Thinner (1996) User Reviews

Decent flick but WAY over-dramatized

[PenalColony · 6/10 · 8 September 2005]

I have always been a big fan of the novel "Thinner", by Richard Bachman (Stephen King). It strays from the typical horror/gore plot, and focuses a lot more on issues of class warfare and social injustices. I have always seen this book as the story of a WASPy rich white lawyer having his bubble burst and being forced into a sort of compassion for the Gypsies and drifters of this world.

This movie was decent, not great. If you're going to watch it because you liked the book, be warned that almost every major plot event has been exaggerated and "Hollywood-ized" to the point of ridiculousness.

For example, instead of Richard Ginelly being the gentlemanly and sophisticated Mafia don from the novel, the movie portrays him as a bloodthirsty maniac who can't be stopped once he's started his "work". I noticed this in the film adaptation of "Shawshank Redemption" as well.. It's a shame that filmmakers feel that the average moviegoer won't enjoy subtlety or sophistication. They obviously feel that they need to whack us over the head with their films in order to get their points across.

Rent this flick if you're a fan of movies like "Sleepwalkers" or the more recent films in the Hellraiser series... definitely entertaining, but unfortunately, not something I can take completely seriously.

Thin on scares, fat on laughs!

[asda-man · 7/10 · 17 February 2012]

I didn't know what to expect from "Thinner". Firstly when I saw it in the "What's On TV" magazine I thought of it as a serious horror film, that sounded quite eerie. You know, a man slowly getting thinner and thinner, and then of course it's Stephen King which is never a bad thing, and then it had 4 stars and so i thought that this film could have potential! But then I look at IMDb's rating and it's very below average so I was wary. Thankfully I was relieved when I turned it on and the first thing I saw was this clearly slim man in a ridiculous fat suit and I laughed.

I pretty much laughed all the way through. There's no denying that "Thinner" (unintentially or not) is a very funny film. You only have to look at the man and laugh at those incredible hamster-type cheeks! The fat suit is hilariously bad, not a patch on the one that Eddie Murphey wears in "The Nutty Professor". The man's facial expressions also had me rolling down the aisles (well, 'the sitting room') in every shot his eyes were wide and gleaming like he's just seen a massive slice of cake! His smile was also hideous. He looked like "The Joker" out of "Batman". Even when he's eventually thin, he still wears those awful eyes and smile. The guy's a slug.

The special make-up effects are very special indeed. A film like "Thinner" relies on the make-up effects. That's what made David Cronenberg's "The Fly" so amazing. Yet, the effects on "Thinner" are almost as bad as the fat effects. One man has terrible rubber boils over his face and his hand looks like a dinosaur stump. The 'thin' effects are also quite horrendous too. Thanks to "Thinner's" visuals you're always sure of a laugh. I can't tell if we're meant to be taking this film seriously or not.

And then there's the awful screenplay that always seems to fight for the chance to see Mr.Lawyer literally stuffing his face with food. Though, it doesn't help that all the actors are terrible, with the gypsy looking like 'Grandad' out of "Mrs Brown's Boys" only with hair more luscious. Every character is a stereotype and the actor's seem to live up to that. No one asks questions like, "Why have you bought home a pie?" They just accept that and eat it.

In all seriousness, "Thinner" could have been a horror classic rather than a horror cult classic. It could've been a chilling fable of greed and the price you pay for it. Instead we get a hugely entertaining film that offers no scares what so ever. "Thinner" is a hard film to rate because critically it's awful, but then again I had a ball watching this film and would happily watch it again. "Thinner" never bores, and the ending is actually pretty good. For guaranteed laughs, don't miss "Thinner".

One of the Better King Stories

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 9 December 2010]

Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke) hits an old gypsy woman with his car, and with the help of his lawyer and judge friends gets away without even a traffic fine. Unfortunately for him, he cannot use legal maneuvers to get the gypsy curse off of him!

Stephen King has one of the worst track records for film adaptations. For every great film (Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption, Shining) there are some real piles of rubbish. And any number of films in between. This one, luckily, is closer to the good end. Some have pooh-poohed it, but I found it pretty enjoyable.

