Misery (film) – 8th February 2012

I watched the film again last night. It’s very good. I’m not usually James Caan’s number one fan (ahem, sorry) but he did a great job in this and, of course, Kathy Bates was tremendous.
I also watched the accompanying featurette on the DVD from 2000-ish (I’m presuming that date as they were talking about Richard Farnsworth in the past tense) and there was Barry Sonnenfeld talking about how he used different lenses and, as his last job as cinematographer, before he went onto directing such gems as Wild Wild West, but even though the bit about using different lenses to match the tone of certain scenes was interesting, the film generally has the flat look of a TV movie. The more I think about it, the more I'd like to watch the film again with the director's commentary to see what in filmic terms went a good mile or so over my head as I did get the sense of it being filmed and staged with a very classic feel, I just haven't got that film school knowledge to provide adequate points of reference.

Rob Reiner also talked about the casting. I thought it was a nice touch that the relative fame levels of the characters was reflected in the choice of actors. I didn’t know that Kathy Bates was much more of a stage actor at the time but she certainly set out her stall for the film world with this one.

It’s a very faithful adaptation (obviously there are some alterations and omissions - but don't tell me you didn't wince at this version of hobbling too) and, from a fan perspective, that’s perfect, particularly as it’s underpinned by outstanding performances. One of the other things I liked is that the film did a lot of showing and not a lot of telling. It's nice to see that in a book adaptation.

Kathy Bates rules. After her awesome turn on Six Feet Under I'm still crushing on her like crazy. Her part on The Office was lovely too.

I know this post is a bit disjointed and cack, but if there's one thing I want to say it's that in a world where there are really only a handful of really good Stephen King film adaptations among buckets of shit, this is one of the very good ones.

The Tommyknockers: 6th Feb 2012

I don't know the first thing about this book and am not going to read the synopsis/'from the flap' info before I launch into it.  It's a rare thing for me to be able to go into a book without expectation or preconceived ideas of what to expect (other than those which come with reading a Stephen King novel, of course) and something I think worthwhile to maintain.

Expectations do influence our reading, right?  I'm not making this up.  Does anyone else think it's worthwhile to go into a book or a film etc. knowing as little as possible about it?

Misery: 31st January - 5th February

I absolutely loved Misery. Straight in there and relentlessly tense with barely a lull from beginning to end. Just what the doctor ordered.

I know I've said again and again that I prefer non-supernatural horror (and, again and again, raise the question of why I'm even reading King in the first place, but that's a discussion for another day - I'm sure I've talked about it in an earlier post but will no doubt come back to it again for another going over) and this book is right at the top of my reasons why. I was catapulted into Paul Sheldon's world and lived in the shadow of his fear for the whole 360 pages. If proof were needed that there’s no necessity for imaginary beasties to put the fear of god into a man, here’s our sweet little Annie, resplendently terrifying and unhinged enough to burn her afterimage on the mind’s eye in a similar way it does with Paul at the end of the book.


One of the other things I liked about Misery was the inside look on the writing process and also, at least by inference, King's own feelings towards his status (deserved just as much as perceived, surely) as a genre writer wanting to throw off the shackles of pigeon-holing.  While I’ve always seen his status as a really good writer to be self-evident in the books I’ve read, there are obviously those who don’t see any possible overlap in the Venn diagram of horror writer/good writer.  I was originally going to say that the only thing I didn’t like about the book, and it could have definitely done without, were the sections taken from the novel within the novel; Misery’s Return.  It has just occurred to me that here, King may have been displaying what real trash writing is and, by comparison with the book proper, the true quality of his horror writing is reflectively illuminated.  Maybe?  Probably not.

As I’ve seen the film, albeit many years ago, it was difficult to divorce the characters from the mental images of James Caan and Kathy Bates, even subconsciously.  That’s was no bad thing, though, as I remember being terrified by the film and am looking forward to seeing it again.

If you haven’t read Misery yet, it’s about time you did.

Are you kidding me...?

I know the film/mini-series got some stick but this is terrifying!