Video Sources 48 Views

  • Watch traileryoutube.com
  • Player 1streamvideo.link
  • Player 2gomo.to
  • Player 3123files.club
1922 (2017)

1922 (2017)

Your rating: 0
5.9 1890 votes

Genres

what going on?

Synopsis

IMDb Rating 5.9 1,890 votes

FAQ

How can I watch free movies online?

You can watch movies absolutely free online on FilmoZilla.com. No hidden taxes, just enjoy your favorite movies 🙂

Is FilmoZilla.com alternative to 123movies?

FilmoZilla.com is a good alternative to 123movies

How can I watch movies together?

You can create an online meeting where you share your screen with friends and enjoy the variety of movies on FilmoZilla.com with your close ones

What is the best free movie channel?

FilmoZilla.com offers best-in-class free service for watching movies online

Similar titles

Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders (2016)
Boost (2016)
The Death of Stalin (2017)
What Happened to Monday (2017)
The Martian (2015)
Kids on the Slope (2018)
Away and Back (2015)
Texas Killing Fields (2011)
Marie Antoinette (2006)
It’s Only the End of the World (2016)
Cyrano, My Love (2019)
Desierto (2015)

(150) comments

  • Jonathan DNovember 28, 2017Reply

    Interesting Slow Movie horror tragedy story basically about “be careful for what you wish for because you might just get it”. Thomas Jane is pretty good. Don’t watch this movie if you are afraid of Rats.

  • Courtney HDecember 2, 2017Reply

    Excellent movie version of the riveting Stephen King story. So good it should have been in theaters longer instead of streaming. The acting is Oscar worthy.

  • Aaron MDecember 10, 2017Reply

    Unusual movie, not what you expect to watch. Its great story telling though if you can bare the texas accent.

  • Maciek WDecember 10, 2017Reply

    A pretty good thriller and this is one of the most interesting and original Netflix productions. Huge applause for the main male role – it is a really well made character with depth.

  • Chris JDecember 10, 2017Reply

    In 1922 he might have killed his wife, but in 2017 i sure got really bored.

  • Frédéric HDecember 17, 2017Reply

    “1922” is the latest Stephen King’s adaptation which is way too shallow, predictable and stretched. My advice is go back to viewing some of the classics than be mentally bored watching this movie.

  • Stanley CDecember 21, 2017Reply

    More concerned about intimidating or getting under the skin of the audience and breaking their hearts than telling a cleverly original story – 1922 is as easily forgettable as the culture of the year it takes place in.

  • Troy KDecember 22, 2017Reply

    Strange, but I liked it.

  • Abdulmalik ADecember 23, 2017Reply

    The familiar case of a short story stretched too thin in a feature film.

  • doug hDecember 28, 2017Reply

    slow moving, but solid.. Not many scares, instead 1922 shines when exploring what happens when a man takes a step across a line from which there is no return..

  • Kenneth WDecember 28, 2017Reply

    pretty close to the novella

  • Justin BDecember 29, 2017Reply

    A poor adaptation of a mediocre novella retelling The Tell-Tale Heart. When a short story is made into a feature length film the story is sure to be drawn out and this film was no exception. Aside from a brief segway into a Bonnie and Clyde subplot this story is essentially no more than Poe’s classic ineptly recreated. Despite a cast of stella actors there is little to redeem this film.

  • Tim GDecember 29, 2017Reply

    Liked it, but hard to understand how this would happen in the first place (involving your son?).

  • AnonymousJanuary 4, 2018Reply

    This movie kept my attention throughout the 1:41 runtime. I loved the characters and I loved the ending. Creepy for sure. But oh so entertaining. Thomas Jane is a very handsome farmer in overalls…

  • Logan FJanuary 5, 2018Reply

    At times, I could not believe how frightened I was of such simple scares. 1922 is chilling to the bone!

  • Timm SJanuary 7, 2018Reply

    There Is Not One Thing I Could Imagine People Might Fault With This Piece Of Slow-Burn Haunting Deepness Of Film-Noir. The Australian Outback Makes For A Nice Set-Piece Too, As Some People May Be Surprised To Know It Is Filmed There & NOT The US-Of-A. All That Aside Though, It Is However, Incredibly Slow. So Slow As To Question How Much Thought Provocation Can Make You Go Okay…Enough Already, Move On!! It Leaves The Actors Carrying The Story With There Performances, Both Thomas-Jane & Neal-McDonough Do Very Well, The Rest Are Much Of A Muchness.

  • Terri HJanuary 7, 2018Reply

    The movie was a very sobering movie about right and wrong. Don’t watch it if you want something uplifting!

  • Sandro RJanuary 10, 2018Reply

    Although it’s based on a Stephen King novella, this feels a lot like an Edgar Allan Poe story, with it’s themes of paranoia, grief and the dead haunting the living. It’s slow and quiet, but the creepy atmosphere is omnipresent, and Thomas Jane is fantastic in the leading role

  • Cole WJanuary 16, 2018Reply

    A bit slow at times, but Thomas Jane gives a good performance and it is a pretty dark and disturbing psychological thriller.

  • Wolf SJanuary 21, 2018Reply

    My wife and I really enjoyed this Netflix movie. King really is the master!

  • Justin NJanuary 22, 2018Reply

    Solid Steven King adaptation.

  • AnonymousJanuary 24, 2018Reply

    Boring at best. Had to terminate after 20 minutes. My life is worth more than this waste of talent.

  • Adrian WJanuary 25, 2018Reply

    Egyik legjobban sikerült King-adaptáció. A Netflix sorozatok/filmek alapból nagyon jól teljesítenek és ez is “kötelez? megnézni” kategóriába tartozik. Az “It” és a “Gerald’s Game” adaptációk mellett ezt se hagyjátok ki.

  • Paully AJanuary 29, 2018Reply

    Mediocre movie. Not recommended for Cow lovers.

