|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 1, 2019 11:28:18 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed.
Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do.
I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Aug 1, 2019 14:28:15 GMT
I thought she was brilliant. Okay, maybe the outbursts from her can be a little OTT but it works within the context of the movie. Stephen King’s stories are usually surreal even if they are meant to be grounded in reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 1, 2019 14:40:30 GMT
Misery is an OTT horror/thriller.
Fatal Attraction is not.
Both performances are equally great in context with the movies they are in. Misery isn't concerned with why she is like she is, the movie is concerned with only James Caan's character's reaction to the situation he is in.
I personally think her performance is terrifying exactly because there is less nuance.
Dolores Claiborne is a psychological drama from the perspective of her character. Of course that performance requires more layers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 17:43:44 GMT
I have never liked the novel.
And I didn't like the film, either.
I have never seen Dolores Claiborne but many people say it is one of the best King adaptations.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Aug 1, 2019 18:30:36 GMT
Best Stephen King movie. I can't imagine anyone other than Kathy Bates in the role. It was perfect for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Aug 1, 2019 19:29:42 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. This is what makes the Oscars bogus. It is nothing more than an opinion of a popularity contest. I find sports championships are a hell of a lot more well earned since that takes a lot more harder work and dedication than it does to "win" an Oscar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honolulu on Aug 1, 2019 21:59:08 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. In my very humble opinion, Kathy's performance as Annie Wilks is one of the best performances from an American actor ever filmed. |
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Aug 1, 2019 22:15:31 GMT
I thought Kathy Bates' performance in Misery was very good, but I thought her acting in Dolores Claiborne was on another level, her best performance, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Aug 1, 2019 22:18:11 GMT
I think Bates is among the best actors working today. But I try not to put too much stock in the Oscars because I've also frequently disagreed with them. One of my favorite Bates performances is from At Play in the Fields of the Lord. She plays a woman who descends into madness after a traumatic experience. The trouble with that film is it's hard to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 1, 2019 23:11:01 GMT
Best Stephen King movie. I can't imagine anyone other than Kathy Bates in the role. It was perfect for her. I would have been interesting to see Better Midler, who turned it down due to the violent content and apparently something she now regrets. Bates is excellent, I just feel I have seen better performances about psycho women in comparison, regardless of the tone of the film.
Apparently, Angelica Huston was also considered to play but due to scheduling conflicts with The Grifters, she was unable to do it. Huston was also nominated for her film and was Bates's strong competition and she gave the performance I feel was more Oscar worthy. Her Lily contains all the traits and layers that was lacking in some of Bates characterization, and while Lily is not someone you would really care to encounter either, I found myself more invested in her character and wanted to know more about her and found her so much more believable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 1, 2019 23:17:34 GMT
Re-watched this the other day. Haven't seen for ages and this was the first time on dvd. I have read the book, twice I think and I enjoyed the film and have the several other times I viewed. Bates won an Oscar for her psychotic performance here. The thing is though, and as much as I like Bates as an actress, I don't think she was Oscar worthy here for a performance of a crazy person, that I didn't exactly find convincing. It comes across as more parody\caricature with a winking nod to the audience, rather than real dimensional woman who has serious psychological issues and was very dangerous. I wasn't getting much of a hint of her psychosis bubbling underneath her calmer exterior and she just transitioned to random snapping and yelling, like she was just having a hissy fit tantrum that had no layers or nuance behind her disorder, whatever it was. Glenn Close was so much more convincing in Fatal Attraction - 87' and was more worthy of an Oscar, which I believed she should have won at the time and still do. I have seen Bates better and while she wasn't playing a crazy person, she gave it her all in King's Dolores Claiborne 5yrs later and her performance contained all the layers and nuances that her Annie Wilkes could have benefited from. In my very humble opinion, Kathy's performance as Annie Wilks is one of the best performances from an American actor ever filmed. How do you gauge this? That is a very bold comment to make.
