MovieChat Forums > Needful Things (1993) Discussion > One of the worst movies I have ever seen...

One of the worst movies I have ever seen!

posted 17 years ago by aj-1985
33 replies | jump to latest

I am normally a Stephen King movie fan. He's written great movies such as Carrie, Misery, and so many others. But this movie was bad. Just really really bad. I can't believe this was a spinoff of one of his books! Do I really have to write much more about it other than the fact that it was just really bad? I really can't think of anything I liked in the movie. I've never read the book and this movie makes me not want to. The only reason why I watched this movie was because it sounded like it might be interesting in the pay per view description. Maybe I should have come here to read about ppl's reviews first. I can't believe anyone would give this movie more than 1 star since it had a terrible and slow plot, horrible acting, and absolutely no climax. It was just flat all the way through. By the time I got watching the first half of it I was really pissed off because nothing entertaining really happens in the movie, like the whole movie throughout! And when something would happen it was soooo stupid. I can't believe I bothered to watch it all the way through just because I was in the hopes that something good eventually would happen. What a waste of my time! I want two hours of my life back! To anyone who may consider watching this, just take it from me that you will regret losing 2 hours of your life for watching this peice of junk.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] captkirk_459 11 years ago

I read the book and I did like this movie. I thought the villain was done well. I liked Ed Harris as Alan Pagborn even though I am not sure how is character connects to the Alan Pagborn in Dark Half. This movie is about what you would do for a possession you desire. It did a good job of character development. Aout how one someone can feed on hate. That is what Stephen King was writing aout in the book.

[–] Zuider_Zee 10 years ago

It was this movie (and the original novel) that made me began to realize just how awful a writer Stephen King actually is.

[–] tpupkin 10 years ago

There's a reason why the movie felt like it had no climax: they literally removed every component of the novel that gave the climax it's emotional weight: Alan's family, Polly's baby, Ace Merrill, the magic tricks (which I didn't even like in the book, but they are crucial), the souls, the state police, the church riots, I could go on. They replacewd it all with some random fighting in the street and a speech by Ed Harris. They literally cut the soul(s) out of the adaptation.

I found it to be a so-so movie on its own terms, fairly mediocre as King adaptations go. I've been reading/watching a lot of them recently. There are far worse King adaptations, and I would add King's own unwatchable adaptation of The Shining to that list. It can be done well, like Misery, Kubrick's The Shining and parts of Pet Sematary, Carrie and Dolores Claiborne.

This one is well-acted and decently produced, but they changed more than they needed to and it fizzles out at the end.

[–] fuzzykids 10 years ago

I would not say it's the worse movie, or even close. However I go into a King movie expecting it not to be stellar. Most just don't compare to the books.

The better ones have always been a pleasant surprise. shawshank redemption, the original Carrie, the Original Shining and The Green Mile were some really great ones.

There are a few I consider to be guilty pleasure sorts-The stand (tho molly ringwald irritated me), Rose Red and Thinner come to mind.

The rest range from watchable to slightly better than watchable. I can't say they make me regret my time spent watching, but they just were't fantastic.

[–] writerchick89 10 years ago

I think people who are illiterate shouldn't write movie "reviews". I put reviews in quotes because all the OP said was that the movie was bad. Didn't give any real examples or facts to back that up. And first off, Stephen King doesn't write movies. He writes books, which are then adapted. He may write or help with the adaptions, but the books come first, then the movie adaptions. Second, movies from books are not "spin-offs"--they are adaptions. Or you could even say "movie versions", but not "spin-offs". And books are usually better than the movies made from them. Not always, but usually.

Not trying to be rude. Just saying it like it is. And one more thing. You can't say it's a stupid idea for a movie, since it was a book first. What you would really mean, then, is it's a stupid idea for a book. And since you haven't read the book, you can't say that. Either way, it's an opinion, as others might think it's a good premise.

Fiction is a lie, and good fiction is the truth inside the lie.--Stephen King

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RobsBottin 10 years ago

Why should anyone "take it from you"? What's so special about your opinions that would stop somebody from watching Needful Things?

It's all a deep end.

[–] TheStranger666 10 years ago

Yeah, King didn't write the movies you dumb *beep*, he writes the books and a scriptwriter writes the movie. Also, if this is the worst movie you have ever seen, you haven't seen much.

Is there a chemical in X that makes you dance like a prick?