Beyond the main story, which was average, the film comes alive due to Joe Mantegna's portrayal of Richie Ginelli. Mantegna, who you may know from "Criminal Minds" or as the voice of Fat Tony from "The Simpsons", is pretty great as violence incarnate. When he unleashes his vengeance on the gypsies, you almost have to feel bad for them, as you admire his tenacious bloodlust.

I have heard people complain about the ending, which apparently varies from the novel. I have also heard that the novel has more intricate subtleties that the movie overlooked. I do not have the novel, so I cannot comment on that, beyond saying that I really enjoyed the ending. I can't say what it is, but I found it very appropriate.

Burke's Clint Eastwood voice may be a bit dramatic, but I did not mind... oh, and Kari Wuhrer appears, as well... though does little more than provide a dash of sex appeal.

An Adequate Adaptation...

[Gislef · 6/10 · 11 September 1998]

...for a King work: they've always had a mixed track record. Generally this one is a tribute to the F/X wizardry as Robert John Burke goes through multiple transformations. That in itself is pretty horrifying. Most of the King subtleties have been sucked out of it, but what's new? It's basically a decent supernatural thriller. There is a slow, relentless horror to the whole thing, which doesn't rely on huge "jump out of the closet" shocks (although there are a few of those). Basically a horror movie for adults.

Tom Holland pulled it off

[CrookedNose94 · 7/10 · 2 January 2023]

Thinner: a Stephen King adaption that always gets a bad a wrap. I read this novel when I was 10 and it always stuck with me... the themes on greed, gluttony, and guilt.... And revenge. I've always seen this as a good adaption of the novel and don't understand the hate. Director Tom Holland is consistent with the pacing in this. It's not a long movie to sit through but it sure is packed pretty tight. One big thing about this movie I really think stands out is the special FX and costume design. They couldn't have done a better job for the time. Also, the casting is great. Maybe not the most notable actors but there are some really good performances here.

Obviously these ~2h adaptions of novels have to leave so much out. I understand the frustration when a theme or character or understory gets left on the cutting room floor... I think it should have also been a little more "rated R" for the screen but that's for us nerds to have with our books! And of course there's a few cheesy moments in the picture that are fun to laugh at... it is a movie from the mid 90's so of course there's cheese lol

Is it the greatest adaption from Stephen King? No. Is it the worse? Far from it. As of Jan 2023, it's on HBO Max, great popcorn movie to watch with your partner or friends!

Not the worst King adaption, but definitely not the best either

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 20 October 2004]

From what I've heard, this is a fairly faithful adaption of the Stephen King story of the same name, but I've never read the book myself. The plot is decent, but somewhat ridiculous... and the pacing is awful. I was bored for most of the other half of this movie, despite it only being about 90 minutes long. The acting varies, but it's mostly bad... Kari Wuhrer displays a particularly obvious lack of talent, and Robert John Burke proves that he doesn't have the charisma or talent to carry a movie. Actually, Joe Mantegna pretty much steals the show, and every scene that doesn't involve him has you bored and wanting to see him again. The humor in the film is actually surprisingly good. There are some pretty good exchanges of dialog, and, as a nice variation from the typical King film-adaption, most of the laughs are intentional(though there are a few parts which still seem lame and make you laugh, as opposed to seeming scary and frighten you). The special effects vary, but for the most part, they are quite good. The films gore and violence may be a little over the top, and is definitely extreme, though there isn't terribly much of it in the film(but when there is, it's very graphic), but it didn't bother me as much as I had expected, from hearing it described by someone who has seen the film. Since I haven't really seen any other films by the director, Tom Holland, I can't say if fans of him will like this film. One thing that the fans of King will surely enjoy is that he himself has a role in this, and a pretty easily recognizable one, at that(not the typical somewhere-in-the-immediate-background cameo that writers/directors typically have). All in all, fairly enjoyable horror, but not something that you'll want to see many times. I recommend it to big fans of Stephen King, huge fans of the various actors, and people who just enjoy watching somewhat uneven films just for the heck of it. 5/10

Supernatural terror for a curse against a fat lawyer

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 26 December 2007]

The corpulent Billy Halleck(Robert James Burke)is a successful advocate in law. While he's driving along with his wife(Lucinda Jenney), he accidentally hits a gypsy with his car and run. Then he's cursed by an old gypsy(Michael Constantine) and his gorgeous daughter(Kari Wuher) with a continuous weight loss. With the complicity of local judge and the sheriff (Daniel Von Bargen)Billy is absolved. Furthermore, Billy is friend of a local mobster named Richie(Joe Mantegna) who is determined to save him, originating a cruel vendetta.

