Thinner (1996) Review – It’s Not Great but I Love It

Welcome to Knockout Horror. It’s day 18 of our 31 Days of Halloween 2026 marathon and today it is time for the obligatory October Stephen King adaptation. Today, we are checking out a movie that is, quite honestly, not great but I still really enjoy – Thinner (1996). Let’s take a look.

One of the Bachman Books

As the majority of genre fans will know, Stephen King is one of the most prolific and recognisable horror authors of all time. So prolific, in fact, that in order to release more work while not oversaturating the market with Stephen King books, in 1977 he began writing under the pseudonym of Richard Bachman.

The general consensus back then was that an author should aim for no more than one book release per year. King’s cocaine-fueled output scoffed at that notion and, as such, we have the Bachman Books – the first of which was the novel Rage. A couple of years later, King would release The Long Walk, before following that up with Roadwork (1981) and The Running Man (1982).

It wasn’t until 1985 that the ruse was uncovered. A bookshop clerk noticed similarities between the writing styles of King and Bachman and began an investigation to reveal the truth. Thinner (1984) was one of the last novels to release under the pen name before he was outed.

The thing I find really interesting about the whole Richard Bachman thing is how King tried as hard as he could to stack the deck against himself. He was desperate to find out whether his success could be best attributed to skill or luck, and he considered the Bachman books as an opportunity to do just that.

“King’s cocaine-fueled output scoffed at that notion and, as such, we have the Bachman Books.”

He didn’t push for any publicity and released them in as low-key a manner as possible. He claims that he never got to discover the answer to that question because of Bachman’s true identity being uncovered, but Thinner did sell over 28,000 copies during its initial run which is quite impressive. With that being said, it went on to shift ten times that amount after King was revealed as the real author.

A curse more effective than Ozempic

The story follows obese attorney Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke). After he is involved in a reckless car accident which claims the life of an elderly woman, Billy finds himself losing weight at an unsustainable pace. Is his “eat everything you see” diet finally working or is it something more sinister?

It’s something of a surprise, given that Thinner is directed by the fantastic Fright Night creator Tom Holland, that this movie is really not very good. And I say that as a huge fan. It’s even more of a surprise given the fact that the novel is really rather excellent.

This is Stephen King departing from killer clowns and hobbling, obsessed fans to present readers with a story that is actually quite a lot deeper than it initially seems. Thinner is, essentially, weaving a tale of class divides and allowing the reader to work it out for themselves.

Billy Halleck is a wealthy attorney who is the very epitome of greed and avarice. He is morbidly obese and, frankly, quite a disgusting person. He’s complacent, immensely entitled, and morally rotten. Despite this, he is presented as the de-facto protagonist here and we see the entire story through his eyes.

A reckless act on his part leads to the death of an elderly woman, but he uses his local connections to escape punishment. As a result, a Romani curse is placed on him to even the score.

The next 40 minutes, or so, are basically a collection of scenes that each reflect on his complete inability to take responsibility for his actions. He never really tries to make amends, he simply tries to cope with the situation.

It’s a brilliant story of a fundamentally odious man getting his supernatural comeuppance placed against a backdrop of class divide and the idea of “rules for thee, but not for me“. So why was the film so critically panned?

It’s tonally and narratively confused

Perhaps the biggest problem with the movie adaptation of Thinner is that it really loses all nuance and the tone ends up feeling enormously off. This is a story that has been turned from a subtle tale of revenge and regret into a comic-book-style story of an overweight man dramatically losing weight and looking for a cure.

“There is nothing at all subtle about this plot and everything from the novel has been dialled up considerably.”

Thinner is far more entertaining than it is good. From its frequently comedic script to its over-exaggerated characters and plot points. It’s a bizarrely light film with a seriously dark undertone that never manages to really break through to the surface.

With that in mind, if you are looking for camp, horror silliness then you will likely have a great time. The entire movie is approached with a tongue-in-cheek sense of farce that makes it weirdly enjoyable.

Billy is a cartoonishly shitty person, here. It’s not really that he is simply unaware of his privilege, he’s just an asshole. From offering a quarter to a Romani woman to pull up her dress, right through to smacking his lips while eating in the most disgusting way possible… He’s just an easy to detest person.

Everyone around him is equally exaggerated. Richie Ginelli (Joe Mantegna) is a turned up to 11 mobster-cum-maniac, Judge Cary Rossington is laughably corrupt, and Tadzu Lempke (Michael Constantine) is a magical shaman-like figure ripped right out of a fairytale.

There is nothing at all subtle about this plot and everything from the novel has been dialled up considerably. There’s also a distinct 80s vibe that saturates everything from the pacing to the script and makes the movie feel much older than it is. Even Holland’s creative shot choices add to the breezy feel of the film.

Some interesting effects work

That distinctly 80s vibe even bleeds through into the practical effects. Billy’s weight loss is rapid and with that comes a necessity to make actor Robert Burke look dramatically different. This was achieved through hours in the makeup chair having prosthetics applied.

“Burke is practically demented, here, and the way his character sinks deeper and deeper into despair really allows him to act delightfully twisted.”

The fat suit actually looks pretty decent, for the time and fairly realistic. As he begins to lose weight, things become even more cartoonish than they already are.

The effects work is a mix of genuinely great and hilariously rubbery. Some of the changes look legitimately nasty and painful while others reflect on a lack of polish and almost a desire to lean into the camp aesthetic.

Again, it’s not great but it really works and that’s why I find Thinner so enjoyable. It just leans into absurdity and inflates the subtleties of the story into grandiose silliness. It’s just a lot of fun. The performances of Burke and Joe Mantegna only add to that.

Burke is practically demented, here, and the way his character sinks deeper and deeper into despair really allows him to act delightfully twisted. His wide-eyed expressions and often slightly sinister delivery make him a legitimately compelling lead character.

Mantegna really keys in on the classic mob boss mentality that he had earlier perfected with the Simpsons’ character Fat Tony and just delights in dialling it up to max volume. It’s a ton of fun and the way the story continuously escalates through his desire to help his friend keeps the second half very entertaining.

The ending is delightfully mean-spirited, as well. It came as the result of a rewrite after test audiences hated the original and it’s so spiteful that it’s impossible not to chuckle.

Thinner is, by no means, a good movie. It’s one of the weaker Stephen King adaptations but it’s still strangely enjoyable. It doesn’t take itself seriously, it’s joyfully camp, and easy to watch. If you are looking for something light and fun, this is a great option, despite the problems.

Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight

Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.

A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.