  • Dayzzel AJanuary 31, 2018Reply

    Though faithful to the source material, reading it was much much creepier than just being fed visuals. And they did not include the original ending.

  • Nilufer EFebruary 7, 2018Reply

    This was a solid good thriller. I quite enjoyed it and I would enjoy it even more if I had known that it was a Stephen King novella, though I admit I didn’t remember it even though I read it. Superb acting also.

  • Carl JFebruary 10, 2018Reply

    Gave it 15 minutes and gave up. Couldnt understand the thick accent of the main character

  • Y GFebruary 10, 2018Reply

    Horrible movie, and I love Thomas Jane

  • Dominic GFebruary 12, 2018Reply

    My girlfriend picked this one night and fell asleep instantly. I would have been better served doing the same. I suppose the movie serves its purpose well, you just have to be in the mood for something crushingly depressing and bleak.

  • Bijinius CFebruary 13, 2018Reply

    It’s so disappointing to see this get such a low audience score. It seems to suggest that people either didn’t have the patience to stick with such a slow-burn, atmospheric horror flick, or. . . I really don’t know, actually. This is a really, really good horror movie-it actually manages to horrify. That’s rare. The script, direction, acting, set design and cinematography were top notch for this sort of genre film. It’s up there with “The Witch” and “The Blackcoat’s Daughter” as my favorite recent horror releases. It worries me that so many people apparently refuse to get their heads around an intelligent, paced movie like this. I don’t believe it’s a matter of taste with things like this-this is a well made, committed movie with a fantastic lead performance by Thomas Jane. Its production values were great, and the mood of dread was pervasive and really impressive. In an overpopulated, often hacky genre like horror, you need to treasure a movie like this that takes its time to tell a compelling story and spark the imagination. Movies like the recent “Saw” or “Rings” are lazy, offensively stupid cash-ins, yet they have better audience scores than this. It’s not a matter of taste, it’s a matter of filmmakers respecting their audience’s intelligence and patience. I rate this one a very strong 4/5, and might give it another half with another viewing. I imagine this one will hold up for a long, long while.

  • Stephen BFebruary 23, 2018Reply

    Slow burning but keeps your interest (even though it wears thin towards the end)

    I enjoyed Thomas Jane’s performance (always liked him as an actor), the directing was satisfactory and of course, being based off a Stephen King story, it was always going to be both weird and entertaining so should keep your attention even though it is very slow burning and does a wear a bit thin towards the end.

  • Jason WMarch 3, 2018Reply

    Overall I liked it and for the most part it stayed true to Stephen King’s novella. However, I felt the whole son-on-the-lam portion was a bit rushed in flashbacks leaving the characters involved reduced to mere background art. But Thomas Jane’s performance was off the chart. I was not expecting that from this film.

  • Ali FMarch 4, 2018Reply

    rly was engaged the whole time and rly liked the way it was adapted from king’s short story

  • AnonymousMarch 4, 2018Reply

    Las actuaciones están bien, así como los escenarios, vestuario. Sin embargo la historia no está bien contada. Se hace muy lenta.

  • Rick HMarch 18, 2018Reply

    Having entered a period where everything is adapted from another medium, it appears that streaming services are the perfect home for much of Stephen King’s material. 1922 is a perfect example of how short stories and novellas can achieve a thoughtful adaptation without having to worry about flopping at the box office. For those who still enjoy a basic and engaging story without having to sit through overwhelming digital effects, 1922 is for you. I had to double check to make sure I was watching Thomas Jane on the screen. His performance is outstanding alongside Dylan Schmid. Great casting, great directing, great score, and beautiful cinematography.

  • Cesar MMarch 23, 2018Reply

    O final deixa a desejar.

  • Steven MMarch 27, 2018Reply

    Dark movie done exceptionally well.

  • Charles VMarch 30, 2018Reply

    Good performances by the actors but the movie’s plot was a little simple and predictable

  • Andy FApril 7, 2018Reply

    I find Stephen King’s output fits in two boxes. For the first 20 years of his career the books were unmissable. For the past 20 years you are better off with the movies. 1922 is no exception and it is a beautfully paced film with some genuine creepy moments.

  • Samuel MApril 7, 2018Reply

    Como película que trata el tema de la paranoia y la culpa, es sin duda un trabajo genial. Su fotografía es muy buena y Thomas Jane demuestra una vez más lo actorazo que es, …

    …sin embargo su ritmo la hace endiabladamente aburrida.

  • AnonymousApril 9, 2018Reply

    good but too many rats

  • Tal GApril 9, 2018Reply

    Pretty decent slow burning horror movie. Pretty mild as far as horror movies usually go, though.

    The production of this movie was pretty great. Everything looked incredibly authentic. Everything felt very authentic for the time setting. Even the people looked like they fell straight out of 1922. The movie did well on that front.

    The acting was all very well done. Solid job. Nothing outstanding, but what more could I ask for in a movie such as this?

    The music was extremely forgettable horror movie music.

    The story was nothing out of the ordinary. Straightforward, easy to follow, clear message. Not memorable, though.

    At times the movie dragged a bunch. Lots of scenes could’ve been cut or shortened.

    Overall it was a very passable horror flick. It just wasn’t anything special or very memorable.

  • Cate HApril 23, 2018Reply

    Thomas Jane was transformed. Amazing.

  • David LApril 28, 2018Reply

    1922 is another one of those weird and wonderful novels by Stephen King that grips you with its peculiarity. Having taken the seemingly easy decision to bump off the only women in the house, a father and son then try to adapt to living their farming life whilst trying to hide their dirty little secret, which has literally been disposed of at the bottom of a well underneath a big fat cow (of the animal sense, not an obese lady). Gradually, as winter sets in, money becomes tight, and the male bond weakens through increasing guilt, the two villains become haunted by their wrongdoings, and begin a journey to encounter their cumuppence.

  • Jorge DMay 4, 2018Reply

    Thomas Jane on the best work of his career gives the pulse of this excellent adaptation of Stephen King.

