Spoiler alert: the movie is pretty much nothing but gratuitous violence. Do yourself a favor and watch something fun. (Didn't realize this was based on a Steven king story, now that you know, you know a little more of what to expect, I didn't.)The problem with gratuitous violence themes is they can be sickening as they create the necessary angst to get you rooting for a bad end for the bad guy, as this one does. Although not terribly graphically gross, the theme is sickening; the antagonist is sufficiently repugnant to get one's contempt. And from there the story follows a predictable line: what will our protagonist do to get revenge. What he does is as unlikely as it is uncreative. In the end, as usual, antagonist suffers a relatively short lasting demise as payback for - as usual, our protagonist's story-long suffering. ...and one which is, as mentioned, difficult to fathom: (protagonist has, as usual in these types of movies, an unrealistic amount of time and resources to pull off his revenge ploy)

I didn't need to see this movie. I don't think anybody did, but I read the short story many times over the years. It's one of my favourite Nightmares and Dreamscape shorts from Stephen King and I was intrigued to see how they stretched the plot to make it into a feature length film! You don't need a synopsis from me, not on IMDb. Jimmy Dolan is a criminal living and operating out of Las Vegas. When keeping his nose clean means dispatching of Robinson's wife, it destroys his life and leads him to act out on the urge for revenge as the authorities fails to pin the crime on Dolan and his goons.What I liked about the King story was that there was nothing to like about any of the characters, all but Tinker. He wrote it from Robinson's perspective and it was nothing short of psychopathic, which is refreshing compared to most revenge stories.In the movie, the likability factor pretty much stays the same, but the makers seem to have made a point of giving Dolan and his crew all the entertainment value and most of the screen time. Personally, I'd have watched an hour and a half of Robinson planning and executing his revenge trip, but we're given snippets of him going through his trauma and falling apart and, sorry to say, it bored me.Wes Bentley has never been one to watch, for me at least. It might just be the angry kid scowl permanently etched into his face, but here he does a great job and pulls off some very natural but often overlooked acting.Christian Slater is just Christian Slater as always. I'm not saying he's incapable of acting because he puts some great energy into his role, but he's one of those actors that isn't cut out for defining different personalities. His face is incapable of change, it seems.The most important part of the movie, now that my problems are out of the way, is Bentley's Robinson giving up school to join the road crew in the Nevada desert. That's when King's storytelling really transfers well, and the addition of Tink and Danny really add texture to this film's character.The revenge plot itself and how Robinson goes through with it are superb. I found myself smiling most of the way through it and feeling satisfied by the end credits. Odd that a film can be so generic and run-of-the-mill until the final half hour blows you away, right? If you ever give it a try, read the story first and just skip to the end, that's my advice!

I'm not a major King fan although some of his work is clearly brilliant. I didn't read the story here but the basic concept is pretty obvious and it seems quite workable.The problem with the movie was that it dragged and dragged and dragged while beating us endlessly over the head with the fundamental plot points. Slater's character is a bad guy. We get that. It is not necessary that we go through scene after repetitive scene to prove the point. His rival is slowly driven nuts, becoming a sadist in his plans to seek revenge, however justifiable that might be. Unfortunately the acting is not strong enough to carry all this in a way that is entertaining. In fact it becomes downright boring. Do we really need to watch him shoveling dirt, falling over, shoveling more dirt, grabbing at water, pushing around a machine -- this plot line goes on and on and endlessly and pointlessly. Or rather the point is made in the first minute and followed by and endless sequence making the same point. Were they getting paid by the reel inch? I'll bet the short story was good. It's too bad they didn't make a short movie, because it might have been better.

I feel I should start the review by saying whether I had previously read the Stephen King short story before watching this movie. As a matter of fact, I had. I didn't find it one of his better stories, namely because the story early on reveals exactly what the protagonist is planning, and subsequently does it. No surprises or twists. The screenplay for this movie does fix this, not revealing what the protagonist is planning until it happens (though there are a few hints along the way.) However, the screenplay does still have some flaws. It runs too long, a pitfall many movies adapted from short stories have. There are many scenes with Dolan that don't seem necessary. And there are some plot holes, like how the protagonist got Dolan's cell phone number.Another flaw is with Slater. He tries REALLY hard, enough that he deserves an "A" for effort. But he's still the last person you'd imagine to be a gangster. Had someone older and more weathered been in his role, I think the movie would have worked better.Still, there is some merit to be found. The production values are really good - this is one shot-in-Canada movie that actually manages to make you think it was shot in the United States. And the last half hour of the movie is very good, tense and gripping. If you can't find a better movie, and have the patience to sit through a so-so first hour for a really good last half hour, then I would recommend this movie.