Thinner was written by Stephen King in 1984, based on horror master bestselling novel of the same name, under pseudonym Richard Bachman . Early the 90s, Warner Brothers attempted cinema rendition with John Candy, but death actor made the pre-production failed. The Paramount Pictures took the production with interesting script by Tom Holland(Langoliers) and Michael Mc Dowell( screenwriter of Beetlejuice and Tales from the darkside). Casting is frankly decent, Robert James Burke(usual of director Hal Hartley), recently his success in Robocop 3, Joe Mantegna(usual of David Mamet,Things change,House of games,Homicide),the beautiful Kari Wuher(Anaconda,Sliders). Besides, as always, habitual cameo by Stephen King as Dr. Bangor. The film displays adequate musical score fitting to terror and suspense by Daniel Licht The motion picture is professionally directed by Tom Holland(Fright night,Child's play), a director expert in horror and suspense movies. The result is better than previous Stephen king adaptation, the mediocre, Running man. Rating : Acceptable and passable picture, well worth watching for Stephen King fond.

Decent Thriller, Doesn't Live Up to Book

[dragoneyez01 · 31 March 2003]

I saw this movie on TV a few years back. I'd read the book before seeing the movie, and I've read the book a second time recently, after seeing the movie. And I think I can safely say that 'Thinner' is a decent attempt, but doesn't live up to the book.

The movie is based on Stephen King's 'Thinner'. It is based around an obese small-town lawyer, Billy Halleck (Robert Burke), who has a curse put on him by a gypsy (Michael Constantine), after running over his daughter with his car. Halleck leaves his wife (Lucinda Jenny) and daughter (Joie Lenz), to find the gypsy and get the curse that is steadily making him thin reversed, before it is too late.

Like another reviewer said, this movie seems really TV movie-ish. The only actor I recognize in this movie is the typecasted Joe Mantegna. The rest I've never heard of before or since this movie. For the most part the movie is faithful to the book. But, it lacks much of the vivid detail of the book. Also, the main character is far more tame in the movie. Though, as I said, most of the actors I've never heard of before or since, they do a very good job in this movie. After seeing the movie, I can't picture anyone else playing the roles they did. And the make-up effects are amazing.

Overall, a decent movie. Could've better captured the spirit of the book. You could find a worse way to spend two hours.

Rating: 7/10

not terrible but the book was much much better.

[triple8 · 5/10 · 9 July 2006]

SPOILERS FOR MOVIE AND BOOK "THINNER" AHEAD:

I am not a major King fan but have read some of his stuff and "Thinner" was always one of my favorites. I held off on seeing the movie for a long time as I'd heard it wasn't all that good and I think that a lot of King's work is not, for some reason, as good when their turned into movies. But after seeing it, I have mixed feelings. On the plus side, the basic story is the same. On the minus side, it was not anywhere near as good as the book. I thought the book was an 8 or 9 on a 10 scale but the movie was about average. Just my opinion.

Here are some things I noticed. Number one is that, at times, the movie seemed almost campy. The "fatsuit" that Billy wore looked totally fake. And it also seemed that some of the dialog, which was so powerful in the book took on an almost campy tone in the movie. The movie version had nowhere near the intensity of the book and many of the characters did not have the multi dimension aspect they did in the book. It wasn't awful, I mean the movie sure did keep one's attention but it wasn't great either.

In the book, one gets to know the turmoil that Billy Halleck experiences as a lot of the book focuses on his thinking. In the movie we don't get that. Honestly it seemed at times, like the character of Billy was channeling Jack Nicholson's character in "The Shining". The building of tension was not nearly so compelling and though I'm aware that this movie could have been a lot worse(And honestly I thought it would be) I still wish it had been better.

