|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Oct 27, 2019 23:02:53 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. What is OTT? Thanx in advance. It stands for “over the top”. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 28, 2019 1:06:59 GMT
Exactamundo Mr. Dirty! Yet some posters on here think it was the best thing since sliced bread for some reason. I don't want to undermine their enjoyment factor regarding her performance, and I like it too, it just don't feel it is and never will be a great psycho performance compared to other similar female psycho roles. It was too obvious and mannered to be brilliant. There is some kind of wink and nod complicity going on with people who claim that Bates gave an excellent performance in "Misery". Even from the get go, the character wasn't exactly scary. There was something pre-fab about the whole thing. Like the filmmakers knew ahead of time the direction the film & character could go in. Even the "infamous" hobbling scene was just a splash of horror. Even the Oscar win seemed pat. Of course, Bates did not give a bad performance. Maybe she knew what kind of performance would win her the Oscar. Can't say. Also, I think it should be taken into consideration that Rob Reiner directed the movie and he seems like he would be a crowd pleasing type director. There is no depth in the movie at all. It's a fun, attention-grabbing little crowd pleaser. Nothing more. The poster stating that Annie Wilkes was multi-dimensional, I just don't know. We must have seen two different movies. Annie Wilkes is about as one-dimensional as it gets. If there is anything engaging here, it is Kathy Bates' basic likability. But nothing scary at all. How can anybody be scared by a woman who circles the room, flaring her nostrils and snorting like a pig? Even her death scene was a caricature.Dolores Claiborne, on the other hand, has depth and poignancy, as a character and a movie. How could anybody NOT find her situation to be deeply sad and troubling? Everything Dolores did, she did her daughter - even risked her daughter hating her as a consequence. And Dolores had nobody on her side, except maybe half way Vera Donovan. And you could feel the toll that life has taken as a result. Bates was very, very good. And the scene at the bank was heartbreaking. Spot on Mr. D and well expressed with your insightful prose. Everything about Bates's performance in Misery would have been uber-rehearsed and preempted before filming. This is so very obvious and those that can't see this and make it out to be something that its not, I can't put it any other way, but to state they are being shallow. This includes the Academy for awarding the Oscar to her, and wanting to win favor and sensational hype because it was from a thriller\horror film. They would have had more credibility if they had done this a few years earlier with Close in FA.
Like you stated, it was a caricature of a deeply disturbed mentally ill woman and she didn't exactly come across as real as she could have. The book didn't parody Wilkes and Reiner made the film more palatable and easy going due to the disturbing subject matter. In the process he lost some essence of believability and that includes the characterization of Bates. For this reason, I perhaps find Bates's in Misery more entertaining than I should. I loved to hate Close in FA, yet I also pitied her due to the sympathy Close elicited. I hated on Bates and then laughed at her for the wrong reasons.
While Dolores wasn't a psycho and her reason for killing was in a sense justified, she was stunningly brought to life by Bates. I say Bates had learned a lot in the interim of 5yrs between Misery and DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 28, 2019 8:13:15 GMT
There is some kind of wink and nod complicity going on with people who claim that Bates gave an excellent performance in "Misery". Even from the get go, the character wasn't exactly scary. There was something pre-fab about the whole thing. Like the filmmakers knew ahead of time the direction the film & character could go in. Even the "infamous" hobbling scene was just a splash of horror. Even the Oscar win seemed pat. Of course, Bates did not give a bad performance. Maybe she knew what kind of performance would win her the Oscar. Can't say. Also, I think it should be taken into consideration that Rob Reiner directed the movie and he seems like he would be a crowd pleasing type director. There is no depth in the movie at all. It's a fun, attention-grabbing little crowd pleaser. Nothing more. The poster stating that Annie Wilkes was multi-dimensional, I just don't know. We must have seen two different movies. Annie Wilkes is about as one-dimensional as it gets. If there is anything engaging here, it is Kathy Bates' basic likability. But nothing scary at all. How can anybody be scared by a woman who circles the room, flaring her nostrils and snorting like a pig? Even her death scene was a caricature.Dolores Claiborne, on the other hand, has depth and poignancy, as a character and a movie. How could anybody NOT find her situation to be deeply sad and troubling? Everything Dolores did, she did her daughter - even risked her daughter hating her as a consequence. And Dolores had nobody on her side, except maybe half way Vera Donovan. And you could feel the toll that life has taken as a result. Bates was very, very good. And the scene at the bank was heartbreaking. Spot on Mr. D and well expressed with your insightful prose. Everything about Bates's performance in Misery would have been uber-rehearsed and preempted before filming. This is so very obvious and those that can't see this and make it out to be something that its not, I can't put it any other way, but to state they are being shallow. This includes the Academy for awarding the Oscar to her, and wanting to win favor and sensational hype because it was from a thriller\horror film. They would have had more credibility if they had done this a few years earlier with Close in FA.