I am only considering her performance in terms of perhaps other similar roles played, that fact that it was deemed Oscar worthy for that specific year and I have just commented to another poster about one of her competition's performances which I feel was technically more deserving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 1, 2019 23:18:15 GMT
I think Bates is among the best actors working today. But I try not to put too much stock in the Oscars because I've also frequently disagreed with them. One of my favorite Bates performances is from At Play in the Fields of the Lord. She plays a woman who descends into madness after a traumatic experience. The trouble with that film is it's hard to get. Yes, I need to see this film. Saw the trailer for it a couple of months ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 1, 2019 23:22:45 GMT
Misery is an OTT horror/thriller. Fatal Attraction is not. Both performances are equally great in context with the movies they are in. Misery isn't concerned with why she is like she is, the movie is concerned with only James Caan's character's reaction to the situation he is in.I personally think her performance is terrifying exactly because there is less nuance. Dolores Claiborne is a psychological drama from the perspective of her character. Of course that performance requires more layers. Those are not the movies concerns and since Bates won an Oscar, it is also praising her and in a sense hyping her performance to the centerpiece of the story. My main point is that I did not find her totally convincing due to a lack of nuance and it shouldn't matter what the tonal emphasis of the film is.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 1, 2019 23:51:33 GMT
Misery is an OTT horror/thriller. Fatal Attraction is not. Both performances are equally great in context with the movies they are in. Misery isn't concerned with why she is like she is, the movie is concerned with only James Caan's character's reaction to the situation he is in.I personally think her performance is terrifying exactly because there is less nuance. Dolores Claiborne is a psychological drama from the perspective of her character. Of course that performance requires more layers. Those are not the movies concerns and since Bates won an Oscar, it is also praising her and in a sense hyping her performance to the centerpiece of the story. My main point is that I did not find her totally convincing due to a lack of nuance and it shouldn't matter what the tonal emphasis of the film is. I meant that the main draw of the movie for me is being in his horrible situation because of some crazy fan. Of course there is more to it than that, but that is the main reason I like the movie is because it feels like a nightmare with a monster figure. I will admit that my memory is a bit fuzzy when it comes to the writing, but I have always found her performance 100% convincing and it is actually the main reason I like the movie as much as I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 0:04:02 GMT
Those are not the movies concerns and since Bates won an Oscar, it is also praising her and in a sense hyping her performance to the centerpiece of the story. My main point is that I did not find her totally convincing due to a lack of nuance and it shouldn't matter what the tonal emphasis of the film is. I meant that the main draw of the movie for me is being in his horrible situation because of some crazy fan. Of course there is more to it than that, but that is the main reason I like the movie is because it feels like a nightmare with a monster figure. Maybe I should just say that I find her performance 100% convincing and I watch the movie from a different angle than you. I don't really want realism in a movie like this. I think she gives one of the scariest performances ever in a movie and I completely support her Oscar win. I think Misery is a good solid little psycho thriller, but nothing overly exceptional. The book is better and the film doesn't have to be totally realistic and I feel most of the scenario is feasible, but performance can be everything.
Bates wasn't on the radar when this film was made and having a predominant stage background, I feel she bought some of this stage acting technique to her role. She wasn't completely comfortable, or that is the impression I get.
She certainly got better and she has been better and while I don't totally begrudge her winning due to her talent, I cannot completely support it either due to what I have already commented. If her performance was to be fully broken down and comprehensively studied, I'd say it is more than likely it wouldn't be deemed 100% convincing.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 0:07:34 GMT
In my very humble opinion, Kathy's performance as Annie Wilks is one of the best performances from an American actor ever filmed. How do you gauge this? That is a very bold comment to make.
I am only considering her performance in terms of perhaps other similar roles played, that fact that it was deemed Oscar worthy for that specific year and I have just commented to another poster about one of her competition's performances which I feel was technically more deserving.
