Caan was better than Bates
-
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? -
Cheeky — 2 months ago(January 08, 2026 06:30 AM)
Bates recently said that being in Misery changed the trajectory of her life
Rob Reiner casting her gave her recognition and it's why we know her today
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana -
ToastedCheese — 2 months ago(January 08, 2026 07:07 AM)
Yes, it put her on radar and the acclaim she got did nothing but boost her career.
Actors that win Oscars can usually find it difficult to live up to the hype, especially newcomers. Bates just got better and better.
1989 & 1990 weren’t exceptional years for leading ladies. Any other year, Bates may have not been victorious. The following year was very strong 1991.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?