And then there's the ending. THAT was not done well at all. First of all in the book we do not see what the results of Heidi's eating the pie are., That was one thing that made the book ending so chilling. One really did not know WHAT happened and that was eerie and rather creepy. But in the movie it takes on a horror movie aspect, as the movie shows us what happened to Heidi which I didn't think it should have done. I was really surprised at that.

And then there's Billy's motivations himself. In the 'book" version Ginelli is killed by Gina and THAT'S what sends Billy over the edge. You clearly are made to understand by the writings of the book what happens and when. In the movie it is all about a possible affair between Heidi and the doctor which wasn't done that well and lacked believability. Another disappointment.

And then there's the CAMPY aspect again. I mean the last line at the end was something like "white doctor from town". It didn't sound serious, it sounded almost absurd. I was really disappointed by the end especially considering the power it had in the book.

Ginelli was played very well by Montegna but also lacked the complexity he had in the book. In the book version, the scenes between Hallack and Ginelli were very interesting and in the movie they really did not have that compelling aspect. Not the performers fault but still a letdown.

Now the things I liked. The photography was excellent. I love the fact that King's books take place in New England and they picked up the small town New England feel wonderfully. I also like that the gist of the original story was kept pretty much the same. And the same characters were still in the movie. The story itself was still compelling enough to hold my interest for the length of the movie. And it is thought provoking. So I'd still give it an average rating.

And if someone watches this who isn't familiar with the book they might like this better because it IS better then a lot of other movies that are made from King's books.

The last King movie I saw was "the Secret Window" which I absolutely hated. This was much MUCH better then that to be sure and I might even watch it again sometime but it was still disappointing overall. My vote is 5.

Lead Actor made it work...

[Pocketplayer · 6/10 · 15 July 2006]

King adapted movies either work or they don't. Horror type flicks are very hard to do well. This did have a made-for-TV feel about it similar to other King flicks, but imo, the reason this was acceptable was in large part due to the acting and casting of Robert John Burke. Can you imagine seeing this man walk his dog at night? He seems outside the human race somehow…I guess that's why they choose acting as a profession. He so not normal. His voice quality was over the top, Simpson-esq in quality like in a cartoon…but that worked here.

Joe Mantegna and Michael Constantine were excellent. As stated previously, Kari Wuhrer is smokin' hot. Too bad she looks exactly like that Doritos girl who is on a UON stupid sitcom now. I guess you can't have two Doritos girls in Hollyweird.

You gotta love IMDb.com to look up all the work these actors have done. I knew I saw Burke and Wuhrer's face before but couldn't place them. I thought Michael Constantine was James Coco…but only tonight I saw Constantine in The Hustler w/Paul Newman, one of his first roles. IMDb confirmed this.

Even found out Joe's wife owns a pizza place in Burbank...need to stop by.

A Macbre Weight-loss Film

[jrfranklin01 · 5/10 · 29 December 2004]

If you're a big fan of Stephen King and want to see a film that stays true to the book, then this one will please. Thinner is the story of an obese lawyer, Billy Halleck, who kills a gypsy woman with his car. When the local judge and sheriff cover up the accident and let Billy off the hook, a gypsy curse is put on all of them.

One of the big things about this film that gave it it's publicity (besides Stephen King's name) was in the costume work done on Billy Halleck's weight-loss transformation. I think, given how daunting a task this was, that a good job was done. I did notice they forgot to augment his fingers to compensate with his body mass.

"Thinner" is delivered with what might be described as (forgive me) a second or third-string acting class - actors who deliver good roles but aren't chart toppers or as well known (Joe Mantegna, Kari Wuhrer, etc.). King's story teeters a bit when Billy and the gypsies begin playing a game of tit for tat. And the ending, although poetic with its Edgar Allan Poe touch, comes off as "oh brother!" 5/10

White man from town says take the curse off!

