MovieChat Forums > Misery (1990) Discussion > Very disappointing .. if you read the bo...

Very disappointing .. if you read the book

posted 12 years ago by walpen87
53 replies | jump to latest

They left out so many good scenes.

In the book I could really feel the hate against annie and all the suffering and pain. But it isnt that bad in the movie. Just a little bit worse than a real hospital. Even his legs heal pretty well.

And they left out the whole painkiller addiction thing .. all the gore-scenes (never leave them out .. it could make your film to an all time classic) .. Annies black-outs .. eating orgy .. the punishments (she just dropped some papers on his lap .. oh no x) .. killing of the cops .. the negligence of her animals ..

All this little things would have created a great atmosphere.
As a viewer I have the impression that Paul writes this book in just a couple of hard weeks. They didnt catch the time very well.

Maybe the movies isnt that bad .. but if read the book just a week before, you will have a bad time :D

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Faridah (1363) 7 years ago

I just finished the book and wow it was amazing! I just started the movie. I wouldn't say the movie is disappointing. Movies often leave things out and change them.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 7 years ago

I loved both - in fact, I like to think of the movie as existing within the universe of the book

In the book, Paul considers but rejects the notion of writing about his time with Annie, fearing that he won't be honest, and will make himself too strong. Then the movie comes along, starring James Caan as Paul.

Besides that, I thought it was genius of Goldman and Reiner to toughen-up Paul and tone-down Annie, because it brought a lot more uncertainty and tension into their struggle with each other.

The only sequence I truly missed was the end of the novel, where it's suggested for a time that Annie might've escaped and still be at large. But again, the sequence they did show (where Paul imagines Annie as a waitress) fit with Paul-as-James-Caan.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77566) 7 years ago

Very good analysis of a fine tale from both page and screen
I loved 'em both myself!

[–] Kawada_Kira (7282) 6 years ago

I just finished reading the book for the first time, and I can say I'm amazed how much darker and scarier it is than the movie. The movie is pretty scary, but it's dwarfed by the book. The book is a whole other world of darkness. I still can't say the movie is a disappointment though. It's still a great movie. Just not as great as the book.

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

Sometimes authors drone on and on, dragging the story out longer than it needs to be.

========

This is how I felt about Misery. I'm a reader, and I love books, but Stephen King has a tendency to do that. He's hit-or-miss.

I had a hard time getting through reading Misery. I kept thinking, 'Get ON with it.' I read it when it was first published.

I thought the movie was a big improvement. I wouldn't want to watch a four hour adaptation of Misery. I saw how that went with the TV remake of The Shining.

[–] Kurt (189) 5 years ago

I totally agree, unlike many people here, I think the movie is vastly superior to the book. I used to be an avid King reader (but not his biggest fan ;-) and I don't find Misery the book that good. The movie really works as a movie; if they had included all the gore, it would become like last house on the left and other slasher movies, except four hours long. Instead they made it more psychological and a lot more suspenseful. A direct adaptation would have been difficult to take seriously, to me it would've been campy, but instead the movie feels realistic, like "this could really happen in real life".

Someone mentioned Pet Sematary - it's the opposite case of this, a book with a great deal of atmosphere made into a campy slasher movie - in that case the book is extremely vastly superior. Not all books work as movies, but Misery does, not because what it kept from the book, but because of what it changed.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Never read the book. I thought it was a great movie though. Casting was great, not sure how someone can consider the movie terrible, when the acting was top notch. Even Caan´s performance is underrated. He could have been alot more over the top, but it was the subtlety which made it more believable.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

The book was one of my favorite reads - I went back to it many times over the years

And the movie remains one of my favorites as well.

Here are two things I noticed:

The hobbling was more horrible in the movie, because it seemed closer to reality - hacking off a limb is actually passé in film; I suspect many viewers react to extreme movie gore with some detachment. I certainly do. Meanwhile, in the film, you get Annie's immortal, "just one more" while the audience is still reeling from the first ankle-break. I've seen many horror and suspense films in theaters, and that hobbling scene got the hugest reaction I've ever experienced to date. (Thor's appearance in Wakanda being a close second)

Paul and Annie aren't the book characters. Paul is much stronger (heck he's James Caan f'cryin' out loud) and Annie is much weaker than their book counterparts. This (a) hugely changes the dynamic between them and (b) makes the narrative more unpredictable. I thought it was a brilliant way to make up for things the movie could never portray, like all of Paul's internal dialogue.

On that note, in the book, Paul considers writing about his experience with Annie, not to make a buck but because he can't help it. He's compelled to tell stories by his very nature. Movie-Paul was too James-Caan-ish to be credibly enslaved by his talent. But I digress.

Book-Paul realizes that, if he tried to write about his experience, he'd be tempted to make himself look stronger.

Get it?

Movie-Paul is how Book-Paul would've portrayed himself!

Heck, you're the hero of your own tale, why not write the role for James Caan? Austin Powers got Tom Cruise, after all, and Pee-Wee Herman got James Brolin. Sorta makes sense, and brings the novel and movie into alignment.