  • Robert CMay 10, 2018Reply

    Very solid piece of filmmaking. I’m a Stephen King fanatic, so I came in remembering this piece and was very impressed with the style, tone and simplicity the film was told with. It has an Edgar Allan Poe-Telltale Heart feel to it. While it is plodding, I believe that’s by design. The tension is rife throughout, with the dread of a terrible act painting the world that surrounds the Wilfred (Thomas Jane). It’s not giving anything away to say he won’t escape. Watching him toil in that which he reaped is his hell – it is painful and truthful to watch. HIdlitch has fantastic control of the material throughout. He doesn’t overdo the dialogue – relying instead on a terrific score and Thomas Jane’s slowly peeling scowl.

  • Robert CMay 10, 2018Reply

    Very solid piece of filmmaking. I’m a Stephen King fanatic, so I came in remembering this piece and was very impressed with the style, tone and simplicity the film was told with. It has an Edgar Allan Poe-Telltale Heart feel to it. While it is plodding, I believe that’s by design. The tension is rife throughout, with the dread of a terrible act painting the world that surrounds the Wilfred (Thomas Jane). It’s not giving anything away to say he won’t escape. Watching him toil in that which he reaped is his hell – it is painful and truthful to watch. HIdlitch has fantastic control of the material throughout. He doesn’t overdo the dialogue – relying instead on a terrific score and Thomas Jane’s slowly peeling scowl.

  • Jonathan IMay 22, 2018Reply

    For such an interesting story that is well-performed, it’s sad that it moves so slow and is so boring.

  • Jeff JMay 27, 2018Reply

    It’s very well written and acted out. Yes a bit slow in some parts, but overall I enjoyed it.

    People might’ve mistaken the genre. Not all Stephen King’s stories are “horror.” This one is more of a crime genre. But it is definitely a King’s story with elements of morality, conflict of good and evil, choices and consequences, etc…

    Spoiler and critical thinking: The rats are metaphor for his “guilt.” It is easy to speculate, but he actually said it outright during the scene where he was at work in omaha.

  • AnonymousJune 5, 2018Reply

    A new horror flick, based on Stephen King’s novel, that should have your attention..!

  • Aldo GJune 16, 2018Reply

    A totally satisfying Stephen Kill story. Beautifully filmed and acted.

  • Jake FJune 23, 2018Reply

    The score, the cast, the narrative progression, everything was done perfectly to standard for a parable of dread.

    Sincerest respect to Thomas Jane for his sterling performance, I hardly recognized him at first.

  • AnonymousJuly 25, 2018Reply

    It’s Stephen King, and his style well known, predictalble and entertaining. Great acting from everyone. Not much else to say.

  • jonlloyd aJuly 27, 2018Reply

    “1922” tells the story of a despicable man and how he dealt with his life after murdering his own wife with his son’s help. Throughout the entire film, I never felt bad for Wilfred. Beginning to end, I hated him. With the story being told from his perspective, I saw how the character cared for no one except himself and his son. THIS WAS MY PROBLEM WITH THE MOVIE. The story was pretty good and, at times, scary, the message was there but the movie was told from the eyes of someone I hate. If it was not narrated and had been told as a horror-thriller-drama kind of movie, it could have been so much better. The one aspect of “1922” that I can praise, good story and scary scenes aside, are the performances of Thomas Jane, Dylan Schmid and Molly Parker. They were amazing.
    Overall, “1922” had major storytelling issues but it is an okay film.

  • Petros TAugust 1, 2018Reply

    Intriguing but not particularly scary or game-changing.

  • Andrew EAugust 10, 2018Reply

    Hubris, as defined in Merriam Webster: “To the Greeks, hubris referred to extreme pride, especially pride and ambition so great that they offend the gods and lead to one’s downfall. Hubris was a character flaw often seen in the heroes of classical Greek tragedy, including Oedipus and Achilles. The familiar old saying “Pride goeth before a fall” is basically talking about hubris.”

    That’s the one word that keeps popping into my head as I watched 1922, a movie based on Stephen King’s story of the same name, in which the farmer named Wilfred (Thomas Jane) influences his son Henry into helping him murder his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) in order to prevent her from selling her part of the land to a livestock company (who wishes to use the land to build a slaughterhouse) and move to the city with their son.

    Of course, as one would expect in these kinds of situations: Hubris. Wilfred’s land and way of life starts to fall apart around him, at first just a bit until it starts to cascade together to create an avalanche that smothers the farmer. What I particularly like about this movie is the acting; the main cast really does a bang up job of portraying their characters off as real people, and the script helps along with that as well. I also find the costume design to be charming and quaint, very fitting for 1920’s heartland Americana. I also appreciate that this is a movie that does a slow burn with the sense of fear of dread, instead of having it coming all at you in spades. This is a movie I would highly recommend.

  • gianni mAugust 15, 2018Reply

    A film about rats. Rats get more screen time and close ups than humans in this film. Not I movie I would suggest. Based on a Stephen King novel is not a synonym for slow paced and predictable unfolding.

  • Jane SAugust 16, 2018Reply

    One of the most horrifying movies I’ve seen in a long time. This one will haunt you for a while.

  • AnonymousAugust 22, 2018Reply

    Having not read the King novella, I endured this tragically forced drivel with a non-bias and open mind to what the production had to offer. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a whole lot to barter with.

    A film veteran (particularly those with experience in psycho-thrillers) can spot very early on what exactly the producers have attempted to do with this story, or more importantly what they have failed miserably to do.

    The film lacks any essence of tension or suspense, despite almost every seen being littered with forced, cheesy horror
    music (sped up, off tune violins) and blatant imagery even a first grade English student could pick up on. No scene ever comes as a surprise and you are constantly left waiting for something substantial to the plot to happen. But I suppose that is the paradox within this film. The plot is so fickle and the characters are so weak that you are left with very little to care about, even if you endure enough to make it to the closing titles.

