User reviews

Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton) had a brain tumor as a child that was an undeveloped twin. Now, as an adult, the twin returns, fully formed and violent. The source is a bit supernatural, but real enough to kill.

The story goes over ground that should be familiar to Stephen King fans. The idea of a child growing up to confront something from his childhood. The theme of a writer, explored numerous times ("Misery", "The Shining") but most closely to this in "Secret Window". Howard Maxford calls it a cross between "Misery" and "The Birds", which I do not fully accept but see his point.

Interestingly, Stephen King is not known for good movie adaptations, and George Romero has had his slew of below average films (though, if you stray from his zombie films, you will find an assortment of goodies). But together, they seem to have made a decent movie here. I really enjoyed it. I also enjoyed "Creepshow" -- maybe these guys bring out the best in each other? Michael Rooker is here (with hair) playing the role played by Ed Harris in "Needful Things". I would have liked to see some consistency in casting, but how do you choose between Rooker and Harris? Both top notch. Another Harris, Julie Harris, does appear, though... And the music is from Christopher Young, perhaps best known for his "Hellraiser" score.

Some of the factual information I found to be a bit questionable. Does a military service record really go into an FBI fingerprint database? I suppose it might, but the idea struck me as odd. And the idea that one in ten people start off as twins seemed too exaggerated (and then they said that was at the very least). I would like to know the truth on that.

Overall, though, a really decent film. It is not Oscar or Golden Globe material by any means, but a horror fan should enjoy the mix of gore and dark humor. Rue Morgue has called it "a middling Romero film based on a middling King novel", which really sells it short.

Unfortunately, the film did not get the proper respect in 1993, because its distributor (Orion) was fighting a bankruptcy battle and promoted it poorly. But now (2015), it has a second chance thanks to the fine folks at Scream Factory who have loaded up the Blu-ray with everything possible, including the kitchen sink.

Sadly a rather bland version of King's sadly rather bland novel. Romero had apparently been slated to direct Pet Semetary before commitments (Monkey Shines) pulled him off - now that would have been worth watching. This on the other hand is a rather tepid slasher flick punctuated with a few inspired moments (the dream sequences and the whole sparrow things in particular). It's hard to know who is a fault here - certainly Dark Half - despite its intriguing premise - is one of King's weaker novels - but Romero's screenplay is little more than a rather one dimensional collection of deaths. There is some suspense and some good effects but overall a rather dull affair.

Somewhere in the dark recesses of over-fluffed and processed Stephen King movie adaptations, there lies this jewel of a film: "The Dark Half."

After having it watched it about three times, I'm still quite at a loss as to why this movie has been, more or less, forgotten or simply passed over by the horror movie community. Not only is it a fairly neat adaptation of a great King novel, but it's also directed and written by a true horror movie icon: the one and only George Romero. Isn't this the kind of "team-up" that fans would, under normal circumstances, go absolutely bananas over? I know that I did.

Anyway ... the movie is about a writer, Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton), whose past - quite literally - comes back to haunt him. As a young man, he wrote pulpy crime novels (that I can only imagine were directly inspired by Richard Stark's hardboiled, master thief, Parker) that sold well ... though his literary yearnings tended to veer toward a much less marketable direction. We learn that when he was writing those pulps, his personality suffered. He drank, yelled at his wife, probably slept around, too. Having successfully exorcised that particular demon, when we meet him, Beaumont has a couple kids and an office at some New England university, teaching - you guessed it - creative writing. But when the bodies of folks close to him (i.e.: his agent, biographer) begin cropping up, the small-town police fun finger is pointed at Beaumont. But ... there's a much more sinister twist in this jet-black yarn. We learn that Beaumont indeed has a "dark half."

The direction is perfect, the writing is perfect, the acting is perfect. What more do you want in a film? I'm not exactly certain what King's response was to this film ... I've heard rumors that if he's not directly involved in the production process, he generally scoffs at the final film product. (For example ... he's all but urinated on all the goodness that was Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining," which not only marked a substantial turning point in horror cinema, but it's also one of my personal favorites.) Then again ... from what I understand to be true of King and Romero both ... they're friends. Hell, they made "Creepshow" together ... which is another favorite of mine, though I'm more than just a little bit guilty about it.

"The Dark Half" also does one hell of a job at creating a genuinely creepy atmosphere. And who could listen to "Are You Lonesome Tonight" again the same way ... after hearing its soft melodies during a particularly uncomfortable dream sequence?

All of this, compounded with the fact that Timothy Hutton is a damned fine actor (albeit sinfully unknown by most these days) ... makes "The Dark Half" an explosively well made horror/thriller. The proverbial mind meld of King and Romero made "Creepshow" an instant cult classic. So, I ask again ... why was "The Dark Half" a blink-or-you'll-miss-it flop? Maybe these horror titans just can't share the same marquee, anymore.

