Whereas the recent "Gerald's Game" was a remarkable adaptation of a Stephen King story, "1922"...wasn't. It isn't horrible, but it trends far too much towards predictable and plodding to be anything near good.
For a basic plot summary, "1922" tells the story of a family of farmers. Wilfred James (Thomas Jane) and his son Henry (Dylan Schmid) are died-in-the-wool farmers. The problem? Wife/mother Arlette (Molly Parker) is not...and she's the one who just inherited a bunch of land (which = money in the 1920s). With Arlette threatening to move to the big city to open a dress shop (and take Henry with her), father and son concoct a plan to stop this from happening. But how far will they go to keep their simple farm life...and what consequences will it bring if they go too far?
At its literary heart, "1922" is a tale of consequences and morality. The problem here, however, is that everything seems so telegraphed that nothing feels unpredictable or exciting. I had read the King story previously, but very long ago and thus I honestly remembered next to nothing. In this adaptation, though, I felt like I knew everything that was going to happen within the first 15- 20 minutes. There are no twists, turns, or surprises...just very straightforward.
So, for an adaptation that seems "right down the middle", I'll give it an equally "right down the middle" grade of five stars out of ten. I could never say "1922" is out-and-out bad, but I'm not recommending it to others, either, due to the blandness and predictability.