    If you are going to make a film that is incredibly dark, you need to have some level of contrast – regardless of how subtle – in order to emphasise the relevance of the darkness. (When editing a photo, you don’t just whack the exposure down to -100 as the entire image turns black and you can’t see anything). This film begins as dark and miserable as it starts out, giving audiences nothing to look forward to nor miss.

    A definite miss if you’re a fan of well delivered psycho-thrillers, but could make for a good watch if you have no taste in good film.

  • Neo LAugust 26, 2018Reply

    This is good as hell

  • AnonymousSeptember 3, 2018Reply

    Not bad at all.. I will be less quick to judge a Netflix movie after seeing this. There are far worse horror movies that hit theaters. I recommend this, it’s decent.

  • Jesse OSeptember 8, 2018Reply

    I often wonder how many things that I’ve done that I’ve forgotten about. I’m certain there’s a lot of things I’ve forgotten that if I were to play my memories back, as if a film, I’d go ‘oh yea, I remember I did that now’. The reason I bring this up in reference to this, an adaptation of a Stephen King novella, is because I wonder if King, an incredibly prolific writer, has ever forgotten anything he’s written. And I wonder if he’s ever surprised when someone wants to adapt one of his books/novellas/stories into a film and he’s like ‘oh yea, I remember that I wrote that’. This question is both a serious and joke observation at the same time. I’m certain the man has written stuff, prior to getting his first book (Carrie) published, that may have never seen the light of day that he doesn’t remember putting pen to paper to. Regardless, as I mentioned in my It: Chapter One review, this (I believe) was the third good King film (if you believe the reviews) in a six-week span. The other, released in between this one and It, was Gerald’s Game (which I also hear is good, but it’s a movie I haven’t seen yet). And, again, as I mentioned in the It review, I don’t think there’s even been a year like last year, where there were three good movies based on Stephen King books and/or novellas. So that’s good for the man who, really, introduced a lot of people to horror with his books. Anyone who disagrees with the fact that King is a horror icon is just delusional. Regardless, let’s go on with this movie, shall we? Thomas Jane is an interesting actor. The reason I say that might not be the reason you might think. Daniel Day-Lewis is an interesting actor in that his commitment to whatever character he’s playing is a testament to his dedication and his willingness to give all of himself to the material. Thomas Jane differs in that I’ve never been able to decided if I think he’s a good actor, a bad actor or something in between. I guess I’d have to say he’s somewhere in between. But, and this is the thing, in a lot of cases, he’s either one extreme or the other, he RARELY falls into the in-between category. Not that he hasn’t fallen in that in-between category (check Before I Wake), but he’s either good or he’s bad. That’s why it’s impossible to get a read on him, because you never know what you’re gonna get out of him. Though, to be fair to Jane, I think he’s the type of actor that excels when he’s given a role that he can really do something with. That’s not to excuse his inconsistency as an actor, because a good actor is good all the time and not when it suits him. Plus, there’s certain people that are so great that they’re still good when they’re phoning it in. Thomas Jane isn’t one of those actors. Having said that, I think Jane gives one of, if not, his best performances in this movie and he’s a large part of why I thought the movie ended up working. Not to say that he’s completely irreplaceable, but Thomas Jane definitely did do a great job here as this conniving man who manipulates his teenage son into helping murder his mother and the consequences that he suffers as a result of his actions. And, ultimately, I feel like the movie is about those consequences. The decision made by Wilfred to kill his wife, in order to keep her from selling her land, moving to the city and taking her son (and livelihood), was made in order to secure his lifestyle as a farmer and his wife’s 100 acres of land (and his own 80 acres, which he would have to sell if his wife goes through with her own sale, since his land is no good for farming without hers). Wilfred might have thought that his decision would be simple. He’d be rid of his wife and that’d be it, but her death sets off a series of escalating events that end up with, at least, two families (Wilfred and Harlan’s families) and who knows how many others as a result of Wilfred and Harlan’s son and daughter, respectively, becoming bank robbers. I like movies like this. It’s not that they go into that many details of the consequences to anyone outside of Wilf’s own family and Harlan’s, but I do like how the movie portrays the events that took place could all be traced back to when Wilf decided to murder his wife. So, if Henry and Shannon (Henry’s pregnant girlfriend), murder someone, directly or indirectly, Wilfred himself is responsible for that, for having manipulated and pushed his son to do something that, at fourteen years old, he should not have been accomplice to. Also, and this is also a result of Wilf’s own actions, but he ends up losing everything he thought he would have kept when he killed his wife. He is, eventually, forced to sell the land for a pittance of what he would have made before, not to mention constantly being haunted by visions of his wife and rats. Having said that, I do think that the movie, in spite of how good it is, will test the patience of some people. Not all of what I mentioned happens immediately. The film definitely takes its time building up to that, since explores how every aspect of Wilf’s life starts falling apart and, again, how he loses everything. I think one of the things the movie doesn’t do, which, according to the novella’s Wikipedia entry, the novella does is leave it open-ended as to whether the events that Wilf described were real or if the guilt of what he had done and what his son became had rendered him delusional. I suppose you’re meant to make up your own mind about what happened, but I felt the movie should have played more with the fact that what you’re seeing may not, in fact, be happening at all. That’s a minor complaint, but I felt that the script was strong and the movie has a strong sense of time. It feels like it’s set in 1922, whether it’s from the costume design, the way Jane talks or the gothic atmosphere, the film definitely captures the tone that it needed to have to tell its story. As far as horror is concerned, honestly, I feel that, while there’s certainly some horror touches, I feel that this is more suspense than straight-up horror. The film is framed as a horror and the score, which is tremendous, lends to that, but I felt that the movie was more about the suspense of what is going on to Wilf and the guilt he suffers, whether it is his own mind playing tricks on him or his wife (and later his son and his girlfriend) haunting him down to make him suffer a little bit first before, eventually, taking his life as their last act of revenge. So, yea, if you’re looking for something that’s full-on horror, this is the wrong movie to watch. It requires far more patience than most people expecting a full-on horror movie have. That’s not to say the film is perfect and, as good as it is, I feel that it just that, good. And that’s not to criticize this film, since making a good movie is already hard enough, but it’s not the second coming of anything. It falls short on some aspects and I feel that that held it back as it relates to my rating. Though, don’t misunderstand me, this still has some strong and compelling storytelling and a really good performance from Thomas Jane. That’s enough to warrant a recommendation on my book, but it’s not the best movie you will ever see. Still, I enjoyed myself watching this movie and, ultimately, that’s what matters. Here’s to hoping Gerald’s Game concludes the 2017 Stephen King movie trilogy strongly.

