The Dark Half

The Dark Half is a film I wouldn't go out of my way to show to my friends for the first time like other films by George A. Romero (Living-dead pictures, and some of the obscurities), or a few choice Stephen King adaptations (The Shining and Shawshank Redemption being tops). But if it shows up on TV I tend to take a gander for a few, and end up watching it till the unusual, nerve-chilling ending. There's some part of King's writing that at times goes too much for the cheap scares, or rather, doesn't do enough to earn them. This time, however, Romero does catch enough of the smoke in the fire of King's book here; I'd love to sit down and actually read the whole book myself, to see how much was incorporated from King's often brilliant, if perpetually odd, writing, into the final project. It's also territory for Romero that isn't very new, though isn't one of his worst pictures either. Timothy Hutton, usually in lesser quality pictures, stars here as a writer who happens to have a certain 'alias' in his writing. Unfortunately, whenever he hears a certain calling card- being the sparrows- it sets him off into territory he's afraid to go into, especially with a wife and family. The divide between Thad Beaumont, the common garden-variety writer of Hutton's character, and George Stark, the madman writer of pulp fiction also played by Hutton, makes for the more intriguing parts to the film. Thankfully, unlike Secret Window, the sort of duality of man, or of the writer in this case, isn't saved up for some over-the-top climax. Here it's meant more as a psychological study, and it's here that Romero scores his best points in his adapting the material. Like his film Martin, he knows how to up the ante on the terror involved inside of the mind. In fact, it's scenes showing Beaumont/Stark writing ala the birds that end up becoming more chilling than those with the usual horror violence in them. Thanks to Hutton, a solid supporting cast, and an ending that does keep one guessing more than could be expected of the material, Romero has a pretty decent work here, and a King adaptation that shouldn't be as much of an embarrassment as some of the others. Individual scenes end up even being mini-masterpieces, even amidst a script that loses its energy and goes into the mundane and usual. Besides, any film with a line like this: "You always were the clumsy one, old hoss", deserves a little recognition, however minor. Under-appreciated and very watchable, though nothing wildly spectacular. 7.5/10

I think that this would have to be one of the worst book adaptations ever. The Dark Half is one of my favorite books of all time and I was extremely disappointed with the character that they cast to be Thad's alter-ego. In the book descriptions of George Stark, he is almost the exact opposite of the physical appearance of Thad. However, in the movie, the same guy plays both characters. I think that if they had wanted the movie to be better, they should have cast a much larger man and one who would have matched the vivid descriptions given in Stephen King's novel. The book was done a great injustice by the lack of appropriate casting in the movie. As I have said, this movie would have been much better with better casting.

I usually love movies based on Stephen King's stories. Those happen to be the best horror movies ever (like legendary "The Shining"), but this time I'm going to say I didn't like it. It looks like the creators were a little too lazy to show the full idea and philosophy behind it, as if it was all done in a hurry and not even finished properly. It's like they tried so hard to squeeze the whole story into their limited time, that instead of taking the idea and re-creating a shorter version, they just clipped out some most visual fragments and glued them together. Even the ending was made so much more primitive than in a book. My thoughts might be different if I saw the movie first and read a book later, but now I can say that if you read the book, liked it and now are considering to watch the movie - it's not worth wasting your time.

I have read the book (My first King book) and I loved it. It has paved the way for me. I know have read 9 of his books and I started The Dark Half in the middle of May. Upon finishing the book I decided to watch the movie. I enjoyed the movie but thought it was lacking story. Although it was enough like the book for it to be enjoyable. I especially liked the ending because it stayed with the book unlike other King Movies. If you didn't read the book it was an awesome movie if you did read the book you enjoyed but you understand my point about lacking story.

George A. Romero did a good job in adapting Stephen King's novel about a man with a vicious alter-ego. The sparrow effects are great. But what really carries this movie is Timothy Hutton's performance. He does well as the justifiably creeped out Thad Beaumont. But he really shines as the psychotic pseudonym-come-to-life George Stark. The suspense is taut throughout, and there are some great scares. Though Amy Madigan is not given enough to do as Hutton's wife, she does fine, and the movie is an overall winner. Enjoy this one, hoss.

I just bought and watched the DVD of this movie, and I have to say that it is excellent. For those of you who have read the book but are hesitant whether or not to get the movie, the movie makes so many things clear that were confusing before. It has great acting by Thad's wife, and Hutton delivers a great dual performance as both Beaumont and Stark. This is most likely one of Romero's least gory films (except for the ending.) In my opinion, this is one of King's best books, and, unlike with It, they didn't completely massacre the book into an abomination. Although It turned out great anyways, but that isn't the point. This turned out to be a much better movie than I expected, with great acting, and superb special effects.

Interesting and border-line black comedy yarn about a novelist who inadvertently forces his alter-ego (a murderous character in violent stories) to life. Psychologically, the film fares quite well in the thriller element. However, George Romero's screenplay (adapted from a Stephen King novel of the same name) gets bogged down with metaphors, and predictable events. Overall, I'd say it was moderately good, and though I haven't read King's novel, I don't know if it was translated well from print to the screen. Seldom are King's novels fortunate to do so. Timothy Hutton gets a nod for tackling the age old "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" routine.