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 12 June 2017]

This engaging adaptation of the novel, which Stephen King wrote under his Richard Bachman pseudonym, stars the under-rated Robert John Burke ("RoboCop 3") as Billy Halleck. Billy is a lawyer in Maine who happens to be grossly overweight. After he accidentally runs down an elderly Gypsy woman, his judge (John Horton, "The Shawshank Redemption") and police chief (Daniel von Bargen, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?") friends conspire to help Billy avoid any punishment. This infuriates the old womans' even more ancient father (Michael Constantine, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"), who places one of those old-fashioned Gypsy curses on Billy. Stroking Billy's cheek, he utters one word: "Thinner". Soon, Billy is rapidly losing weight, which he enjoys at first, until he realizes that he really is going to waste away to nothing unless something is done.

Just personally speaking, this viewer has a blast with this particular King story. Yes, it's unrelentingly downbeat, but I didn't mind that so much. And it's true: other than Billy's daughter Linda (Bethany Joy Lenz, 'Pearson'), there isn't a single character in the story that's particularly sympathetic. Still, this viewer found it refreshing that so many of the characters here turn out to be such a-holes. It's a highly entertaining tale, well told by co-screenwriter and director Tom Holland ("Fright Night", "Child's Play"). And it's fortunately not completely without a sense of humor, although the humor tends towards the dark.

There's wonderful music by Daniel Licht, but the real marvel of the movie is the astonishing, convincing makeup effects (supervised by Oscar winner Greg Cannom) that transform the thin Burke into an obese man. There's also a gem of a supporting performance by the always entertaining Joe Mantegna ('Criminal Minds') as a mafia man whom Billy had successfully defended in court. Therefore, the mobster feels indebted to the lawyer, and is more than willing to help Billy in his quest to convince the ancient Gypsy to remove the curse. The supporting cast is solid right down the line, with Lucinda Jenney ("Thelma & Louise") as Billy's possibly unfaithful wife (the script tries to leave this aspect as ambiguous as possible), Sam Freed ('Kate & Allie') as a doctor friend, the intoxicatingly sexy Kari Wuhrer ("Eight Legged Freaks") as Constantines' great granddaughter, Elizabeth Franz ("School Ties") in a bravura turn as the judges' distraught wife, and Peter Maloney ("The Thing") as an information provider. Director Hollands' son Josh plays Frank Spurton; King has his usual cameo (playing a pharmacist). What is a real laugh is the fact that actress Irma St. Paule ("Twelve Monkeys"), as the accident victim, actually looks OLDER than Constantine!

Good gloomy fun, but it won't be to all "tastes", especially the ending.

Eight out of 10.

Exactly what you'd expect

[guywhowatchesmovies · 7/10 · 28 March 2011]

Look, I was entertained for 90 minutes, long enough for a few brewskies and some popcorn, and that's all I asked of it. It's not a masterpiece. It's a simple story, simple characters... but why would you expect anything else? Just look at the DVD cover for f***'s sake. I'm baffled by the people who come on this movie's forum and are surprised by what a bad movie it was. Uh yeah, don't get me wrong, it's a RIDICULOUSLY stupid movie, but that's pretty much what I was looking for when I rented it.

Had I gone into this movie without any former expectations, I would have given it 5 stars overall. The acting was way over the top, the directing not so great, and the writing wasn't spectacular either. However, the story was moderately clever, and it gets points for keeping a fairly tongue-in-cheek humor about it; at no point did I feel like it was trying to take itself seriously. I give it another star based entirely off the strength of it's makeup effects (yes, they're that good, considering it was made in a time before digital makeup).

Finally, I give it 7 stars, simply because it met my expectations as a cheesy, over-the-top, horror romp, and I would've expected nothing less from "Stephen King's Thinner".

Hard to believe a film can be so thin, yet so thick

[Spleen · 1/10 · 6 February 2001]

You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.

Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")

This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...

(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...

In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.

By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."

White Man from Town says check it out

[Backlash007 · 29 November 2001]

Alright people, what's up with all the negative reviews for this flick? Coming from a horror fan, I loved Thinner...simple as that. Working from a story by Stephen King, this is Tom Holland's return to kick-ass horror. Billy Halleck is a very overweight attorney who is cursed by a Gypsy after an unfortunate automobile accident. That's the set-up for this cautionary tale about accepting guilt. Greg Cannom's (Bram Stoker's Dracula) make-up is superb, the guy has two academy awards for Christ's sake. So lighten up. Joe Mantegna is hilarious as Ritchie the Hammer and Robert John Burke is intense ("I'm being ERASED!"). There might be a little hammy acting here and there, but what would a horror movie be without that? The story is just superb and the line between good and evil is very blurry here. Having no good guy makes it a very interesting film and a little more realistic. It's a perfect thriller in the Tales From the Crypt vein.

