It might seem preposterous that Rob Reiner and William Goldman, the director and writer (respectively) who made The Princess Bride, would reteam to adapt Stephen King's Misery for the screen. It might seem even more preposterous that I had never seen the movie. Yet both are true. Well... the latter no longer.Of course, it's not possible to come at a movie this much in the zeitgeist (full of catch phrases and notorious scenes) with a fresh perspective or expectations. What's more, I actually read the original book many years ago. It was one of a handful of Stephen King books I once tried, as I do about every three years or so. (After which, when I reveal that I didn't think it was particularly good -- or bad -- to a fan, said fan replies immediately that I didn't really read one of King's "best" books.)
But I think in this case, that background was a very helpful thing. Because I think Misery was a far better movie than a book. From my recollection of the book, Stephen King got a little too bogged down in the premise of a writer being terrorized by a crazed fan. The movie wisely refocused on a victim being terrorized by a crazy person.
King spends huge chunks of the book writing about things that obviously "scare" him -- being a writer worried about his reputation, about churning out mass market work when he really wants to try "something different"; having unreasonable fans that prevent him from doing the work he really wants to do, forcing him to write things he doesn't want to. Newsflash, Mr. King: most of your readers don't know what that's like. Perhaps some aspiring writers dream of being so lucky as to have such problems, but these woes are completely unrelatable to your audience.
The movie does include one or two choice scenes of the relationship between writer and fan. But mostly, it keeps things far more visceral and accessible. What if you were utterly helpless, and in the "care" of an unstable lunatic? Well... now we're talking!
Except that the movie introduces a few weird problems of its own. In order to expand the cast from a simple two-hand piece of theater, the movie adds a character of an old sheriff and his wife. And while the two are moderately entertaining to watch (and well played by Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen), they don't really service the story at all. The leaps in logic that clue the sheriff into what's really going on strain credibility. And then, after an entire subplot spent following his investigation... he doesn't save the day. The point of all that then being...?
But fortunately, the movie still rests mostly in the hands of two characters, and both Kathy Bates and James Caan are excellent in their roles. Bates won the Oscar for this, and deservedly so, because she somehow makes dialogue that's just this side of laughably stupid on the page seem truly menacing on the screen. Less praised, but just as good, is Caan -- all the stronger, in my mind, for playing so against his type. Aside from that unfortunate stop at a toll booth in The Godfather, Caan's characters have often been strong, head-bashing type toughs. But in Misery, he is weak and vulnerable almost from beginning to end.
It's not a perfect movie, but a very good one. And, I think, the best adaptation I could imagine of the original material. I rate it a B.
That wacky writer Charlie Kaufman, the man behind Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, is at it again. I recently saw his newest film, "Synecdoche, New York." The movie stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as a director with an unraveling family life who receives a grant to embark on a great new piece of theater -- a warehouse in New York City in which actors play everyone in New York City in a giant recreation of the city itself.
Having recently had luck watching Alfred Hitchcock's
Denver is buried under more than a foot of snow tonight -- our first credible snowfall all winter actually. It was a great day to not go outside, so I stayed at home today and watched a bunch of movies. Unfortunately, I can't say that most of them were good movies.
This afternoon, I saw the new comedy "I Love You, Man." It stars Paul Rudd as a newly engaged man who, having found the woman he wants to spend his life with, embarks on a quest to find a "bro" the fill the best friend (and best man) void in his life.
I recently watched the long-titled film, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. A Western from a few years ago starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck in the two title roles, I reckon you can guess the subject matter.
I recently watched Network, the 1976 movie that made "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!" famous. One of the movies many people will say "you must see," I decided to cross it off the list.
In my recent efforts to see a bunch of well-known movies I've somehow missed, I watched Caddyshack the other night. I'd actually caught parts of the movie here and there on the many, many occasions it's been shown on television -- a scene here, a scene there. But I'd never sat and watched the movie all the way through.
Comic fans, you may want to just turn back now, because I'm about to take a massive dump on something many of you hold nigh-sacred.
Continuing to work my ways through "movies I've been told I should see," I recently watched Fatal Attraction. While I'd by no means been promised a classic along the lines of
I've now heard "you mean you've never seen Psycho?!" for the last time. Yes, somehow, incredibly, a film nut like me had managed to come this far having never seen the classic Alfred Hitchcock thriller. But I rectified that oversight yesterday.