Very disappointing .. if you read the book

His injuries in the book were worse. He had a crushed pelvis, too. He couldn't go long without the Novril without being in terrible pain. In the movie he can afford to sacrifice his pills to hide under his mattress. In the book he'd never be able to do that. He became hooked on Novril.

The book feels different because it's all told from Paul's perspective. It never leaves Annie's house. It barely leaves Paul's bedroom. The only parts I am glad they left out were the excerpts from the new Misery book Paul was writing for Annie.

I had the same problem with The Godfather.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, adding gore into the film in unnecessary. Psycho is a classic without gore. Same with Silence of the Lambs. Gore is unnecessary when the story works so well. The scene with the hobbling is especially horrifying. That's different than the book but it's more effective on screen.

We don't need to know that Paul was addicted to Novril. It adds nothing to the movie. Similarly, we don't need to know about her black-outs, obsessive eating, and the animals. The film is terrific. I suggest you watch it again in about a year once you've let it settle down in your mind. You'll realize that this is a fantastic adaptation.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

I hated the book.
While there was a little more background given on Annie (but a disturbing lack of it even there!), it was too grisly. Not enough suspense.
The film certainly provides that. The book is just one injury to Paul after another, the film at least tells a story along with it.


"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

I agree that the Novril addiction was something that should have been included in the film, in which Paul was much more lucid.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.

I read the book long after I saw the film and I have to say, I prefer the book. the film was brilliant, Kathy Bates played Annie Brilliantly. As you said, they missed the pain killer addiction, I liked that because it made Paul more dependant on Annie, I think she knew it would happen so she could hold him longer.

"Misery" may very well be Stephen King's best book, and any movie version would be considerably less than that work, but this is a fine adaptation...and Kathy Bates was perfect in the role.

Totally agree with you walpen87.


I read the book a couple weeks ago, then saw the movie shortly after. Oh man, it was so terrible.

The only Stephen King movie that is really awesome with following the original storyline is "The Mist" - minus the twist ending, which I personally thought was refreshing.

Not really, I loved both the book and the movie. Realistically, Directors have aa tough time turning a great book into a great movie. Things are going to be left out, put in and this movie's case reworked.

I loved the book, but I found a lot of the violence overly gruesome (when he got histhumbs cut off especially seemed like violence for the sake of violence to me) for no other reason outside of ''Annie is crazy''
Kathy Bates and the screenplay allow Annie to be a more belivable and intelligent woman. She seems naive but really is cut throat and sneaky.

There are scenes i would've liked to have seen as well, but for what the film is, I have to say it's pretty fantastic in it's own right. The Director got the perfect balance of the book and his own style.