1922

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.

A largely satisfying adaptation of Stephen King's novella about unappeasable guilt triggered by the mortal sin of murder.

1922 is a slow burn, a psychological horror tale that weaves a simple yet captivating story.

Maybe this would have been a great episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, but as a film, it feels too small for its own good.

There's an unshakable menace that lingers, a tale of guilt and regret that burrows its way under the skin.

It's a solid, straightforward thriller that gets the job done without much fuss, and it lands somewhere in the upper-middle of all King movie adaptations.

Thomas Jane's dramatization of rage is haunting and shrewdly comical in its overt and ultimately moving über-manliness.

Months from now, or maybe years, we'll probably look at Zak Hilditch's "1922" as the most essential Stephen King adaptation produced in 2017.

Stephen King doesn't generally let his characters off the hook for evil deeds and Wilf and Henry suffer real good in 1922. It's a cautionary tale.Not only 'don't murder your wife,' but maybe the bigger picture of 'listen to women.It's good for the soul.'

Zak Hilditch - like Gerald's Game director Mike Flanagan - knows that, even with the pathos behind it, this is still a horror story.