User Reviews

This current day (90ish) version of "The Lottery" doesn't do the original (1948) short story by Shirley Jackson justice. However it is an interesting modernized version of the short story, with a modern day twist. For anyone who hasn't read "The Lottery" it's a great short story. It starts off as a pleasant story which could have taken place in any century. Once she has you hooked, the story takes an unexpected turn. If you like Edgar Allan Poe, you'll really enjoy Shirley Jackson's original story "The Lottery". Originally published in the June 28, 1948 issue of the New Yorker.

Considering I had not even heard of 'The Lottery' prior to seeing it on Pay TV, this was a pleasant surprise (although perhaps the word 'pleasant' shouldn't be used in this context). Part of it's success is the casting of Dan Cortese as the lead, Jason. I first saw Dan Cortese as "Hunky Tony" in "The Stall"-Episode 73 on "Seinfeld" and whilst humourous in that situation, he adapted well for this movie. Keri Russell ("Felicity") was also a bonus. The plot was an inventive one, with the title of the film becoming all to clear as the movie develops. Although not a slash em up type horror movie, the suspense builds with Jason seeming to be caught in some type of time-culture warp. There is one particular scene which is extremely difficult to watch, without blood necessarily being spilt. Overall, I enjoyed this movie, particularly as I had no preconceptions on its content.

This film is based on the disturbing short story by Shirley Jackson; I was horrified by the short story and as I was watching it the story seemed familiar. It does a great job depicting the atmosphere of the creepy small town, and accomplishes its main goals, which I think are to tell Jackson's story with a modern twist and scare the audience, make them think. It's definitely a different kind of horror film, one that makes you wonder and search your mind for answers to why they did what they did.

By all means, read Shirley Jackson's original short story; it gets down to business without the padding this film adds to it.

To all who think that the ending is sick and pointless, that was Ms. Jackson's intention exactly -- the original story is an allegory about the cruelty man inflicts upon his neighbor in the name of upholding "tradition". Ms. Jackson's story is much more affecting than this film.

I had never read Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery" or seen any filmed versions of it before I saw this one. Although it is a well-made and well-acted TV-movie of a fine, suspenseful story, I was a bit disappointed. To the film's credit, it doesn't overdo the characterization of the small-town residents as unspeakably weird oddballs, but the story holds on to its secret for so long that the film doesn't even begin to get ominous until it's over halfway through. The ending provides a pretty good payoff if you stick with it, though.

The short story by Shirley Jackson is far more better and thrilling than this awful tv-movie, which I only saw because it has veteran Jeff Corey in it. The script is not capable of transmitting the real terrifying atmosphere that the story does. However the contribution of the nice looking Sean Murray makes up for it.

This spooky, intelligent television horror movie moves at a good steady pace, building towards its nightmarish climax, with a perfectly achieved sinister small town atmosphere. A clearer explanation of why the townsfolk do what they do would help, but the acting and writing keep you interested throughout. It's a classy excursion into horror from the writer that gave us "The Haunting".

I have read some of the other commentaries that are negative about this movie, and realize they are missing the point. Shirley Jackson was a fantastic artist, capable of enumerating that which is evil about the human condition. This movie is not so far fetched if you consider the Aztec's or other ancient cultures who sacrificed their virgin women, or children to the volcano God's so that they would have a good harvest. That is the whole idea of this movie folks. They believed that sacrificing one of thier own was good for the whole. Far fetched? Not so. And she does it so well. Small town, townfolk being of the usual sort you find in any small town in America, and adds that twist that scares the bajeebers out of you. I had seen it before, but when it came on again, my boyfriend was with me,this being the first time for him, and a first time for me because I had never heard him scream before.

I found this movie very boring. Slow on the suspense with maybe a couple of good actors waisted in their roles. Notablly, William Daniels and Salome Jens whom I have always respected in their work. But not even their presence helped this loser. It seems impossible that any town anywhere could get away with what this town does. And why would anyone wish to remain if it did. Chalk it up to stupidity and/or ignorance on their part.

The two leads seemed to be walking through the movie. Both Cortese and Russell, looking very attractive, gave a two level performance. Their faces never seemed to change expression throughout the film. They just stare at each other. I guess you blame the director for that. Miss Russell is eye fetching, but not an actress. Mr. Cortese, also eye fetching, is rather one level. He runs good.

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS was better. Don't waste your time. 2 stars for Daniels and Jens' courage to make this chestnut.

I don't agree with the comment of the person from Australia. This movie is horror at it's best. There is no way out for the main character and that is always frightening. Plus, the townsfolk are very disturbed. Again, that's what a horror movie is all about!

This is a good movie. throughout the whole movie you know something really weird is going to happen. There's just this feeling. Unbelievable ending. If you get a chance, watch it.

As a fan of the original story written by Ms. Jackson, I am going to try to keep them separate.

The film is about a man whose father dies, and the father's last request is to have his ashes strewn over his wife's grave. Upon arrival in the town where his mother is buried, the son is met with hostility and rancor from most of the local residents. He realizes quickly that the townspeople are hiding something and when he finds out that many of the people there died on the same day, he knows for sure that something is amiss. I'm not going to spoil the movie here. Those familiar with Ms. Jackson's story will know what happens towards the end of the film.