Like you stated, it was a caricature of a deeply disturbed mentally ill woman and she didn't exactly come across as real as she could have. The book didn't parody Wilkes and Reiner made the film more palatable and easy going due to the disturbing subject matter. In the process he lost some essence of believability and that includes the characterization of Bates. For this reason, I perhaps find Bates's in Misery more entertaining than I should. I loved to hate Close in FA, yet I also pitied her due to the sympathy Close elicited. I hated on Bates and then laughed at her for the wrong reasons.
While Dolores wasn't a psycho and her reason for killing was in a sense justified, she was stunningly brought to life by Bates. I say Bates had learned a lot in the interim of 5yrs between Misery and DC. LOL! Yes, she was kinda funny and I'm not sure if it was even at Baby Jane-level of funny. Oh, but as far as your observation regarding Bates' growth as an actress over five year span. Have you ever seen "Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean"? Because Kathy Bates' performance is about as broad as you can get. She pretty much belches her way through it. Maybe Bates is just not a subtle actress to begin with. lol Though if there is such a thing as an actresses' movie, then surely this one is a final contender, with KB and Cher and Karen Black and Sandy Dennis acting their guts out. Marta Heflin was very good, too. Sudie Bond was okay as the Bible thumper. And the one male character was also the protagonist from "Nightmare On Elm Street, Part 2" with the gorgeous best friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 28, 2019 9:34:39 GMT
Spot on Mr. D and well expressed with your insightful prose. Everything about Bates's performance in Misery would have been uber-rehearsed and preempted before filming. This is so very obvious and those that can't see this and make it out to be something that its not, I can't put it any other way, but to state they are being shallow. This includes the Academy for awarding the Oscar to her, and wanting to win favor and sensational hype because it was from a thriller\horror film. They would have had more credibility if they had done this a few years earlier with Close in FA.
Like you stated, it was a caricature of a deeply disturbed mentally ill woman and she didn't exactly come across as real as she could have. The book didn't parody Wilkes and Reiner made the film more palatable and easy going due to the disturbing subject matter. In the process he lost some essence of believability and that includes the characterization of Bates. For this reason, I perhaps find Bates's in Misery more entertaining than I should. I loved to hate Close in FA, yet I also pitied her due to the sympathy Close elicited. I hated on Bates and then laughed at her for the wrong reasons.
While Dolores wasn't a psycho and her reason for killing was in a sense justified, she was stunningly brought to life by Bates. I say Bates had learned a lot in the interim of 5yrs between Misery and DC. LOL! Yes, she was kinda funny and I'm not sure if it was even at Baby Jane-level of funny. Oh, but as far as your observation regarding Bates' growth as an actress over five year span. Have you ever seen "Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean"? Because Kathy Bates' performance is about as broad as you can get. She pretty much belches her way through it. Maybe Bates is just not a subtle actress to begin with. lol Though if there is such a thing as an actresses' movie, then surely this one is a final contender, with KB and Cher and Karen Black and Sandy Dennis acting their guts out. Marta Heflin was very good, too. Sudie Bond was okay as the Bible thumper. And the one male character was also the protagonist from "Nightmare On Elm Street, Part 2" with the gorgeous best friend. I forgot Bates is in ...Jimmy Dean. I have it on vhs, but has been yonks since I last viewed. I think it is on youtube as well. She was more of a stage queen prior to Misery and that is perhaps why she might appear to be talking at us, rather than too us. I do like Bates and she got better, but like her size, I'd say that she would have a very broad personality. She has been great in the 3 seasons of AHS that I have watched her in. She can't but help her presence be known. She played one of the most vilest and despicable characters I have ever seen in a movie or series in AHS Coven season 3. I would even say she would likely take the pip for being the most vilest and despicable villain filmed, but she does pull it off remarkably well.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 28, 2019 21:03:15 GMT