I dunno.

This is one strange, surreal literate piece of psychological horror pulp in the tradition of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by film-maker George Romero who adapted it from novelist Stephen King. Thad Beaumont is a successful novelist who decides to literally bury his alter ego George Stark, who he used as a pseudonym for his overly violent pulp novels. This occurs because someone tries to blackmail him. But after putting an end to this alter ego, people are starting to be killed off and these are people who are somehow tied in to seeing George Stark finish up. However the evidence at every murder scene points to Thad and something is happening to him that he hasn't experience for almost twenty years. The sparrows are calling. Underrated work from Romero, which can be atmospheric in its vivid visuals, computer effects are ably done, the jolts are nastily macabre (the graphic climax of when sparrows attack) and the steadfast narrative gradually builds up its dread-filled suspense and stinging matter with precise control. Timothy Hutton plays the dual roles with outstanding ticker. Then there is solid support by Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker and a tiny part for Robert Joy.

"We shouldn't be writing trash."

I saw this movie after i read the book and i have to say pretty much of the book was also in the film, although not all. Some parts with the sparrows for instance weren't in the film, probably because the budget wouldn't allow special effects that elaborate. And the murders, although violent enough in the movie, were particularly more gruesome in the book.

Ultimate conclusion: great acting from top notch actors/actresses who usually are nowhere to be found in horror (if you discount Michael Rooker's performance in "Henry"), pretty good special f/x and direction from a director who has made his mark in horror.

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

This is one of the few horror movies in which I was truly frightened. Unlike most horror movies these days, this one was serious from beginning to end. I saw this movie before I read the book and knew very little about it. I was on the edge of my seat all night. Timothy Hutton is wonderful as the evil George Stark and the good Thad Beaumont. Amy Madigan was good as his confused wife, too. This movie is a wonderful adaptation of the Stephen King book. Very little is left out. If you haven't seen this movie, which many people have not, you should rent it. I give it a ten out of ten.

The diabolical alliance of George A. Romero and Stephen King quietly delivered expectations but it's not certainly a great horror film.

"The Dark Half" is pretty interesting and well directed but it's something you've seen before. There's a decent amount of gore, suspense is well crafted, an effective score and regular acting. Maybe the fact that I grew with the 80's Slasher movies made me think every minute about "Basket Case" and compare it with "The Dark Half".

A decent horror movie with a thrilling ending. Deserves a watch.

6/10.

There are only a small handful of films based on works by Stephen King that can without a doubt be classified as 'great movies.' They are 'Carrie,' 'The Shining,' 'Misery,' 'Dolores Claiborne,' 'The Dead Zone,' 'Stand By Me' and 'Cujo.' All the others range from 'flawed' to 'awful.' Despite it's decent cast, and respected horror director Romero at the helm, 'The Dark Half' lies more towards the awful end of the spectrum. The filmmakers gave it their best shot but things just didn't work out. It fails as a horror film in terms of suspense, plausibility, and narrative.

When Thad Beaumont (Hutton) was a child, he had an operation to remove a tumor from his brain. During the operation, it was discovered that far from being a tumor, the growth was a twin brother of Thad's that never developed. Years later, Thad is a successful author, writing his serious books under his own name, and his trashy money-makers under the pseudonym 'George Stark.' When blackmailed by someone who has discovered his secret, Thad publicly 'buries' George Stark. From that point on, Thad increasingly becomes the prime suspect in a series of gruesome murders.

Of all the King adaptations I've seen, this is one of the dullest. The main character is unsympathetic, his alter ego is two dimensional and totally hammy, you don't care about any of the victims (much less even know who they are at some points,) and there is hardly any horror and next to no tension.

However, there is some good production design and cinematography on display here, as well as some striking images. Huge flocks of sparrows gathering as an omen of doom is a haunting sight. But that alone can't save this film, which is just another King adaptation from a period where almost everything he'd write would end up being made into a movie.

The Dark Half is a very good horror movie which is not surprising considering the novel was written by Stephen King. George Romero a man who has done a wonderful job with horror movies is the man in charge of taking this from a novel to a movie and he delivers.

The plot revolves around author Thad Beaumont. Beaumont had written several best selling novels under the pseudonym George Stark. However a law student makes the connection and threatens to reveal it to everyone. Before this can happen Beaumont goes public and tells everyone he is Stark, essentially killing off his pseudonym. Stark isn't content with being dispatched and he comes to life determined to stick around. Stark then goes around killing those responsible for his demise. Beaumont must fight Stark because only one of them can survive.