  • Anthony PSeptember 18, 2018Reply

    Terrible accents that sounded like they were forced. It’s obvious that King and the filmmakers have no idea whatsoever what farmers and others who depend on their hands and bodies to make a living. A rat bite isn’t going to keep a farmer from fixing a hole in his roof. I can buy that the farmer is dumb, but he was shown to be clever well prepared. Which shows intelligence and pragmatism. Characters were cliche throughout. The hole in his livingroom ceiling would’ve gone upstairs, not to the outside. Poor continuity. Just a jumbled mess thrown together by Stephen king to make money. Like the vast majority of his work.

  • Emery SSeptember 27, 2018Reply

    While I wouldn’t say the movie is particularly horrifying, I would say that it does a great job of getting you to empathize with the characters. Not exactly agreeing with their actions (although that may be the point), but certainly understanding why they did it (Save for Henry and Shannon who I could only speculate on for their affair).

  • JC SSeptember 30, 2018Reply

    This movie was very suspensful. Netflix did a great job setting the scene of the 1920’s. The movie has a good twist. I was expecting a better ending.

  • Johann MOctober 30, 2018Reply

    This Stephen King’s horrifying tale is about a stubborn farmer in the year 1922 who conspires to murder his wife for financial gain and convinces their teenage son to assist him, but their actions have unintended and supernatural consequences… The drama and suspense handled in the film is well performed and Thomas Jane proves he loves strong male lead roles in King’s stories and does a good job with them, as he effectively lures us into the farmer’s deteriorating state of mind.

  • Michael MNovember 7, 2018Reply

    Very much a methodical slow-burn of a movie, it’s not exactly for everyone, but for what it was 1922 worked well enough for me. It’s really a miserable sort of movie, kind of an anti American dream. Basically a guy who tries to accomplish something and hold on to what he has and just loses everything in the process and the slow loss of watching that happen. It’s tense, uncomfortable, chilling, and damned effective. For what it’s doing, it does it damn well. It’s not really the sort of movie I can see myself returning to as a fun movie to watch again, but it is an effective film, with great performances all around and a killer atmosphere.

  • Michael MNovember 17, 2018Reply

    Very much a methodical slow-burn of a movie, it’s not exactly for everyone, but for what it was 1922 worked well enough for me. It’s really a miserable sort of movie, kind of an anti American dream. Basically a guy who tries to accomplish something and hold on to what he has and just loses everything in the process and the slow loss of watching that happen. Itï¿ 1/2(TM)s tense, uncomfortable, chilling, and damned effective. For what itï¿ 1/2(TM)s doing, it does it damn well. Itï¿ 1/2(TM)s not really the sort of movie I can see myself returning to as a fun movie to watch again, but it is an effective film, with great performances all around and a killer atmosphere.

  • James RNovember 19, 2018Reply

    A slow moving burn of a horror film, but I enjoyed it. Based on the novella of the same name by Stephen King 1922 is about a farmer named Wilfred James (Thomas Jane) who is a hard worker, but becomes distraught when he finds out that his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) wants to sell land she recently inherited and move to the city. Wilfred’s entire identity is with the land and he can’t imagine life off the farm, so after much arguing Wilfred convinces his son Henry (Dylan Schmid) to help him murder his wife. Wilfred convinces Henry that if they move to the city Henry’s girlfriend Shannon (Kaitlyn Bernard) won’t be in the picture anymore. The murder happens and the two guys think they’ve gotten away with it all when suddenly very strange things start to happen on the farm. Yes a bit of a spoiler there, but it’s in the trailers! Overall, this one moves pretty slow, but man i enjoyed the story. It’s a take of jealously and also of regret. Thomas Jane does a fantastic job here completely transforming into a backwater farmer (that isn’t too smart). The “horror” aspects of it aren’t too frequent, but when it does happen it’s some really creepy stuff. This is on Netflix and I would definitely recommend giving this one a look if your a Stephen King fan, or want to enjoy a solid horror film.

  • Jay TNovember 24, 2018Reply

    Poeï¿ 1/2(TM)s Tell-tale Heart (1843) re-imagined by Stephen King (2010), released in 2017, and set in 1922. Read Poeï¿ 1/2(TM)s version.

  • Ericka SNovember 25, 2018Reply

    Very creepy. Loved the story and acting.
    Thomas Jane is great.

  • Eric SDecember 8, 2018Reply

    not FULFILLING. could have been much better.

  • AnonymousDecember 31, 2018Reply

    “1922” succeeds because Tom Jane shows us Wilfred’s vulnerability, and the slow erosion of his sanity and soul after the murder, making us feel for his plight. A great King adaptation.

  • Michal Marek NJanuary 15, 2019Reply

    I think i had more problems with the source material than with the movie.

  • Stephanie BJanuary 31, 2019Reply

    legitimately spooked me. doesn’t rely on jump scares to keep things creepy

  • Stewart WFebruary 27, 2019Reply

    very good performances from a strong cast led Thomas Jane

  • nihil sFebruary 27, 2019Reply

    As for me who likes haunting films, this one is something I wouldn’t consider watching over again. Great actors, story was good, but maybe I expected too much. There are films that will leave you an eerie feeling, this one doesn’t.