LOL! Yes, she was kinda funny and I'm not sure if it was even at Baby Jane-level of funny. Oh, but as far as your observation regarding Bates' growth as an actress over five year span. Have you ever seen "Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean"? Because Kathy Bates' performance is about as broad as you can get. She pretty much belches her way through it. Maybe Bates is just not a subtle actress to begin with. lol Though if there is such a thing as an actresses' movie, then surely this one is a final contender, with KB and Cher and Karen Black and Sandy Dennis acting their guts out. Marta Heflin was very good, too. Sudie Bond was okay as the Bible thumper. And the one male character was also the protagonist from "Nightmare On Elm Street, Part 2" with the gorgeous best friend. I forgot Bates is in ...Jimmy Dean. I have it on vhs, but has been yonks since I last viewed. I think it is on youtube as well. She was more of a stage queen prior to Misery and that is perhaps why she might appear to be talking at us, rather than too us. I do like Bates and she got better, but like her size, I'd say that she would have a very broad personality. She has been great in the 3 seasons of AHS that I have watched her in. She can't but help her presence be known. She played one of the most vilest and despicable characters I have ever seen in a movie or series in AHS Coven season 3. I would even say she would likely take the pip for being the most vilest and despicable villain filmed, but she does pull it off remarkably well.
I checked out a five minute clip of AHS on youtube. I have never watched the show before. And to be honest, now I know why. It's too dark and gruesome. I love my horror, but I also like my horror to have the grace (if that's the right word) of levity. I never want my horror to be ostensibly realistic. Of course, then it's hard to account for my immense admiration for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but that movie really had very little blood in it. But I just don't like the Hostel movies or the Saw movies and there were some French horror movies that were just repellent, like "High Tension" and "Insides". There's just this kind of cruelty or unforgivingness in the newer onslaught of horror film that I cannot stomach. Looking back on it, the original "Friday the 13th" is a walk in the park. The new horror movies are like "Passion of Joan of Arc", but with as much blood and gore added on screen as possible. There's also something claustrophobic about the new horror. I guess I am a wimp here! But, yes, Bates did look to be a very effective villain from what I saw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 28, 2019 22:26:11 GMT
I forgot Bates is in ...Jimmy Dean. I have it on vhs, but has been yonks since I last viewed. I think it is on youtube as well. She was more of a stage queen prior to Misery and that is perhaps why she might appear to be talking at us, rather than too us. I do like Bates and she got better, but like her size, I'd say that she would have a very broad personality. She has been great in the 3 seasons of AHS that I have watched her in. She can't but help her presence be known. She played one of the most vilest and despicable characters I have ever seen in a movie or series in AHS Coven season 3. I would even say she would likely take the pip for being the most vilest and despicable villain filmed, but she does pull it off remarkably well.
I checked out a five minute clip of AHS on youtube. I have never watched the show before. And to be honest, now I know why. It's too dark and gruesome. I love my horror, but I also like my horror to have the grace (if that's the right word) of levity. I never want my horror to be ostensibly realistic. Of course, then it's hard to account for my immense admiration for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but that movie really had very little blood in it. But I just don't like the Hostel movies or the Saw movies and there were some French horror movies that were just repellent, like "High Tension" and "Insides". There's just this kind of cruelty or unforgivingness in the newer onslaught of horror film that I cannot stomach. Looking back on it, the original "Friday the 13th" is a walk in the park. The new horror movies are like "Passion of Joan of Arc", but with as much blood and gore added on screen as possible. There's also something claustrophobic about the new horror. I guess I am a wimp here! But, yes, Bates did look to be a very effective villain from what I saw. I actually find the series also very black and tongue in cheek, even if it borders on sadism. It has taken all that has come before it and reinvented it with plenty of style and skill. They are not scary by any means, uses shock value for its thrills, the plots can be convoluted, but the quality of the cast and the twists and turns with the plots keep me enthralled, as a good t.v series should. I loved AHS Hotel series 5, and I thought I wouldn't because Jessica Lange didn't return. It is designed like a cross between The Shining and The Hunger. Just loved it and so full of sexiness as well. The show bares all and doesn't leave a stone unturned.
|
|
