Showing posts with label Kathy Bates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathy Bates. Show all posts

Friday, 3 June 2022

Misery (5 Stars)


This is a film I've been unfairly ignoring for the last ten years, maybe longer. After watching it today I decided that it deserves a place in my top 100 films. I have a new list that differs from the list that I posted in September last year. I call it a rolling top 100, because I'll dynamically update it every time I change my mind about a film. My new list is in an Excel spreadsheet, but I still need to figure out a way to easily import it to my blog. 

James Caan plays Paul Sheldon, the author of a series of books about Misery Chastain, a woman who lived in the late 19th Century. It's not explicitly stated where she lives, but there are clues that it must be in Europe, probably England. Paul crashes his car in a snowstorm shortly after finishing his first novel that isn't about Misery. He's saved by a former nurse, Annie Wilkes, who lives on a remote farm. As the days go by he realises that he's Annie's prisoner. She loves him, but her love is mingled with obsession, and she wants to keep him close to her at all costs.


Kathy Bates' performance won an Oscar in 1991 as Best Actress. It was well deserved. She slips seamlessly from romance to mania and back as the film progresses. She's a wonderful actress. This is a film that deserves to be watched more often.

Success Rate:  + 1.1

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 27 January 2021

Titanic (5 Stars)



Today I thought Oliver would watch his second film. He picked "Madagascar 3" from Netflix. He sat fascinated for the first 72 minutes. Then there was a quiet scene. The characters were standing in the zoo talking to one another. That was too much for him. He turned the film off, even though I begged him to watch it till the end. It was only another 20 minutes. It was too much for him. He watched some silly little cartoon instead. It was called Trotro, something I've never seen before. Oh well. Maybe he'll find the patience to watch another film soon.

Soon he went to bed, so I turned to the next film in my top 100, "Titanic". It's a brilliant film. I don't know why I don't watch it more often. Maybe it's the length. I've noticed that I'm reluctant to watch films longer than three hours, however good they are.

There's no point in me describing the film. Everyone knows what happens. It's a love story set on a sinking ship. Here's my advice to single women: if you're thinking about marrying someone, watch "Titanic" with him. If he doesn't cry, he's no good for you. It makes me cry every time. Even Celine Dion's song, "My heart will go on", makes me cry, because it reminds me of the film.

The film is so well crafted, it can be used as an example of how to make a film. As far as the Academy Awards are concerned, it's the most successful film ever. It received 14 Oscar nominations, of which it won 11. Will that record ever be equalled, let alone broken? Time will tell.

I still think that this is Leonardo DiCaprio's best film. I know that sounds like an insult when said of a film early in someone's career, but I honestly don't think he's risen to this level since. Kate Winslet, on the other hand, has made many outstanding films since "Titanic".

Some of the films in my list will be a matter of taste, but how can anyone not like "Titanic"? Please let me know. If you don't like "Titanic", leave me a comment telling me why you don't like it.

While watching the film today I drank a glass of Eberbach-Schäfer's Schwarzriesling. I tried drinking it the correct way, as recommended by David Klenert. I poured it in a glass and waited half an hour before drinking it. It was amazing. After 20 minutes the room was full of the rich, fruity smell. I've even considered putting a small amount in a bowl in my bedroom at night. The wine definitely tasted better after being allowed to breathe. I wonder if all high quality red wines profit from this treatment.

Success Rate:  + 9.0

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

Misery (5 Stars)


Sometimes I have to look at myself in the mirror and ask myself if I'm a real film fan. How can I possibly have spent at least seven years without watching this brilliant film? I know for definite that I haven't watched it since September 2010, but it's possible that I haven't watched it since 2006. When I was married this was one of my wife's favourite films. I remember that we watched it a lot. In those days I owned very few DVD's, so I had more time for repetition. So my excuse, as feeble as it is, is that I binged on it for a few years, and then I stopped watching it after I split up from my wife.

Maybe I should binge again. I don't need a wife to watch good films. Or maybe I should make a compromise. I should set one day each week as a day on which I rewatch a five-star film. I could start at the end of October. For the next six weeks my film watching schedule will be disrupted. The Stuttgart Film Festival runs from September 7th to 17th, so I shan't be watching anything at home. I might need a few days after the end of the festival to catch up on my reviews. I'll be on holiday in England from October 3rd to 18th, my first holiday for 15 years. Honestly! I used to go on holiday twice a year when I was younger, but why does a film fan need to travel? I can see exotic locations in my films every day of the week.