Although I thought the movie was pretty well done, it just doesn't work as a modern story. There is no way in this day and age anything like this could ever happen without the whole world knowing about it. The movie might have been plausible if this film took place shortly after the story was published (late 1940's), or outside of mainstream America, but no chance in the later parts of the 20th century in conventional small town U.S.A.

That's not to say that the movie is bad - it isn't. It's actually fairly well done. The acting is passable, and many of the minor characters are quite convincing. It is suspenseful and builds up to the expected climax. However, it does go on a little too long in that the backstory of what happened to mom is unnecessarily explained. There is also the addition of a variety of subplots- one concerning the main character and a love interest who lives in the secretive little town plus the investigation of New Hope by outsiders where the results are exactly as expected.

Although some of the final scenes will likely disturb those unfamiliar with the short story, THE LOTTERY on film is not really a horror movie per se. It is more of a drama/thriller with a pretty nasty ending, similar in feel to DON'T LOOK NOW. I think, though, that anyone who has grown up in the era of instant communication will find the movie a bit ridiculous.

If you can suspend your disbelief long enough, the movie is worth a watch. Bear in mind, as mentioned, it is a film with horrific elements but is not a true blue horror movie. If that's your thing, you might want to pass. Fans of suspense might like it if they can get past the final scenes.

This Movie was very disturbing. It wasn't "Horror" at all. It is sick. Particularly the climax scene when they stone a woman is very disturbing. The movie isn't made too badly but the brutality of the climax could have been toned down. The director need not have been so explicit at all. I do not recommend it to anybody with a low threshold for disturbing themes

There was a low-budget film adaptation produced in the early 70's (not currently listed on IMDb) and shown on educational television that retained the disturbing feel of the original short story by Shirley Jackson much better than this or the 1987 film adaptation. Although criticised for it, that educational production was acted by average people who more closely resembled the setting of the original story, but it was highly disturbing and effective.

Only problem with this TV-movie adaptation is it's not disturbing, sick, and strange *enough*.

This is a horrible movie. The dialouge sounds like it was written by Bozo the clown. Whoever made this pathetic adaptation of a famous short story should be ashamed of themselves. Grade: * out of ****

Well, the fact is that this film surprised me. I was 12 years old when i saw it, and I can tell that the story is good and different. Despite that is a TV movie, and the cast crew is medium-low actors, the film is good. I recommend it!

Besides, it also was interesting for me because the date of the tombs its my birthday! The best scene is the moment in which people of the village start to throw the stones to the "chosen" by lottery, though is so predictable who it was to be chosen. (The girl , daugther of major of the town, or her mother). It was a critic for the attitude of the village town: how could it possible to allow this kind of events? Its inhuman act !!! Thanks heavens that is a film!!!

I thought this movie was sick & disturbing. I know this is just a movie, but why would anyone want to sacrafice his/her life especially in such a violent way? To me that is sad & disturbing. I hope this isn't really practiced in any location of the world because that would be just sick. I would also say this is also a cult movie because the way the movie was presented, I would say they practice a ritual that other towns don't so it's a cult. The movie doesn't have a lot of violence on it but the type of violence on the movie that is shown is graphic which may be disturbing to some viewers like me. I do not like horror movies. I had to watch this in one of my college classes in my Freshman year & had to do a paper related to it.

Based on the renown and tautly written allegorical horror short story by Shirley Jackson, this made-for-TV movie manages to take all the worst attributes of the made-for-TV movie genre and encapsulate them into one tedious and tiresome drawn-out telling of an otherwise great story while adding nothing in the process.

The great kernel that is the basis for this film is Jackson's story, upon which it spins a larger and longer story; yet it adds absolutely nothing to the tale, in spite of all of the production resources and the cast it has available to do the job. With saccharine and stilted dialog, a very badly developed and written screenplay, bad acting, worse direction (because some of the actors in this film had proved track records or have proved themselves since), and one tired trope after another, this film would work better as camp or a satirical spoof of the genre rather than being an honest attempt to enlarge the original story.

I haven't checked the credits of the screenplay's writer or writers, the producers or the director, but I have the sense this had either the same people involved — or at least similar people — as gave us such dreck as cheap Sunday evening TV fare as the 1970s "Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mystery" series, another example of using a set of successfully written stories as the kernel around which to build unwatchable TV.

I gave this a 4/10. I've given better ratings to productions that looked and seemed far worse than this. However bad they were, those independently produced films usually run on a shoestring budget likely cobbled together by gifts from friends and family and obviously didn't have anything close to the budget or resources this film must have had available. At least the independently produced films usually manage to convey their story and their sense of truth, while this movie is simply an inanity.

The short story and film "The Lottery" are about a village that holds a lottery every year in order to decide which villager will be sacrificed to keep the crops growing successfully.

In my opinion, I enjoyed the short story "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson more than the short film. I would give this film a 3 out of 10-star rating because of the way it was directed and filmed. For example, the video quality of the movie was very poor and on multiple occasions the camera would zoom very close into the actors faces. Most of the time this happened the actors would look directly into the camera which is usually uncommon in films. It made the film seem unprofessional. Another thing I disliked was when Old Man Warner was talking, it felt very unnatural and rushed. Although I liked the short story more, I did like how the film followed the same story line and shared the same details as the short story.