  • AnonymousMarch 17, 2019Reply

    Sad what some men willing to do to get what they want was that land worth all that

  • Charlie JMarch 22, 2019Reply

    A stellar performance from Thomas Jane, 1922 showcases Stephen Kings thrilling story while also a nail bitting thriller.

  • AnonymousApril 9, 2019Reply

    Thomas Jane delivers an incredible performance. I love a good slow burn and this is one of them. The low audience scores must come from millennials who wanted explosions and endless gore. Instead, 1922 is an effective slow-burn horror film that depicts the mental state of it’s characters through the decay of their home and resources. Jane plays a born and bred rural farmer clenching onto his land at the perceived impending doom of urbanization. The length he goes to result in a regretful, haunted man with a debilitating mental state. I loved this movie. It’s one to watch once or twice a year when you want a classic style film.

  • AnonymousApril 15, 2019Reply

    It was awful… the worst thing I’ve seen in ages. We had to put on subtitles to understand the lead… sounded like he had a mouthful of marbles the whole film. He was a total arsehole… no other character has an ounce of likeability… this movie gave nothing, don’t watch! Sooooo lame, not scary, predictable, boring, slow… .5 of a star for the gross out moments – but that wasn’t enough to make this film worth a whole star.

  • Coleman MMay 27, 2019Reply

    My favorite movie of all time. Music used amazingly. Amazing acting. Great adaptation. Sense of overlooking dread. Horrifying with no jumpscares.

  • Brian SJune 11, 2019Reply

    Another good adaptation of a Stephen King story, which itself seems to be inspired by Poe’s classic tale of The Tell Tale Heart. It’s a movie that starts out spooky and atmospheric from the beginning, and just gradually keeps building up tension until the final last half hour, where it becomes pretty disturbing. The cinematography is nice and Thomas Jane gives a good lead performance. It’s a movie that deals with the themes of greed, selfishness, guilt and retribution. Overall, 1922 is a nice little scare fest, and should receive more recognition. Recommended!!

  • AnonymousJuly 18, 2019Reply

    Pretty solid movie. Great work from Thomas Jane and the rest of the cast, even if his accent is a little goofy at times. This film boasts a handful of truly disturbing scenes, especially the murder. It is a slow burn that doesn’t quite deliver an amazing climax, but is still well worth the watch. Creepy throughout and creates a great atmosphere of doom, though some people will find it too slow.

  • Farah RAugust 13, 2019Reply

    1922 is disturbing and perfectly eerie but it’s no horror. There’s nothing truly scary about it except maybe the painstakingly sluggish pace. The movie dragged on and ended up stretched too thin.

  • Andrew ESeptember 4, 2019Reply

    Hubris, as defined in Merriam Webster: “To the Greeks, hubris referred to extreme pride, especially pride and ambition so great that they offend the gods and lead to one’s downfall. Hubris was a character flaw often seen in the heroes of classical Greek tragedy, including Oedipus and Achilles. The familiar old saying “Pride goeth before a fall” is basically talking about hubris.” That’s the one word that keeps popping into my head as I watched 1922, a movie based on Stephen King’s story of the same name, in which the farmer named Wilfred (Thomas Jane) influences his son Henry into helping him murder his wife Arlette (Molly Parker) in order to prevent her from selling her part of the land to a livestock company (who wishes to use the land to build a slaughterhouse) and move to the city with their son. Of course, as one would expect in these kinds of situations: Hubris. Wilfred’s land and way of life starts to fall apart around him, at first just a bit until it starts to cascade together to create an avalanche that smothers the farmer. What I particularly like about this movie is the acting; the main cast really does a bang up job of portraying their characters off as real people, and the script helps along with that as well. I also find the costume design to be charming and quaint, very fitting for 1920’s heartland Americana. I also appreciate that this is a movie that does a slow burn with the sense of fear of dread, instead of having it coming all at you in spades. This is a movie I would highly recommend.

  • Jim WSeptember 15, 2019Reply

    Both 1922 and Gerald’s Game are the best Stephen King, character study adaptations. Since the Green Mile. They are both dark dramas that make you question reality.
    Of what is just Wilfred James’ (Thomas Jane) guilt coming back to haunt him or actual ghosts. As well as the burden of being a single parent taking care of a son and a farm by yourself.
    1922 is more of a character study than a ghost story. Thomas Jane (Dreamcatcher, The Mist) makes you feel for him with one of his most moving performances. Even if you know, you should probably hate him. Or be grateful bad things are happening to him.

  • Sam JSeptember 16, 2019Reply

    Really enjoyed this movie. Great characters and gripping plot.

  • Chris WSeptember 16, 2019Reply

    Not that interesting, not that scary, not that good.

  • Carlos JSeptember 21, 2019Reply

    La historia se diluye entre altos y bajos, salvable por la excelente actuación de Thomas Jane.

  • David TSeptember 27, 2019Reply

    This was a tale without intreague, a storyline so almost predictable, and an ending that was so obvoius and lame!

  • Sofia AOctober 1, 2019Reply

    1922 no esperes ver una película de terror. Es un drama bien elaborado y actuado con lapsos de horror y suspenso que acompañan la culpa de un asesino. Déjate llevar por su ritmo y disfrútala

  • AnonymousOctober 5, 2019Reply

    This had the potential to be good, but it was ruined by dull lifeless characters. The only living things in the movie I could engage with or feel anything for, were the two cows that got killed. Those 2 scenes were very sad.

  • Thomas ZOctober 13, 2019Reply

    The worst movie I’ve ever seen. Boring. It takes you nowhere

  • Alec BOctober 13, 2019Reply

    Thomas Jane is terrific and I like how Hilditch embraces the original novella’s slow, agonizing death march plot.

  • Chris HOctober 28, 2019Reply

    It’s got some of the typical Stephen King tropes, but they are wrapped up in an intruging premise. A story of a husband making a devestatingly bad decision and the consequences that happen.