Not really, unless that user is trying to make some kind of objective statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 0:16:16 GMT
I meant that the main draw of the movie for me is being in his horrible situation because of some crazy fan. Of course there is more to it than that, but that is the main reason I like the movie is because it feels like a nightmare with a monster figure. Maybe I should just say that I find her performance 100% convincing and I watch the movie from a different angle than you. I don't really want realism in a movie like this. I think she gives one of the scariest performances ever in a movie and I completely support her Oscar win. I think Misery is a good solid little psycho thriller, but nothing overly exceptional. The book is better and the film doesn't have to be totally realistic and I feel most of the scenario is feasible, but performance can be everything.
Bates wasn't on the radar when this film was made and having a predominant stage background, I feel she bought some of this stage acting technique to her role. She wasn't completely comfortable, or that is the impression I get.
She certainly got better and she has been better and while I don't totally begrudge her winning due to her talent, I cannot completely support it either due to what I have already commented. If her performance was to be fully broken down and comprehensively studied, I'd say it is more than likely it wouldn't be deemed 100% convincing.
I don't know how that could be calculated. One person could break it down and find fault and another person could break it down and find it even more brilliant than before. It is like when 2 equally intelligent people watch the same movie and one finds the movie great and the other doesn't. How can you ever determine who is correct or if there even in such a thing when it comes to most movies?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 0:19:39 GMT
How do you gauge this? That is a very bold comment to make.
I am only considering her performance in terms of perhaps other similar roles played, that fact that it was deemed Oscar worthy for that specific year and I have just commented to another poster about one of her competition's performances which I feel was technically more deserving.
Not really, unless that user is trying to make some kind of objective statement. Well, best let the poster answer, because it is a subjective take. There are many factors to put into play, if it is deemed one of the best American performances ever. To make a random embellished statement, it would have to be backed up, especially considering the myriad of great American performances.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2019 0:27:42 GMT
Not really, unless that user is trying to make some kind of objective statement. Well, best let the poster answer, because it is a subjective take. There are many factors to put into play, if it is deemed one of the best American performances ever. To make a random embellished statement, it would have to be backed up, especially considering the myriad of great American performances. I am just stating what I would mean if I were to casually say something like that. I would basically just be saying that it is one of my favorite performances. You have to remember that most people aren't film scholars who understand how to properly break down a movie or every aspect of a movie, not even the Academy. And even when you do have people who are extremely intelligent in studying film, there will still be disagreements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 2, 2019 0:29:13 GMT
I think Misery is a good solid little psycho thriller, but nothing overly exceptional. The book is better and the film doesn't have to be totally realistic and I feel most of the scenario is feasible, but performance can be everything.
Bates wasn't on the radar when this film was made and having a predominant stage background, I feel she bought some of this stage acting technique to her role. She wasn't completely comfortable, or that is the impression I get.
She certainly got better and she has been better and while I don't totally begrudge her winning due to her talent, I cannot completely support it either due to what I have already commented. If her performance was to be fully broken down and comprehensively studied, I'd say it is more than likely it wouldn't be deemed 100% convincing.
I don't know how that could be calculated. One person could break it down and find fault and another person could break it down and find it even more brilliant than before. It is like when 2 equally intelligent people watch the same movie and one finds the movie great and the other doesn't. How can you ever determine who is correct or if there even in such a thing when it comes to most movies? It can't be absolute, but there is also the actors technique and natural ability to convince the audience and make the character a real and believable person that is convincing.
Bates failed largely in giving her Annie Wilkes some subtle insight and sympathetic factor. Close was able to do this in FA. It was more of a showy on the facade performance and if it was to be evaluated, compared to other similar roles, compared to her other performances, I really don't see her Annie coming out a winner here.
Enjoy the performance and movie for what you get out of it, because I am not quibbling it isn't an excellent turn for Bates, but there is nothing brilliant about it.
|
|
