Caan was better than Bates
-
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(July 21, 2022 01:18 AM)
There were plenty of actresses up for the role, including Angelica Huston, who ended up competing with Bates that year for the Oscar. I always preferred Huston's performance in
The Grifters - '90'
.
This is who I would have liked to have seen in the role:
Bette Midler turned down the role of Annie Wilkes in this movie in order to co-star with Woody Allen in Paul Mazursky's
Scenes from a Mall
(1991)….
Midler, I feel would have pulled it off wonderfully. One just needs to watch
The Rose - '79
, to see how she was capable of emotional mood swings at the flip of a switch and making them real and believable.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(July 20, 2022 07:55 PM)
I dunno man.
I think Bates did just fine.
She was passionate about the books where she really loved the characters.
I love how excited she gets when she sees he brought back Misery.
We see how the littlest things set her off and how nuts she gets and how mean she can be.
The one thing I think is missing is where she decides to keep Paul prisoner instead of getting him the proper medical treatment he needed.
Was it just because she read that he killed off her beloved Misery?
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(July 20, 2022 09:47 PM)
The one thing I think is missing is where she decides to keep Paul prisoner instead of getting him the proper medical treatment he needed.
Wasn't it obvious?
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(July 20, 2022 11:51 PM)
I think Bates did just fine.
I'm not saying she gave a bad performance, yet in context and comparison, I feel it was miscalculated, yet not all on the onus of Bates herself.
It is also like she is talking "at" you, as if she's on a stage. Bates was largely from the stage and I don't feel she had quite honed her skills as a movie actress. It is an over-rated performance for the reasons I mentioned.
The one thing I think is missing is where she decides to keep Paul prisoner instead of getting him the proper medical treatment he needed.
Was it just because she read that he killed off her beloved Misery?
This is the entire premise of the film. Perhaps it has been a while since you viewed. I have read the book twice as well.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(July 21, 2022 01:57 AM)
Yeah, I am pretty sure I saw it a few months ago and perhaps you can remind me of the following:
I forgot what the timing of things was.
Did she burn his manuscript before or after the roads were clear to get him to a hospital or call an ambulance for him?
If it was after and if there was a gap in time before she read it then why keep him there?
Since you read the book:
I thought I read somewhere that she cut off one of his feet?
That scene with breaking the ankles is so cringe!
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(July 21, 2022 05:13 AM)
Did she burn his manuscript before or after the roads were clear to get him to a hospital or call an ambulance for him?
She told him some of the roads were still blocked off when they weren't and phone lines were down, yet there was always access after the initial snow storm which caused his accident. This would have been obvious to Paul, because she was going into town for supplies at any rate. She didn't want him going anywhere regardless. He had to rewrite Misery back to life.
Even if he hadn't killed off Misery, Wilkes would have found some other excuse to keep him in her charge, as she was a psychotically obsessed fan. That was the main plot devise.
She burnt the manuscript of his new book, after she found out he had killed off Misery. She also wasn't satisfied with how he wrote her back to life initially.
That scene with breaking the ankles is so cringe!
In the novel, Annie hobbles him with an axe, chopping off one foot only and then cauterising it with a blow torch. The book is very intense in the depiction of Paul finding his way out of his room and then getting back to it when she comes home.
She also kills a cop with her sit on lawn mower by munching his face off with it. She just shoots him in the film.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
P.Error — 3 years ago(July 21, 2022 04:07 AM)
I can see what you're saying.
But I do think they played impeccably from each other. They had a chemistry. Caan was more grounded and Bates was more dark comedy but I think it worked for their dynamic.
Never lose your desire. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(July 21, 2022 04:11 AM)
Apparently, Bates was getting frustrated with Caan because she liked more rehearsals coming predominantly from the stage. Caan, was a get up and just do it in the moment instinctual actor.
Bates improved very quickly and she gave a terrific performance 5yrs later in King's
Dolores Claiborne
. With
Misery
, I find her lacking a certain chilling quality as Wilkes, that would have made her more believable. Too much superficial flip flop from one mood to the next.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
-
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(July 21, 2022 08:05 AM)
Bates was good fun but the character didn’t have an awful lot of range - she is much better as another King character, Dolores Claiborne a few years later.
Yes, I have recently mentioned that to another poster. The range could have been forthcoming though, had Reiner and Goldman taken a different approach to how they wanted to portray Wilkes. Bates needed to be edgier.
The film could still have been darkly humorous, but born naturally out of the situation, than a forced representation.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
BlablaBlackSheep — 2 years ago(September 13, 2023 01:29 AM)
The book feels a little more serious and darker. It really is a horror novel. The film is a nice Hitchcockian suspense thriller, but it does lack the sadism of the book. And is a tad goofy at times.
-
ToastedCheese — 2 years ago(September 13, 2023 11:20 AM)
The film bordered too much on satire and falls flat in spots.
The undertaking of representing King's intimate and claustrophobic tale kept tripping itself up. Reiner wanted to make it more mainstream and therefore was the wrong choice to direct.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Melton1 — 3 months ago(December 29, 2025 11:35 PM)
It’s a perfect film, and is better than the very good novel. Goldman nailed the screenplay, Reiner crushes the direction, keeping the focus on the actors (and rightly changing the foot amputation to an ankle smashing - something Goldman objected to but was totally won over by when he saw the finished piece)
Caan is perfect as Paul, and Bates is incredible as Annie. She deserved that award, and all the subsequent praise. -
ToastedCheese — 3 months ago(December 30, 2025 02:28 AM)
I have read the excellent novel twice. No film adaptation can be the novel. Sometimes they are better, sometimes they aren’t.
It is a very good film, with a technically erratic performance by Bates. It is too forced. While her character was erratic, her representation of Wilkes’s psychosis was not sublime or nuanced enough to be believable.
Check an earlier post I made about performance compares.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?