Perhaps, it was me, but damn, The Dark Half, one of the very few Stephen King film adaptations I hadn't seen until now, was so hard to get into. The story about a boy who had another boy living in his head – literally, began to make less and less sense as the movie progressed. Worse, the movie was sooo long.
Now, I do own this book and, though I hadn't read that yet, it'll probably piece together some of the holes I couldn't follow. But, this movie did not encourage me to pick up Stephen King's novel any time soon.
The movie was delayed in my viewing because, well, I am not a Timothy Hutton fan. Knowing he's playing a duel role, didn't add to the excitement I should've had for this. But, since it's October, I figured I'd finally see what this was all about 20 years after its release.
From what I can recall, and forgive – it's been a couple of days, a boy's writing leads to headaches and mystical sounds of birds. Upon further examination, there was a twin lodged in his brain. We are to believe the second child, the "dark half" twin had been extracted and disposed of. Fast forward many years, and that boy, Thad (Hutton,) has grown up, married, had twins of his own and is a writer. Of course, in King fashion and true life, Thad has an alternative and secret name he writes under, darker stuff. Stuff that sells.
But, when the idea to "kill" off this other penned name to avoid a blackmail subplot, all hell breaks loose. This "George Stark/Dark Half" writer doesn't want to "die," so he kills people and (inadvertently or not) pins the murders on Thad.
Where I had a problem was: was this George a split personality? Or a ghost, or made up/made real being? Or, a grown up version of that twin in the brain that was supposed to be disposed of? That last one is the farthest stretch, and yeah, even more than a ghost. For, the twin in the brain was just an eyeball and cavity-infested teeth. Take that out, and in the 1960s, I doubt they could've reconstructed, somehow, the whole male.
As I began this review, I stated this is perhaps this is my fault. Perhaps, my mind was elsewhere and it was hard to concentrate. It was over two hours and not well paced, after all. But, if this movie was interesting enough, I'm sure it would've engaged me away from real life. Sadly, it was not.
* * * Final thoughts: Not recommended. Maybe read the book. I'm sure that's a ton better and there's no Hutton there.
Now, I do own this book and, though I hadn't read that yet, it'll probably piece together some of the holes I couldn't follow. But, this movie did not encourage me to pick up Stephen King's novel any time soon.
The movie was delayed in my viewing because, well, I am not a Timothy Hutton fan. Knowing he's playing a duel role, didn't add to the excitement I should've had for this. But, since it's October, I figured I'd finally see what this was all about 20 years after its release.
From what I can recall, and forgive – it's been a couple of days, a boy's writing leads to headaches and mystical sounds of birds. Upon further examination, there was a twin lodged in his brain. We are to believe the second child, the "dark half" twin had been extracted and disposed of. Fast forward many years, and that boy, Thad (Hutton,) has grown up, married, had twins of his own and is a writer. Of course, in King fashion and true life, Thad has an alternative and secret name he writes under, darker stuff. Stuff that sells.
But, when the idea to "kill" off this other penned name to avoid a blackmail subplot, all hell breaks loose. This "George Stark/Dark Half" writer doesn't want to "die," so he kills people and (inadvertently or not) pins the murders on Thad.
Where I had a problem was: was this George a split personality? Or a ghost, or made up/made real being? Or, a grown up version of that twin in the brain that was supposed to be disposed of? That last one is the farthest stretch, and yeah, even more than a ghost. For, the twin in the brain was just an eyeball and cavity-infested teeth. Take that out, and in the 1960s, I doubt they could've reconstructed, somehow, the whole male.
As I began this review, I stated this is perhaps this is my fault. Perhaps, my mind was elsewhere and it was hard to concentrate. It was over two hours and not well paced, after all. But, if this movie was interesting enough, I'm sure it would've engaged me away from real life. Sadly, it was not.
* * * Final thoughts: Not recommended. Maybe read the book. I'm sure that's a ton better and there's no Hutton there.