I assume all my readers have seen the film already, so I'll keep my description of the plot brief. Paul Sheldon is the author of a series of books about a young woman called Misery who lived in England in the late 19th Century. He has the habit of staying in a hotel in Silver Creek, Colorado to finish each novel. After finishing his latest novel he gets caught in a snowstorm and crashes. Annie Wilkes, a former nurse who now runs a small farm finds him and takes him back to her farm to recover. Because she's a fan of his books she doesn't want to let him go and keeps him as a prisoner.

The film is based on a novel by Stephen King. He's best known for his supernatural horror stories, but this film is horrific because it's something that could really happen. Annie Wilkes is a stalker, and we can see how her love turns into a sick obsession. Annie is unlike normal stalkers who have to follow their victim, since Annie's victim comes to her, but she has the same mindset as all other stalkers.


Kathy Bates deservedly won an Oscar as Best Actress for her performance as Annie Wilkes. Until today it's the only film based on a Stephen King book that has won an Oscar. "The Green Mile" and "The Shawshank Redemption" both had multiple nominations but didn't win. That reminds me that I haven't watched "The Shawshank Redemption" for more than seven years either. Shame on me!

A few years ago there was an article in Empire Magazine claiming that Stephen King is the author whose books have been adapted as films more often than any other author. That's a difficult claim to refute. The article listed 52 films and mini-series based on his books. There are more now. "The Dark Tower", which I saw in the cinema last month, is the first in a new series of films, a so-called Stephen King Cinematic Universe. I'm looking forward to the other films, and I'm sure I'll watch them all as they appear, but will any of them be as good as "Misery"?


The film shows quite a lot of newspaper clippings that Annie has collected in her album entitled "Memory Lane". In addition to recent articles about Paul Sheldon's disappearance there are articles about the deaths of people in her past. You can click on all of the screenshots to enlarge them.

The first article about Paul Sheldon starts well, but in the fifth column it starts to repeat the paragraphs from the beginning of the article. That's sloppy.


The article about the accidental death of Annie's husband is made up of two paragraphs that are repeated alternately. Then it invites the reader to turn to page 15. I'd rather not. I expect the continuation of the article to be just as sloppy.


There's no death in the third article about Annie's university graduation, but don't expect it to be any less sloppy. It's just one paragraph that's repeated three times. Did the film director really think nobody would notice?


Part of the obituary of hockey coach Ernest Gonyar is hidden by the greetings card, but it's still apparent that the last paragraph is a repetition of the second paragraph. As if that's not sloppy enough, look at the third paragraph, which is in bolder text than the rest of the obituary. We can't read it all, but what we can read seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the text.


Ah ha! The next article, concerning Annie's promotion to head nurse in the Intensive Care Unit, repeats the bold text from the obituary without being obscured, so we can easily read it. It seems to be about some sort of political debate, which has nothing to do with a death or a promotion. Sloppy. Also look at the date on the article: Monday, March 23rd 1978. Yet another blunder. It was a Thursday.


Here's another sloppy article about a man who died while in intensive care. The same two paragraphs are repeated alternately.


This article about the death of a child begins normally, but the last two paragraphs begin to repeat the article again from the beginning. But that's not all. Look at the snippets of text from the previous article, above the headline. We can see enough to make out that the previous article is identical. That's oh so sloppy!


In this article the fourth columns repeats the text from the second column. That's sloppy, isn't it? But at least we see two pretty photos of Annie's pig. Technically it's a sow. She's called Misery. What else would you expect from Paul Sheldon's #1 fan?


In this article the first two paragraphs are repeated, starting in the third column. That's the last in a total of nine sloppy newspaper articles.

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

The Boss (3½ Stars)


Trailers can be funny. If it hasn't already been done, somebody needs to write a PhD on how to make a good trailer. The official trailer for "The Boss" not only contains jokes not included in the film, it also has a prime example of exaggeration. In the film Michelle Darnell, played by Melissa McCarthy, is said to be the 47th richest woman in America. In the trailer the same scene is shown, but the dialogue is edited to call her the richest woman in America. Is it more accurate to call that exaggeration or inflation?

In the film Michelle Darnell loses all her wealth after being convicted of insider trading. That's something I've never really understood. I know what it is, but I don't understand why it's illegal. It's something that I would do if I were rich enough and in a position to do it. From what I understand, it's not punished as harshly, if at all, in England as in America, so I probably wouldn't end up in prison like Michelle.

As a skilled entrepreneur Michelle soon sees an opportunity to get back into business. She decides to take over the amateur operations of girl scouts selling brownies and turn it into an international business empire. Is Michelle exploiting or aiding the girls? It's a bit of both. Michelle has a heart, but she's smart enough to keep her feelings under control when it comes to making money.