  • Jacob BOctober 31, 2019Reply

    A bit of a slow burn, 1922 isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea but Thomas Jane’s performance and the well-told story about a man who tries to hold on to something only to end up losing everything make this an interesting Stephen King adaptation that’s definitely not on the same scale horror-wise as IT and The Shining.

  • Ravi TNovember 3, 2019Reply

    Really slow build up….but I guess that was the point. It wasn’t horrible.

  • Suellen CNovember 3, 2019Reply

    Watched this movie going of the back of the good reviews and it was such a disappointment. Bad acting with a really stretched out story, not interesting at all.

  • Dani BNovember 4, 2019Reply

    For a Steven king movie, this wasn’t too bad. It wasn’t the shining or pet cemetery, but thank God it didn’t go down the road of Rose Red or Dreamcatcher(I still want my money back for that one you HACK!) Would I have paid money to see it in a theater? No. Was it better than half the crap they pass off as horror on Netflix? Yes.

  • Adam DNovember 9, 2019Reply

    This movie made me feel a strange wrong feeling on the inside the whole movie, and any movie that can provoke that strong of an emotion get’s my approval. I thought the character Wilfred, a farmer till death, was acted wonderfully and believably. His actions were thought out, and outside of his major mistake, didn’t seem to have any other major ill intent. The narrative of his voice let the viewer into his thoughts, really allowed the viewer to get inside what this man was thinking. I feel the sheriffs treatment of Wilfred shed light into how the community view him, an honest small time farmer, which made Wilfred even more interesting to me. He got away with murder from a legal stance, but in the end his punishment was much greater than jail time.

  • Joshua ANovember 30, 2019Reply

    Really drawn out to the point where I kept clicking my screen to see how much time was left. The movie did a good job and the storyline its self wasn’t to bad. All in all, I enjoyed it

  • Kevin FDecember 8, 2019Reply

    strong slow burn, overacting by thomas jane the protagonist but in a good way

  • Poniman TDecember 12, 2019Reply

    I didn’t read the original novella but the screenwriter constructed the story in a way that it draws you in until the climax end of the story. Yes, it was predictable by the end… but the performances were great that it was as though the audience, well at least I, could feel the agonizing and destined faith of the main character. I think it would have made a very good mini series with the later half of the story being more expanded.

  • William KDecember 16, 2019Reply

    This superb Stephen King adaptation is less a horror story, but rather a period tragedy about guilt, loyalty and human frailty; enhanced by top-notch performances and good atmospheric cinematography.

  • AnonymousDecember 29, 2019Reply

    It was alright not entertaining enough to recommend but creepy enough without going over the top.

  • Mike JJanuary 18, 2020Reply

    Like most of his movies never as good as his books, but there are some great movies as well. But the books are more inspirational and more detailed.

  • Ally MJanuary 20, 2020Reply

    this was the worst movie ive ever seen. it’s a terrible period piece with murder and rats

  • Alex SJanuary 23, 2020Reply

    It dragged in some places, but other than that it’s a decent movie.

  • William AFebruary 12, 2020Reply

    Unsettling and fun to watch.

  • Charlie LFebruary 25, 2020Reply

    It starts promisingly but 1922 is, despite its merits, pretty forgettable.

  • gianmarco RMarch 7, 2020Reply

    This film is a psychological thriller based on the consequences of absurd actions done in an extremely impulsive way and revolves all around the guilt represented by ghosts. The plot is very beautiful and the staging is even more so because this film manages not to dwell on useless parts, for the latter in fact devotes very little time. The only downside is that the tension fails to be sustained well throughout the course of the film

  • Andrei DApril 1, 2020Reply

    Jane munceste mult si bine

  • Sebastian WApril 7, 2020Reply

    One of the best Stephen King Films I ever saw. Great story, great actors. Dark and deep, like a well.

  • Courtney KApril 12, 2020Reply

    i enjoyed this one very much; makes me want to find the book/short & read it.

  • Will HApril 14, 2020Reply

    Good start and middle, just stay there, never finishs it

  • Brenda OApril 15, 2020Reply

    A melhor adaptação feita baseada em um livro de Stephen King.

  • Ana BApril 20, 2020Reply

    It was a long time I did not see a movie this good. I would 100 percent recommend it, amazing work of the actors and the dialogues had me in awe.

  • Hayley KApril 23, 2020Reply

    Gives you uncomfortable anxiety the entire time, whilst keeping the storyline interesting. Trigger warning though if you suffer anxiety bad. Lol.

  • Robbie TMay 1, 2020Reply

    I’m a huge King fan so I am always happy when his books and novellas are taken to the screen. 1922 is pretty decent. Good creep factor which I add to the great film score. Different than other King works this one is remeisent of Poe. Good watch. Slow in some parts but other than that pretty decent watch.

  • Mason WMay 2, 2020Reply

    Although it has a dark premise, its creepy soundtrack and beautiful shots play well into the suspense and the great acting of Thomas Jane is the incredible cherry on top.

  • Regina PMay 7, 2020Reply

    Eh, it was okay. It definitely looked and felt and moved like a Stephen King story. In this case it means it felt too shallow. But the production and acting made it passable entertainment.

  • Robbie GMay 8, 2020Reply

    1922 gets two stars because the cinematography and productions values were great. But, the story flowed like molasses on a below-zero morning. Yes, it’s a slow creep into the hell a man makes by his inane choices, but the story failed and there’s no pulling up anything by its bootstraps. Found myself shaking my head at contrivances and silly gimmicks that looked like echoes of horror, but weren’t the real thing. I’m curious to read the novella to see if effective horror raises it’s head above the rat poop. Must have, unless the producers just ran with a King story for a buck because it has King’s name on it. The additional half star comes from the protagonist suffering the consequences of his stupid, nihilistic choices.

