Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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")

one of the films who seduce for its cast. the story remains only a sketch useful for desire to read the book. film of Max von Sydow, it has the basic sin to be superficial. or a kind of run for say, in short form, a complex story about temptation and heavy sins. nothing wrong in essence but too strange for understand the force of original. a Stephen King has the gift to be interesting in each adaptation because the mark of writer is unique but the mark is only the first step. in this case, a sketch without great ambitions is not the best way for translate the powerful images from novel in a credible film. but, it is a film for the cast. Amanda Plummer and Max von Sydow are two strong arguments.

There was a time I used to force myself to read Stephen King books at night in the dark with no one else in the house just to see if I could do it. 'It' was the creepiest and 'The Shining' was a close second, but 'Needful Things' was a pretty good contender even if it wasn't an outright horror story. I survived those days pretty well, so now I'm watching this flick in the dark, by myself, and it manages to block out the creaky noises in the rest of the apartment. So far, so good.I was a little surprised to see the amount of negative reviews for this picture by other reviewers on this board. A lot of them have to do with not following King's novel all that closely, but it's been so long since I read it that it doesn't make much difference to me now. The one thing I remember though has to do with the baseball card; in the book I think it was Koufax, not Mantle. I could be wrong, but when the scene came up I was expecting a Sandy Koufax card, so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, maybe not. Perhaps some day I'll check it out to be sure.The interesting thing about this story was the way old Leland Gaunt (Max von Sydow) got all the folks in Castle Rock to turn on each other by not pitting likely adversaries against one another. Sort of like a domino effect where one unsuspecting citizen tripped up the next one in line with more and more disastrous results. The backdrop of the curiosity shop was a cool one for me because I like antiques and old things myself. The collecting urge isn't there any more though, so chances are I would have been a casual observer with all the insanity going on.There was some good casting here besides Sydow who appeared to be having a devil of a time. I enjoy Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia in most any other movie I've seen them in, but I have to say, Amanda Plummer as Nettie and Valri Bromfield as Wilma were perfect for their roles. Their vicious tete a tete with the strains of 'Ave Maria' in the background was an inspired piece of work. Even old Raider managed to do a good job with his limited involvement. If you stuck around to catch the full credit roll, you'll notice that he was portrayed in the movie by a canine named K-Jin. Stuff like that just interests me to no end.

As soon as you get the idea that a masterpiece, "Needful Things" will not be, there are three possibilities: you enjoy the film for what it is, you despise it for what it is not, or both. I guess those who read Stephen King's original novel and noted all the deviations will stand on the second category. But it doesn't make any difference for me, since I've never read Stephen King, I can only base my judgment on my personal appreciation of the film, yet what I read about the novel confirmed a few regrets.For instance, there is a moment in the film where the 11-year old Brian tries to kill himself out of the guilt to have started the whole mayhem. After buying a Michael Mantle card dedicated to him, from Leland Gant, the mysterious new antiques stores owner, as a return, he's asked to commit two little pranks that eventually lead to the death of two women. Normally, in a true horrific King's film, he should be the third symbolical victim, to highlight the devilish manipulation he was victim of. But the hero of the film, the Sheriff played by Ed Harris, stops him at the last second. Now, what does 'knowing that he survived' add to the film? The relief that a kid's life was spared? You know there's a problem when a film doesn't have the guts to kill a child, especially when it's unfaithful to the novel.And that kind of sugarcoating is even more surprising from a film that is not afraid to shock the viewers. Let's get back to the two women who died, the hillbilly farmer and the shy waitress (played by a scene-stealing Amanda Plummer), they absolutely hate each other, we never know why but it doesn't matter, Vilma has something against Nettie's dog, and Nettie hates her in retrospect. Leland Gaunt know about their history, he even gave Vilma an old toy she broke after an argument with her late husband, and then, he exploits Brian's debt to make the two women kill each other. Brian throws apples (Nettie is renowned for her delicious apple pies) at Vilma's house, and in exchange of an old jacket that will revive the spirit of the 50's, the town's drunk has a more disgusting favor to accomplish, regarding Nettie's dog.The outcome of this part is extremely shocking, in less than ten minutes, we have the terrifying sight of a bleeding skinless dog gazing at a screaming Nettie followed by a horrific cat-fight, ending to (naturally) both women cutting themselves to pieces in the most gruesome way, worthy of the greatest horror flicks. The problem is that the sequence I described happens to be the highlight of the film, and it's never as shocking and frightening ever after. We're intended to believe that the rivalry between two religious members, that the prejudices between the deputy officer and the local mayor 'Buster' Keeton (J.T. Walsh) will lead to something, but strangely enough, it never adds up to the horror reached during the first part, and that's why the climax doesn't come as satisfying as it should have been, especially from a horror film.What lacked in "Needful Things" were a true direction and a better storytelling. Anyone could have seen that coming: a peaceful town like those cherished by Stephen King, even named Castle Rock, with the same iconic lighthouse and autumnal foliage, turning at the end into an urban battlefield, with people trading one item of personal worth in exchange of a deadly favor, following the eternal selling-soul-to-the-devil cliché. What do we have in between? A succession of situations that only fill time before an anticlimactic confrontation. Indeed, we already know Gaunt is the Devil, and then we have to wait for the moment the Sheriff will figure that to see how he'll handle it. And it's only when Gaunt is confronted, during the last five minutes that the film gets more interesting. And the last exchange between Max Von Sydow and Ed Harris is more chilling than the overdose of pyrotechnics and special effects, displayed for the sake of cheap thrills.I guess this is the mark of some wannabe directors eager to prove their talent by using special effects, while a much subtler and simpler directing would have served the story. Why make so obvious that Gaunt is the devil, by trying to suggest it through his mundane attitude and a few devilish innuendo. The devil's disguise couldn't have fooled us, so why not playing the game straighter from the start? How can a mousetrap provoke a better effect than a woman getting a cleaver on the forehead? How can a few explosions, two men shooting at each other, make you forget the sight of a skinned dog? Violence wasn't balanced enough and after Nettie died, no actor could really save the story, and what was left was the performance of Von Sydow and some gripping interactions with Bonnie Bedelia (as the Sheriff's fiancée).Maybe that's what the film should have had: more dialogs, less predictable relationships, and a few outbursts of violence. But the director, son of Charlton Heston, was probably so proud of his accomplishment he thought people would cheer at the chaotic over- the-top climax, but even by looking at the film with more indulgent eyes, the whole thing felt like a private joke, not even funny. Harris' speech was too explicative and repetitive, he was telling the townspeople that Gaunt was the Devil, did he say something we didn't know? That's the problem: we're always ahead of the characters, and except for the dog and Gaunt's last word, we can see everything coming.The film scared the hell out of me at 14, but now I've seen enough horror flicks to realize how much better the same plot would have been with another director. I enjoy it for what it is, but hell, it couldn't have been so much better.