Critics would always find this too mainstream just on account it's a Stephen King story and it deserved better. I haven't read the novel, but I'd say the essence of the story and with it all of the various articulations of the morals are carried out well enough to produce an effect on the viewer. However classic the main theme is, "careful what you wish for", selling your soul to the devil for a mere material item (for 30 pieces of silver) etc... it's still developed in a way that is unique enough that it makes for a compelling watch. Ed Harris (order) vs von Sydow (chaos) in a small town setting, with pretty relevant humor dished out on the side throughout (that guy and the jukebox, the priest and reverend feud, "BUSTER"...), in a good paced highly eventful film with spirit that never feels like it drags on, and with the metaphorical aspects (whether innuendos in the dialogue, or elements in the decor...) depicted with care during all two hours of it, all in all makes for a pretty good deal.

Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good.

Despite the fact that this film is based on yet another Stephen King novel, it is worth watching -- especially for the performance by Max von Sydow as the "old boy himself." I watched the "director's cut" once on TV that had many scenes in it which were cut from the theatrical version. None of the restored scenes was especially good. It is interesting to note that practically every moment of Max von Sydow's performance is in both versions. He holds the screen with every sly look, every smooth utterance. He is a true joy to watch in this retelling of the Fause legend. It proves what a wonderful actor he is -- he has played Jesus (THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD), Ming the Merciless (FLASH GORDON), and many other parts. Playing the Devil allows him to chew the scenery in grand style.

As an horror lover I never have been a too big fan of Stephen King or his horror movie adaptations, since I find his work to be very formulaic but I've always enjoyed watching this pleasant light little movie. Without its fun the movie probably would had been a really terrible picture. If the movie had been all serious some of the moments within the movie for sure would not had worked out and would had been painfully bad and laughable instead. But it's as if the movie had foreseen this and went with an often light and pleasant approach instead. The movie never takes itself too serious, for which you can also thank director Fraser Clarke Heston, who indeed is the son of screen legend Charlton Heston. The movie has a good story, in which the devil in flesh, played by Max von Sydow, is setting people up against each other by letting them perform tasks for them, so they can get their 'needful' thing from him. The story is nicely constructed and build up and shows a different but interesting portrayal of the devil, as a man who uses people their own sins to set them up against each other and let them commit horrible acts, without ever getting dirty hands himself. The movie has a pretty amazing cast with actors such as Max von Sydow, Ed Harris, Amanda Plummer and J.T. Walsh all involved. Von Sydow plays a great role and so does Ed Harris, though for a 'main hero' he just doesn't have quite the screen time you would expect him to have. Also great was J.T. Walsh in a crazy role in which his character more and more starts to derail. These were the kind of roles he always was best at. The movie has a kind of cheap look over it. A kind of look you would perhaps more expect from a TV movie, which might be due to Fraser Clarke Heston inexperience as a director, though it also is definitely true that this movie was just fairly cheap made and got never aimed toward a large audience and in many countries never made it to the cinemas. Simply one fine and enjoyable movie, that you just don't need to take too seriously. 8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This is by far my favourite Stephen King novel, and it was butchered. Almost nothing is like it was in the novel. The novel worked, so why change it? There were literally dozens of supporting characters cut out of the script that you cared about, and nobody had any character development. My recoMmendation, skip the movie, read the book. It's a masterpiece of dark comedy.

I love Stephen King, and I've tried to see as many of the movie adaptations of his books as possible. I haven't read a Stephen King book I didn't like - and Needful Things was the first Stephen King book I ever read, so it has a special spot for me. I think this was a pretty good movie, but could have been better if made into a mini-series and more of the stories in the plot could have been developed more fully. I realize this isn't always possible, but in the case of this movie, so many important plot twists were left out it was kind of hard to recognize the story. I think the casting was pretty good and this is a cute little movie to watch if you have some time to kill. But I definitely recommend that you pick up the book and read it if you want the whole story. You'll be shocked to see how much was left out.

Needful Things is an adequate, if overly long adaptation of the Stephen King novel. The director's cut is a must-see if you want to capture all the nuances and get more of a feel for King's original intent. The main problem with the movie is...well, the incredible let-down of an ending, which bears no resemblance to the novel's even in the DC version. The producers and writers, quite frankly, wimp out. It's some fun getting there, but you'll be disappointed at the end.

Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film. Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between. Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch. From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.

Castle Rock, New England, is a nice place to live and grow and Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) moves from the big city to the town expecting a quiet life. When Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) opens the store Needful Things, he seems to have the object of desire for each dweller. He charges small amounts to the things but requests a practical joke for each of them against another inhabitant. Soon hell breaks loose in town with deaths, violence and riot and Sheriff Pangborn discovers that Leland Gaunt is the devil himself. Further, Gaunt is manipulating the population like puppets exploring the weakness and greed of each person. "Needful Things" is a horror movie with black humor with a story of greed and evilness. Max Von Sydow has a great performance and his personification of evil is scary. There are interesting characters and situations and this movie is entertaining and surprisingly underrated. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "Trocas Macabras" ("Macabre Exchanges")

Needful Things was one of my favorite Stephen King books. But this movie is one of the worst book to film adaptations I have ever seen they changed so many things around that it made me sick. Even the concept of the book being deception, things not always what they appear reminder throughout the book was not shown in the movie. Althogh it was enjoyable as many Stephen King films are, but as many Stephen King films this one did not follow the book and became a piece of Hollywood trailer trash. 2/10