source: Mercy

Left alone with his ailing grandmother when Mom takes brother Buddy to the hospital, George discovers that granny made a deal with a demon, and his soul is part of her bargain. That's not a summary for "Mercy." That's a summary for the Stephen King short story "Gramma," upon which "Mercy" is based. It's only one sentence because the tale is so straightforward that Harlan Ellison adapted it into a quick 21-minute episode of "The Twilight Zone" in 1986 starring just two visible actors. In expanding the work into a feature length film, "Mercy" understandably needed to embellish the details beyond merely one boy and his grandmother. So "Mercy" added a grandfather who dies of a self-inflicted wound, a triplet birth for grandma, an expanded role for brother Buddy, an aunt in the loony bin, an uncle in the bottle, an imaginary friend for George, a love interest for mom, a "devil worshipping" artist wife for the love interest, a concerned local reverend, and some occult mythology about death wolves and weeping books.

An elderly woman named Mercy (Shirley Knight) is slipping away at her advanced age. She was a single mother of three as her husband killed himself while her children were young. Now, in her old age, she's become more violent and like a person in need of an exorcism. While everyone wants to get clear away from her, George (Chandler Riggs), her favorite grandchild, wants to help her. This movie was O.K. They didn't do anything real inventive or creative. It seemed low budget from the special effects which doesn't necessarily kill a movie but it can hinder it severely if not done correctly. The movie hinged upon Chandler Riggs as he was the main protagonist but I don't think he delivered that well. He wasn't awful, he just wasn't good. I think he's better suited for helping his father kill zombies (for you Walking Dead fans out there). In the end the movie was just an average or even slightly below average horror film.

There are some really talented actors in this movie. It's a shame to see them waste their time (although there's no sign of any effort) on this. It's not that it had no potential. Based on a Stephen King story, it shares a lot of basic elements with The Shining. Gifted boy with imaginary friend from a family that are sensitive to other-worldly/paranormal things in peril. Senility replaces alcoholism as the boogey-man in the subtext, but there are a lot of thematic and plot similarities. The trouble is that this movie was so poorly done. The writing wasn't great, the direction/editing is awful. Quite often it seems more like people doing a blocking rehearsal than an actual take. It's impossible to feel involved in what's going on. Some of the dialogue is so bad that it's easy to understand why everyone seems non-committal - there is no way to deliver those lines well. The kid playing the lead makes an honest effort, and this film shouldn't be held against him, but it's a black mark on the filmography of everyone else involved.

I have read almost all Stephen King's and loved it I have read almost all H.P Lovecraft and was creepy and awesome Well, I wasn't surprise that Hastur appears as 'the one who can calm the evil down' (that's why aunt Flo told George to name him in the first place) in "Gramma", put I always remember that Hastur was actually a benign god for shepherds according to Ambrose Bierce's short story (from which Lovecraft took the character for his Chtulu's Mythos, where we never know if it is an entity or a place). So, here I am reading "Gramma" and loved it because it was creepy and scary as hell: George's brother broke a leg, mom get him to hospital and George spend the night alone with her 'Gramma' who dies in the course of the night after a series of wicked events. With an unpredictable end. The story was an episode in The Twilight Zone (one of my favorite series) and I was happy to see that it was made a feature film! Wrong: we have a girl ghost that wasn't in the story, added "A la Victor Pascow", Aunt Flo turns to be aunt Jenny (why changed the name??)... and others stuff and elements that make the story go away from the source material. At the end of the movie, the wolf of the mountain was the real demon, who all what he want is that... take your own assumptions of the matter. I have take mines and that not save the movie to my eyes. The acting was good and loved Chandler Riggs did it good as George. Shirley Knight is awesome as always. Joel Courtney was great too. Cinematography was fine, and some effects are effective. But no. The script was not good, and maybe have the primary elements that "Gramma" have, but doesn't develop the same atmosphere. 6/10 and is because of the good actors did a good job with what they have. Watch it at your own risk.

The title gave me second thoughts about coughing up matinée prices, but I had nothing else planned for the holidays. So I put the poison away, put the gun down, placed the noose back into the garage, turned the car off and went to the movies. The movie starts out slow with character development of George, with his brother the budding chef, and mom(three little pigs or the three bears, you pick). The clan goes to Grandmas house like little red riding hood. There's a big bad wolf and Goldilocks aka Grandma circa 1929. Plenty of inferred gore left me with a big "headache." The woodcutter appears to deliver the final blow, but Hastur gets his way. I think. Sadly, the Big bad Wolf retreats. Dylan McDermott leaves the movie in a Monty Pythonesque way, I chuckled. Wanted to like this movie, but I didn't. I ended up crying, but not into a blank book.