  • Samuel LMay 10, 2020Reply

    I haven’t read the book (because I’m not interested in the horror genre for books) so I can’t comment on how accurate it is to the original story. However, I consider 1922 to be an about acceptable horror film due to the creepy second half. Not a lot of things happen, but the pace is fine and the film is a suitable length. The acting was decent, the visual effects were ok (besides the cow falling in the well), and the music was sufficiently spooky. The costumes and sets were all solid, and at times the film did achieve a creepy atmosphere. One of the biggest weaknesses is the plot. It was predictable and honestly felt like a rehashing of The Shining to some extent. Like most horror films, it wasn’t scary, just dark and messed up.

  • Henry FMay 15, 2020Reply

    It fills some of the fetishes for a certain kind of film buff or a curious movie-goer: obscure period piece, dour minimalism, powerful author-name drop. These tropes are used responsibly but without leaving a really memorable impression anywhere.

  • Tom LMay 17, 2020Reply

    Delightful small scale cinema, easily the best King this year

  • Andrea DMay 20, 2020Reply

    It’s shit movies like this having high RT% that makes me realise how BS it is. 90% ?! This was absolute garbage you couldnt make it more boring and cliche if you tried. Few surprise gore moments just add to the pile of crap

  • Will YJune 6, 2020Reply

    it’s one of those kinds of movies that critics like it for no reasons but you almost sleep thru it….

  • Sai MJune 10, 2020Reply

    Stupid slow burn boring wasted my time for nothing cliché crap story. Better off watching other stories. The movie does its role. But the story…. You’ve seen this kind of story many times.

  • Mark CJune 13, 2020Reply

    Atmosphere, character building and anxiety out the wazzoo.

  • Jacqueline FJune 20, 2020Reply

    The story was very good but WAY TOO MANY RATS! I mean the rats were in 2/3 of the movie. I couldn’t watch those parts. Way too gross. But I had to see the end. Like I said, story was good.

  • AnonymousJune 29, 2020Reply

    A story not worth telling. Boring and meaningless. Acting was decent, but the set pieces were atrocious…I never once felt like I was in 1922. Extremely fake and dead movie. Go read Tale-Tell Heart….it’s MUCH better. Not a terrible adaptation, just a crappy story from King.

  • Steve DJuly 8, 2020Reply

    A less effective Tell Tale Heart that is so bleak it is hard to sit through.

  • Lucca BJuly 17, 2020Reply

    A haunting, slow-paced, well acted, solidly crafted, disturbing and satisfying adaptation of a Stephen King story.

  • Jamie LJuly 25, 2020Reply

    I had such high hopes and expectations for this movie, since it was a Stephen King adaptation. But I’ve never read the book, so I didn’t know what to expect entirely. It’s a bit slice-of-lifey and set in 1922. If you’re watching it for normal spooks, there’s about 5% of that in the entire movie. I honestly stopped paying attention at times.

    Basically, it’s about how a father and son hide the murder of the wife/mother and go about their lives from there.

  • AnonymousJuly 25, 2020Reply

    Great acting, just kind of got bored with the story.

  • Amir SJuly 30, 2020Reply

    understated, but damn thomas jane brings it

  • David CAugust 20, 2020Reply

    Dry, monotone, brooding, and quietly contemptuous flows well from Thomas Jane, with the deliberately slow and mechanical manner setting the scene for a moody, contemptuous narrative, that enhances the slow-burning, strongly scripted, and well-directed psychological element to the movie

    The quiet, spell-binding relationship the farmer has with his crops soon twists and turns into something dark and sinister, driving him to detest, resent, and conspire more-and-more

    It wasn’t chilling suspense, for sure, but it worked. However, I’ve not read the book, so I don’t know how it translates. Will give it a read and see

  • Steven EAugust 28, 2020Reply

    Thomas Jane is excellent and the movie is a slow descend into the horrors of depression and guilt. Albeit, may be too slow moving for some. After the first half of the movie it gets pretty sporadic, but overall a chilling film with a lot of tense moments

  • Jaimie LSeptember 18, 2020Reply

    Ungrateful mother of family wants to leave the family farm for the city but gets murdered by her husband and son before haunting them, with rats.

  • Troy HSeptember 27, 2020Reply

    That ain’t 1922 corn — it’s GMO.

  • AnonymousOctober 10, 2020Reply

    I usually enjoy a movie with or staring Thomas Jane. This movie however I did not, can’t say the acting was bad just board me to death.

  • John ROctober 11, 2020Reply

    In a time where movies most often win through by being big and loud, this is a wonderful change. It harks back to the golden age, when story telling was key. Dark, immersive, prowling. Wonderfully written and filmed. Will stay with you long after the end credits.

  • AnonymousOctober 16, 2020Reply

    10/16/20 Cool movie. Very well acted. Worthy rewatch

  • Nicole YNovember 10, 2020Reply

    From start to end, there was not a single dull moment watching this film. The actors portrayed their characters well and I love listening to the accent of wilf and how is like a “farmer poet” at the same time narrating his story. This was definitely deliciously written!

  • Brayden WNovember 21, 2020Reply

    Slow but worth the wait. Rich storytelling with a satisfying conclusion. Not much action but definitely a few surprises. Not really a horror or even a thriller, but carries a few surprises!

  • Kim DDecember 3, 2020Reply

    This was a good adaptation of the short story, but is still missing something. You really have to get into the psyche of the father, but we never quite get there.

  • Tica MDecember 6, 2020Reply

    Slow and deliberate storyline but one I enjoyed very much. If you appreciate quiet character development, this just might be a period piece to be relished.

  • Jude PDecember 9, 2020Reply

    After “The Shawshank Redemption” this might be the best adaption from Stephen King. All in all, the movie made to brilliance in all aspects !

  • Bhattacharya EDecember 14, 2020Reply

    No justice for the antihero at the end. I was hoping to see more horror and gore. More of a psychological horror, the cinematography was good though.

Leave a comment

Name *
Add a display name
Email *
Your email address will not be published
Website