DOLORES CLAIBORNE VS. MISERY !!
-
abbywalters5 — 14 years ago(May 13, 2011 09:35 AM)
So hard to choose! I can't pick. Both great. I would have to go with Dolores right now because it's fresh in my mind after just watching it again yesterday, but ask me again in a couple of months and I might change my mind.
-
TheSolarSailor — 14 years ago(August 04, 2011 10:17 PM)
They are both really good, but there is something about Dolores Claiborne that has always stayed with me through the years. I guess I have to put it in the lead, though not by much. Both films are excellent. A coincidence that both happen to star Kathy Bates? I think not.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
-
phi413 — 14 years ago(August 10, 2011 08:59 AM)
I give Dolores a very slight edge over Misery. It took me a moment to think about that one because they are both really good stories. Kathy is brilliant in Misery. And has an Oscar to prove it. But, in Dolores, we not only have the brilliance of Kathy's performance but also everyone else in the cast. This is truly one of the most superbly acted movies I have ever seen.
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Sneeze, and it's goodbye Seattle." -
TheSolarSailor — 14 years ago(August 12, 2011 12:02 PM)
That is a very good point. Misery is great and Kathy was excellent, but Dolores Claiborne has an overall fantastic cast, with the only possible weak link being Jennifer Jason Leigh. She does fine, don't get me wrong, but maybe not quite as good as Bates, Plummer, and Parfitt. That is just my opinion, though.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
-
litheways — 14 years ago(February 22, 2012 09:23 PM)
Never been a huge "Misery" fan, especially not compared to "Dolores."
"Misery" is a pretty good movie, and Kathy Bates really brings that character to life, but the movie isn't as smart as "Dolores." A lot of the scenes are somewhat repetitive and we pretty much figure Annie out near the beginning of the movie. Caan is good but not great, and has to carry half the film. There's not much depth to the other characters. (I always thought it was odd to see Bacall in a King movie.)
"Dolores" is a lot more intricate, and with better performances. Dolores is a very complex, confused, and sad character, and it takes more out of Bates to pull it off. The plot really surprises, especially as Vera and Mackey reveal themselves. The actors all have a chance to shine. (Plummer was born for a good King adaptation or two.) So my vote's definitely for "Dolores." -
aleugene — 13 years ago(September 04, 2012 01:32 PM)
Bates deserved the Oscar for Dolores, not Misery. Her performance in Misery is "one-note" crazy, and it's a thinly veiled recap of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? in which Bette Davis' performance is demented but layered and nuanced. But in Dolores Claiborn, Bates' acting is just as detailed and complicated as any from Bette Davis. Misery was overrated.
-
zappalover — 13 years ago(August 14, 2012 10:48 AM)
Bates is excellent in both, but DC is the far richer experience for the viewer. The portrayal of domestic violence and abuse and its ramifications is spot-on and extremely well done and nuanced, along with the tyranny of small-town prejudice. Misery, though very entertaining, is in a different league; it missed quite a bit of the relationship between its two main characters in the translation from book to film. DC is much better than I expected; surprised it didn't receive more notice when it was first released. Also has a strong and constructive feminist vein throughout.
-
TheFatDruidofNacyl — 13 years ago(October 24, 2012 12:42 AM)
I would say for an overall story I liked Dolores Claiborne more. I do enjoy both movies though. although it does take me a while to watch Misery again because of the torture scenes.
Come visit my
blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com