Mr. King must be satisfied!

[gazineo-1 · 6/10 · 11 April 2001]

Good adaptation of a Stephen King's novel, this movie is almost a exception, along with "The Shining" by Kubrick, in an effort to turn out the grim and uncanny world of Mr. King in images. The cast is perfect, especially Burke who gives a convincent and not far-fetched perform in the leading role of the lawyer cursed by a group of gipsies. Mantegna is excellent, too, as a mafia's boss who helps the lawyer to find a way out of his troubles. I give a 6 (six) to this.

Not bad, but not great.

[d-christianson-1 · 6/10 · 5 March 2013]

There are a handful of King movie adaptations that are better than his books, and while this is not one of them, it stands on its own as entertaining with no cringe-worthy scenes and plot holes you can forgive. Having read the book over 20 years ago, and just now seeing the movie free on Cinemax, I have difficulty comparing the two, but I did enjoy the ending to this movie. There's no gore, but a sense of foreboding throughout. A good time killer matinée. I went in expecting something to at least hold my attention, and I was not disappointed. The only thing that's is truly retina-killing is the fakey fat suit. Give it a rest already.

Very Poor Adaptation

[raejeanowl · 2/10 · 1 March 2011]

I hardly know where to begin. Not at all true to the story, really, except in the most superficial ways.

The screenplay writers took a fairly scary and almost believable yarn and ruined it. Billy Halleck was reduced to an unsympathetic, fat and selfish clown, a waddling caricature of the tortured protagonist in the book. The Gypsies play out the facile racist stereotypes of nastiness and evil incarnate instead of mysterious bohemians with a paranormal approach to vengeance.

The most egregious change, however, was the re-worked ending. The story's real conclusion was never going to win a popularity contest; had the writers remained true to the original plot, the authentic ending would have seemed as precisely chilling as it was intended to be, instead of comedic twist on a "Tales From the Crypt" episode.

King was probably more ashamed of this than Kubrick's version of "The Shining." If you saw this mincemeat of a film first, I hope you will give the book a chance someday.

Intriguing plot

[the_oak · 7/10 · 13 April 2014]

I liked the movie because it is about basic human things like revenge, greed and gluttony. On top of that you have nice special effects and OK actors. The script is reasonable, although I don't know how true it is to the book, since I haven't read it. There is a fine line between feeling sorry for the gypsies, who are shunned by society and taken advantage of, and sympathizing with the white man, who is cursed by them, and who has to deal with them living outside the norms of society. This is a clever story. I also like the cameo role by Stephen King as the shop keeper. Finally, you get an untraditional ending, were the main character dies, and we are left wondering if neither the gypsies or the white man comes out on top. Both suffer losses, but I think the morale of the story is that revenge is never a great idea, and that greed makes it easy to take advantage of people who are different. Although it can all come back and hit you in the face.

Not as bad as the critics say.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 5/10 · 28 August 2003]

The movie opens with a caravan of gypsies (complete with campers, station wagons filled with belongings and small trailers) driving into a small town.

Your lead character Billy Halleck, played by Robert John Burke, is obviously wearing what the movie industry terms as a "fat-boy" or fat suit.

The witticisms exchanged between the family members is shallow, hollow and plastic. There is no feel of "family" there at all.

I won't detail the movie, scene by scene, but the courtroom scene which follows is convincing and believable, as is the "bonding" scene which comes after between Billy and the Italian "business man."

That's where the movie takes a turn for the worst.

Again, if you do not read Stephen King's books, then these points won't bother you at all. There are way too many holes in the story. There are entire scenes from the book, omitted from the theatrical work.

It has a definite "Hunchback of Notre Damme" feel to it in its "gypsies are evil, sexually promiscuous, caucasian-hating parasites" way of treating those of Romanian/Carpathian descent, as did the book, but it was the effects that kept me amazed.