The film's humour comes from the depiction of girl scouts, traditionally innocent little good girls, being turned into an army of salesgirls, trained to eliminate the competition by any means necessary. I wouldn't go as far as to call the film a masterpiece, but it's enough to make anybody laugh. It's worth watching at least once.


Renault (Peter Dinklage) is Michelle Darnell's evil but tragic nemesis. He used to be her lover and business colleague when they were making their way up the corporate ladder. When she was promoted over his head he swore revenge on her. Men have such difficulty accepting that a woman is better.


The 16-year-old actress Eva Peterson looks up to Melissa McCarthy. She can only do that in the poster. Eva is 5'9" and Melissa is 5'2". In the film she stands out as the biggest and meanest girl scout, a role she plays admirably. I hope to see her in many future films.

Thursday, 17 July 2014

Tammy (3 Stars)


Life isn't fair. You're gonna have to scrape and claw for everything you want.

The trailer for "Tammy" was so hilarious that I instantly decided to watch the film. Unfortunately the scene shown at length in the trailer was the film's funniest scene. Nothing else lived up to it.

Tammy is a fat girl in small town Illinois who works in a fast food restaurant. Yes, I know it's not politically correct to call a woman fat, but since most of the film's jokes are about her weight I think it's appropriate to emphasise it so bluntly. After being unfairly fired she decides to drive to Niagara Falls. Her horny old grandmother tags along for the ride. For the next 80 minutes we have jokes about Tammy's size and her grandmother's libido. There's also a romantic element to the story. Tammy meets a handsome farmer. Can he love her despite her size?

It's a cute little story which encourages us to laugh at the fat girl. Tammy shows no regrets for the way she looks, she accepts herself, which is a wonderful thing, but her (misguided?) overconfidence in her good looks is used to ridicule her even more. I expected and hoped for a moment of seriousness at the end, when the audience would be made ashamed of themselves for laughing at someone else's misfortune, but it never came. It's not a film for an overweight woman (or man) to watch to find comfort. Except that Tammy finds true love in the end. Okay, I know that's a spoiler, but you would have guessed it anyway.

Thursday, 27 June 2013

Titanic (5 Stars)


This was probably the most hyped film ever. I remember the months leading up to its initial cinema release in 1997. Even though the Internet existed at the time, it hadn't established itself as a part of everyone's lives the way it has now. Information flowed slower in those days, but the upcoming film about the Titanic was still making big waves. So many films had been made about the Titanic before, in particular the film starring Catherine Zeta-Jones, also called "Titanic", made only a year earlier in 1996. What was the point in making yet another Titanic film? Then the studios leaked that it would be a love story. A big budget love story. People were expecting it to make enormous losses, but the closer the release date came the more people began to expect something good. The media promotions were driving the public into a fervour. Then the film finally appeared just before Christmas 1997, and everyone loved it. News reports showed people leaving the cinemas in tears. I don't remember such a fuss ever being made about another film before or since.

The film remained in the cinemas a long time, about three months in my local cinemas, although I've heard stories about it being shown even longer elsewhere. I went to see it quite late, February 1998, I think. Later in the year it came back to the cinemas, with television ads telling us to "go watch it again". This type of film promotion was also unique, as far as I'm aware. I didn't go back to the cinema a second time, but I did feel tempted, though only because the video and DVD release were delayed so long. The studios were milking the film for all it was worth. The fact that it won 11 Oscars at the 1998 Academy Awards gave it an extra boost. When the DVD was finally released at the end of 1998 it became the first film to sell over one million copies on DVD.

Over the next few years something strange happened. People turned against the film. In the early 2000's the Internet was becoming more widespread, and it became common for people to write badly about "Titanic". By 2005 it had won a series of reader polls as the "worst film ever". Were people crazy? No way it was that bad. I think the problem was that they had binged on "Titanic". They'd watched it so often that they'd grown sick of it. But I still liked it. I just shook my head at all the negative criticism.

In 2012 the film was rereleased in a 3D version, totally unnecessarily, in my opinion. I expected it to flop, but it was a big hit in the cinemas again. Currently the film seems to be "in" again. The public is fickle, but not me. I loved the film when it was first released, I love it today, and I see no reason why I should ever stop loving it.

It's interesting to see what has happened with the two leading actors, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. They both gave outstanding performances in "Titanic". Since then Kate Winslet has gone on to make one excellent film after another, establishing herself as a world class actress. For Leonardo DiCaprio it's been different; "Titanic" was the peak of his career, and he's never risen to the same level since. Of course, he starred in "Django Unchained", but that was a great film despite him, not because of him.