Timothy Hutton does a spectacular job as both Beaumont and Stark. He really makes you believe the two are separate people but are tied together. The plot is suspenseful and full of unexpected twists. There are also supernatural elements such as the sparrows or bringers of the living dead.

So to sum it up The Dark Half is one of the better adoptions to Stephen King's works. It follows the story accurately and succeeds in scaring the audience which is the aim for horror movies.

In 1968, young Thad Beaumont has a brain tumor removed. It turns out to be an undeveloped twin. The sparrows swarm supernaturally. 23 years later, Thad (Timothy Hutton) is a college professor and a successful writer under the pen name George Stark. He's married to Liz (Amy Madigan) with young twins. Fred Clawson discovers that he's the secret pulp novel writer and blackmails him. His publishers accept killing off George Stark even with a fake tombstone. They try to publicize transitioning to the safer Thad Beaumont writing. Then the people involved start getting killed off by a mysterious figure and Thad is the prime suspect for Sheriff Alan Pangborn.

I like the basic idea and I think the movie is well made. However, a couple things keep bothering me. First, the whole idea of 'killing' off Stark doesn't make sense. Clawson's blackmail is based on the fact that it would hurt business. Yet they close up the Stark business themselves. A better reason has to be written to explain killing off Stark. It may be as simple as Thad being tired of the violent imagery.

The second is that I don't understand why the sheriff doesn't arrest Thad on that first night. It seems like he has enough evidence. It would be more compelling if he had less evidence. It would be more tense if the killer's face isn't revealed so early. They should stretch out the questions until the third act. The overall work is good. Timothy Hutton is a compelling lead. If only the movie could fix my concerns, this could be great.

The Dark Half is one of the finest Stephen King adaptations. It's also one of George Romero's most under-appreciated works. The two of them have collaborated on many occasions to produce nothing but good things, but this takes it to a new level. Romero is known for casting unknowns for his leads. This time he went against the grain. He used the amazing Timothy Hutton. Hutton, in a dual role, plays both mild-mannered Thad Beaumont and mean b*stard George Stark. But when he's Stark, he really comes to life. He's both cool and creepy. The sparrows are also a crucial part of the overall eeriness of the movie. Although he will always be known for the unforgettable Dead trilogy, this may be Romero's finest, most high-brow picture to date. The production values are the cleanest I've seen in any Romero flick, the acting is top-notch, and story is solid. Getting a scare at the theater is fairly easily achieved. Getting me to jump in the privacy of my own home in another thing altogether. Romero made me jump while watching the movie on a crappy 19 inch television.and I've seen the movie before. That's saying something. Royal Dano and Michael Rooker co-star.

This entertaining, close adaptation of the Stephen King novel is a product of the '80s, in some ways charmingly so and in other ways not so much.

From my perspective, the movie's flaws include Amy Madigan, who doesn't much appeal to me. The score is effective enough in parts, but in other parts invokes that '80s tinkly, jingly fantasy-type music, as when the kids in ET, The Goonies, or Something Wicked this Way Comes see something wonderous. Those strains have no place in a horror movie. Similarly, while the special effects and make-up are in some ways charmingly '80s, the animation at the very end, immediately after the climax, are lame and enough to cast a pall over the conclusion. The conclusion itself, and the moment the movie cuts to credits, is also too abrupt. The movie needs the epilogue of the novel. This and certain other difficulty describe elements are why, in my opinion, Romero became steadily less interesting as a director as his career progressed. Dark Half is one of a few decent movies he made outside of the original Dead trilogy, but it shows the flaws in his directing style, which causes his films to lack a certain completeness, like a wall that needs one more coat of paint. All of his films are rough around the edges, and that is not a problem with all of them (it's part of what makes the original Night of the Living Dead a great movie) but it is a problem with this one, with Monkey Shines and with The Crazies, even though each of these movies is pretty decent.

The movie is reasonably well paced, but it shares one of the flaws from the novel; namely, the shear incompetence of every police officer or state trooper, which is even more tedious to watch than it is to read.

The aspects of The Dark Half that are good, and which make it entertaining, include Tim Hutton, who is always appealing and always effective in his roles. A very young Michael Rooker is fine, although not really who I would have cast. Julie Harris has a small but appealing turn as a professor Tim Hutton's character consults.

Despite all of my complaints, this is an entertaining enough movie and certainly a step above a lot of other adaptations of King's novels. Romero, through the script, which he wrote, does manage to capture the main plot and story elements of the novel. It's actually quite a decent script outside of the issue I noted above with the cops, which he was simply taking from the novel. Certainly worth a viewing for fans of '80s horror and of King adaptations.