When things start to go wrong in the storyline, so do they go wrong in the effects department. Nothing looked as it should. As the lead character begins to lose weight, so does the script and the effects. His "fat suits" look better as he begins to return to his real weight, but then as he begins to grow "thinner," the baaaaaad effects are back; and with a vengeance. I won't even talk about the lizard-like judge. His effects were even worse.

Good story, bad direction, horrible effects. Read the book, THEN watch the movie so you'll understand how nasty this movie was, complete with bad fat jokes, insensitive jibes and poor taste.

I like the movie, but I wanted to love it like I did the book, and just couldn't.

It gets a 5/10 from...

the Fiend :.

A Great, Intelligent Horror Film!

[irishkev_1999 · 6/10 · 4 April 2003]

I've just finished watching 'Thinner' and I must say how impressed I was by every aspect of this film. The writing and directing are top notch, as is the acting. I cannot see why this film received such a low rating! If nothing else, this film deserves it's just desserts. How about some strawberry pie?

Maybe referring to the plot?

[Spuzzlightyear · 4/10 · 20 June 2005]

So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, "better actors..."

The Gypsy Curse

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 3 September 2009]

When a gypsy caravan arrives in Fairview, the conservative judge Phillips (Howard Erskine) forces the gypsies to leave town. Meanwhile the gluttony lawyer Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke), who has difficulties to reduce his weight, successfully defends the mobster Ritchie Ginelli (Joe Mantegna) in court; during the night, he celebrates with his partner and wives in a dinner party. While driving back home, his wife Heidi (Lucinda Jenney) makes oral sex with Billy and he runs over the old gypsy Suzanne Lempke (Irma St. Paule), the daughter of the patriarch Tadzu Lempke (Michael Constantine). During the trial, Billy omits the reason of the accident; the chief of police Duncan Hopley (Daniel von Bargen) perjuries; and the bigoted judge declares Billy not- guilty for the accident. On the next day, Billy, Duncan and Phillips are cursed by Tadzu that puts a hex on each one of them. Billy gets thinner and thinner and while seeking out Tadzu to ask him to remove the spell, he suspects that his wife is having an affair with his doctor and friend Mike Houston (Sam Freed). Billy feels that his life is running out and asks for help to Ritchie to convince Tadzu using his method to call off the jinx.

The creepy "Thinner" is an underrated and one of my favorite horror movies based on a Stephen King's novel. The special effects and make-up were state-of-art in 1996 and even thirteen years later, they are very good. With the exception of Billy'/s daughter, all characters are corrupt in some level and deserve their fate. A couple of months ago, I saw another good movie based on the same theme - a gypsy curse – Sam Raimi's "Drag me to Hell". My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Maldição" ("The Curse")

He was a mook, but he was my mook!

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 10 June 2007]

I have only read a couple of Stephen King's books, so I can't comment on whether this is a great adaptation, but it certainly was an interesting movie.

One has to stretch their imagination to believe in curses, but if you suspend belief for a while, this film is just plain scary. Not since The Machinist, have I seen such a figure as Robert John Burke (Good Night and Good Luck) as he went down to 120 pounds.

Joe Mantegna was great as the mob buddy. Michael Constantine was really a believable gypsy, and his daughter Kari Wuhrer (The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting, Hellraiser: Deader) was one of the best parts of the movie. For Stephen King fans, he was in it also.

Consummate Cringe-Fest

[LeonLouisRicci · 2/10 · 31 March 2013]

This Horror Movie can't decide what it wants to be. Gore Flick, Psychological Thriller, Black Comedy, etc. It is all over the place and never really settles in for some scares or disturbing Drama.

The Acting is awful, the Script is just slightly above that, the Make-up Effects are cheesy, and the tension is virtually non-existent. It is an ugly Movie and that seems to be its intent, but it can't even pull that off because it has a candy coating like TV-Movie Production.

It is all kinda slickly sick but doesn't even manage to be repulsive, just cringe-worthy. This one is for the Stephen King Fans that need to complete their checklist and only the most curious Horror Movie Cultist.

It is disappointing to the extreme and the ending is very unsatisfying.