"Mercy" is based on a short story by Stephen King (original titled "Gramma"). In the past they made a series of movies out of Stephen Kings stories, with varying success. "Christine", "Carrie", "Misery" and "Pet Sematary" are all gems and timeless classics. And of course "The Shawshank Redemption" is a masterpiece. I wasn't so thrilled about "Cujo" and "Firestarter", both in book form as the eponymous film. And I'm waiting for "Cell" impatiently (even though John Cusack plays a leading role). After I've read that "Mercy" was based on a story by King, I had to check if it was any good. And once again it shows that a short story is never a good basis for a feature film. The reason why it resulted in a short story, is just because there isn't enough material to turn it into a long story. The result is a miserable slow film with not much to see in it. And to be honest, I didn't understand in the end what it actually was about anyway. Judging from the opening scene, I expected a rather good film. The brutal, "in-your-face" beginning, with an ax striking devastatingly, left little to the imagination. Bloody images aren't directly shown. You'll only see a play of shadows. This was already an indication that you'll be spared from gore, gruesome images. This doesn't mean this is really necessary for such movies, because (for me) the best horror is where you also need to use your imagination a bit. This is also the strength of the literary work of Stephen King. The imagination and the underlying anxiety. Unfortunately, I needed a lot of imagination to make a horror out of it and there was hardly a sign of subcutaneous anxiety or tension. It was obvious that it's a sort of Machiavellian tale with someone selling her soul to a demonic entity to achieve certain goals. Only the demon wasn't convincingly elaborated. For once I liked the extraordinary performances. And that for a horror story. Shirley Knight plays an excellent part as the creepy grandmother Mercy and equals effortlessly the scary Annie Wilkes in "Misery." Chandler Riggs plays the loner, who had a special bond with his grandmother, in a convincing way. Even Dylan McDermott as the handsome neighbor (or acquaintance) wasn't so bad (contrary to what he did in "Freezer"). The only letdown was the appearance of the demonic entity Hastur with his "led lamp"-like eyes. This looked so pitifully bad. Even a haunted house at the fair has more frightening things. Despite the onset being full of suspense, the end result is still abysmal. "Mercy" won't frighten you or give you nightmares. In addition most scenes are much too dark, making it difficult to follow. And understanding the story alone is a problem anyway. I'm still wondering what Hastur was! As a short story it's probably a successful concept (and it's from King ultimately), but as a film it failed in all areas. More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

Despite its slow pace there is a solid film here with some decent performances. There are some confused plot points and it feels at time like a very complex and rich script is trying to force its way through a simplified movie, but it is certainly not without its charm. The film reads like a classic ghost story that was shackled by attempts to make it a contemporary horror film that doesn't know who its audience actually is. There are elements of comedy mixed in which don't gel well with the general tone and jump scares that don't really fit either. Overall it is worth watching due to its potential, but don't expect to be overwhelmed as somewhere along the lines most of this was squandered by the film overall throwing things against a wall and seeing what sticks.

I only know that this was from a Steven King story from reading the other reviews...and frankly, had I known it was a King derivation, I would have left it alone. If I've seen one King movie, I've seen them all. In this case, this story was ADAPTED from whatever King short it came from...and the Director then added some Non-StevenKing ingredients. I smell a touch of Lovecraftian flavor in the atmospherics and the casual, southern hills spookiness of the family and their struggle to deal with what seems to be just a dark Grandma suffering with dementia. And again...that could be boiler-plate horror that's been done again and again. But this one isn't following the straight-up Hollywood Backwoods Horror formula. And more to the point, it's giving the viewer a cast of characters that aren't the usual studio cardboard cut-outs. And in this story, the telling is from the POV of the kid Brothers as they deal with Family History and secrets. Not the WILD things...but actually just like the stories we'd would hear about our own forebears..if we were old enough to be told and knew how to keep Family Business 'In the Family'. With GOOD Horror, you care about how the character will deal with the Unknowable. The EFX is just icing on the cake. And when Horror has a Lovecraftian bent, how the characters deal with the outcome is even more Key...because unlike normal Hollywood Movies...there are NO Good Endings in the Lovecraft Universe. It's about How the Protagonist goes Down. Watch this one around Midnight. And it's best with the lights turned down. But you have to be patient...

I went into this with a great deal of trepidation, as I do every Stephen King adaptation, only to find it wasn't one of the better ones. I was actually quite excited when I found out the short story "Gramma" was being made into a film as it is one of my favourites and genuinely creepy. I now think it should have been left well alone. The acting was okay in the main but I think it fell down when it was stretched into movie length. It definitely, for me, lacked the suspense and atmosphere of the original story. Even watching as someone who had never read the story, I wouldn't have found it scary or tense at all. As I said, the acting was okay, but the kid from The Walking Dead (sorry, his name escapes me) seemed a bit flat considering all that was happening and I was very disappointed in Dylan McDermott, who seemed to be there to get through filming and pick up his paycheck. There is a certain character who appears at the end who is quite honestly laughable (I think you'll know who I mean if you get there). Now for the positives..ehm...there was a cute dog and...the basic concept was a bit different. I hate leaving this review as I am a huge fan of King's books and there have been some great adaptations like Christine, Carrie, Shawshank, Cujo, The Green Mile and The Mist etc. Unfortunately, this is more along the lines of The Tommyknockers or Needful Things. I really think King should just hand his work over to Frank Darabont and step back so we can enjoy watching his wonderful characters come truly to life on the big screen.