While I still say that "The Shining" is the best adaptation of a Stephen King novel, "The Dark Half" is still worth seeing. As it is, both stories deal with people's good and evil sides. I also wonder whether or not King took part of his inspiration here from Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"; I mean, don't the sparrows come across as pretty menacing? Overall, while it's no masterpiece, George Romero accomplished something really neat here. It just might make you want to question your own desires. I've actually read the part of the book where they find the one body (you'll know what I mean when you see the movie); naturally, the book makes it much more graphic. Starring Timothy Hutton, Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker, Julie Harris and Beth Grant.

By the way, do you notice what number appears in the IMDb registration for this movie?

George A. Romero adapted a Stephen King novel titled "The Dark Half" about a writer who has a darker side of him that has stepped up to killing. Immediately I was thinking of "Secret Window." In fact, I just assumed that the 2004 Johnny Depp movie was just a remake of "The Dark Half." I was wrong.

Thadeus "Thad" Beaumont was a good writer, but no one wanted to read his work. That is until he created a pseudonym of George Stark and wrote more gory and violent stuff. No one knew that the respected professor, Thad Beaumont, was the real author of the uncouth novels and Thad wanted to keep it that way. When a man by the name of Fred Clawson (Robert Joy) tried to blackmail Thad to keep quiet about the pseudonym Thad decided to come forward and discontinue his George Stark novels. That's when people started getting killed and all signs were pointing toward Thad.

The entire intrigue of the movie is figuring out if George Stark is a real person or not. After you watch movies like "Raising Cain," "Secret Window," and others like those, you question everything. Sometimes that makes for a good viewing experience and sometimes it doesn't. "The Dark Half" leaned toward good largely because the George Stark character was such a wildcard. Plus, it's cool to see Romero adapt a Stephen King novel even if this wasn't the best of them.

I really enjoyed the book, with all the supernatural tension and character development. But the movie just fell flat. It deviated from the book in several major and inexcusable ways, most notably the sparrows. I thought the cast could carry it, but it just never materialized. I suggest just reading the book and skipping the movie altogether.

Granted I was not all that wild about the novel in this case, however I still prefer it over this movie made by one of the master's of horror George Romero. Not all of the problems I had with the flick though are the source material or anything that George could have done differently. From what I understand, the company behind this movie went bankrupt so parts of this movie are underdeveloped and the music in the last third of the film is just looped music from the first two thirds of the film. So what is this film about? Well a writer who writes under two names has essentially revealed and buried his alter ego named Stark. A guy who writes a bit more violently than the other half. Well something happens and the alter ego seemingly comes to life and begins to stalk the writer and kill those who get in his way. Meanwhile, the writer learns things relevant to the fictional Stark taking on a life of his own. As for following the book this film does rather well, unfortunately the book is not the greatest so the film being not quite up to the book becomes not good or bad. You will see when watching this film it is a lot like other stories in Stephen King's collection as it mirrors to some extent "The Shining" and "Secret Window" as you will find common themes of people with duel personalities.

This movie is actually one of King's better film adaptations, perhaps because of the work of George Romero as director. Timothy Hutton is well-cast both as the gentle writer and as the hard-boiled Steel: so much so it's hard to recognize Hutton as the latter. There's a lot to say about writers and writing in this, and it adequately captures the essence of the novel without falling into the King traps of endless exposition unsuitable to the screen. Among King movies Dark Half seems to be the black sheep of the family: it's rarely mentioned as either a bomb or a great work, but it's much closer to the latter.

The Dark Half is great. Put two of the masters of horror together in a box, shake ‘em up, and you get this very entertaining and darkly humorous story. Can you believe this is the latest film from George Romero? 1993? It's a crime that this man isn't doing movies on a regular basis anymore. I hear he has a couple of projects on the horizon, but seven years is just too long, George! Stephen King movie adaptions can be pretty damn good, or really, really awful depending on who's behind the camera. Well, no worries here, King and Romero have had a great working relationship in the past (and I expect good things in the future).

But give credit where credit is due, it's Timothy Hutton's outstanding performance that really makes this film special for me. He's good enough as ordinary Thad Beaumont, with just a hint of evil underneath his nice husband and father persona, holding back the nasty as best he can. Then Hutton is George Stark, and he doesn't even look like the same person. That's why Hutton is so damn good. With just a few minor changes, slicked-back hair and some facial stubble, he's a completely different person. You have to see it to believe it, he's that good. And he delivers the films darkly humorous lines perfectly ("What's going on out here?", "Murder. Want some?"). I know, the murderous joker has been done to death, but Hutton's good enough that we can forgive it. I love, love, love horror movies and this is one of the reasons why. 8/10 stars. G'night!