a literal infestation. In the hands of a lesser actor, he could have become a caricature, but Jane stains him, revealing his toxic masculinity and vulnerability. The only misstep here is that 1922 feels like it was steamrolled to fit a feature-length movie time, and the last third starts to lag, especially when we see the conclusion creeping up from a mile away.
Still not sure what to watch on Netflix? Here are our guides for the absolute best movies on Netflix, must-see Netflix original series and movies, and the comedy specials guaranteed to make you laugh.
Audra Schroeder is the Daily Dot’s senior entertainment writer, and she focuses on streaming, comedy, and music. Her work has previously appeared in the Austin Chronicle, the Dallas Observer, NPR, ESPN, Bitch, and the Village Voice. She is based in Austin, Texas.