Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Stephen King’

I’m Your Number One Fan

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 9, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Misery” (1990) — movie review
Today’s review is for the suspense / drama “Misery”, directed by Rob Reiner and starring James Caan as Paul Sheldon, a bestselling author trying to move on from his famous Misery romance series;  Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes, his self-proclaimed “number one fan” who rescues him after a car crash and then refuses to let him leave;  Richard Farnsworth as Sheriff Buster, the small-town lawman who slowly realizes something is wrong;  Frances Sternhagen as Deputy Virginia, his sharp, no-nonsense wife and partner;  and Lauren Bacall as Marcia Sindell, Paul’s New York literary agent.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film, but it had quite a bit of notoriety in its day – particularly the one scene where Annie uses a sledge hammer on Paul to keep him under her “care”.  This film was recommended to me by my brother’s long-time partner who is also a nurse (in real life).  LoL.  She chuckled when she told me this was one of her favorite movies and she didn’t really believe me when I said I’d never seen anything but the “hammer scene”.  Now, I’ve corrected this oversight. “Misery” is based on the Stephen King novel of the same name.  It came out in 1990, during a period when King adaptations were already common, but this one is much smaller and more focused than the big supernatural stories he’s known for.  The film was a critical success and is best remembered for Bates’ performance as Annie Wilkes.  She won the Academy Award for Best Actress — one of the very few times an Oscar has gone to a performance in a straight suspense / horror film.  Over the years, “Misery” has become known as one of the better King adaptations and as a good example of how to build tension with only a few characters and a single main location.  I’ve seen parts of it on TV before, but this was my first time watching it straight through as an adult.
Plot:  Paul Sheldon is a famous novelist best known for his “Misery Chastaine” lead character book series.  After finishing a new manuscript at a Colorado lodge, he drives off in a snowstorm, crashes his car, and is rescued by Annie Wilkes, a former nurse who lives alone in a farmhouse.  She tells him she’s his “number one fan” and starts nursing him back to health.  At first Paul is grateful, but things turn quickly when Annie reads his latest Misery book and discovers he has killed off the title character.  She forces him to burn his new manuscript and demands he write a new Misery novel just for her.  Paul is badly injured and stuck in bed, so he has to pretend to cooperate while secretly trying to regain strength and find ways to escape.  Annie’s moods swing from gentle to violent with almost no warning.  Meanwhile, Sheriff Buster begins to suspect Paul’s disappearance isn’t a simple missing‑person case.  The story builds as Paul writes to stay alive, Annie becomes more unstable, and the sheriff gets closer to the truth, leading to a final confrontation in the farmhouse.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  simple but effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Misery” is a tight, focused suspense film that relies on tension and character instead of big action scenes.  The basic idea (a writer trapped by a dangerous fan) is simple, but the movie handles it cleanly and keeps the pressure on.  The pacing is steady, the stakes feel real, and the story doesn’t wander.  It’s not trying to be complicated.  It just tells a straightforward, tense story and does it well.
Acting:  The acting is the strongest part of the film.  Bates is excellent as Annie Wilkes.  She plays Annie as someone lonely and awkward who can switch from polite to terrifying in an instant.  It’s not over-the-top — it feels realistic enough to be believable, which makes it even more unsettling.  Caan is also good as Paul, but completely overshadowed by Bates’ performance.  He spends most of the movie stuck in bed or in a wheelchair, but he still shows frustration, fear, and a dry sense of humor as he tries to outthink Annie.  I have never been a Caan fan and this role didn’t move the needle much for me.  Anyway, I thought he was better than usual in this role.  Their scenes together carry the whole film.  Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen are both solid as the sheriff and his wife, adding warmth and a bit of lightness without breaking the tension.  Lauren Bacall has a small role but adds credibility as Paul’s agent.
Filming / FX:  The filming is straightforward and clean, which fits the story.  Most of the movie takes place inside Annie’s house, and the camera work makes the space feel tight and confining.  The snowy Colorado setting helps sell the isolation.  The “FX” are mostly practical — makeup, injuries, and one or two very tough scenes that are memorable without being excessive.  The sound and music are used sparingly but help build tension.  Nothing flashy, but everything works for the kind of story being told.
Problems:  A few.  Because the movie is so focused on Paul and Annie, the outside world (story) feels a little thin.  A couple of Annie’s outbursts feel slightly exaggerated, even though Bates mostly keeps the character “normal”.  The sheriff’s investigation is enjoyable but also both predictable (you can guess where it’s heading) and unbelievable at the same time:  he’s a small town sheriff who doesn’t know a convicted serial killer is living in his town AND he isn’t fully armed and cautious when checking a suspect’s residence.  And, if you don’t like movies that stay in one room for long stretches, the limited setting might feel repetitive.  None of these issues ruin the film, but they stand out a bit.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  I found “Misery” tense, engaging, and surprisingly funny in a few spots.  It’s not “fun” in the action-movie sense, but it’s satisfying to watch Paul slowly figure out how to survive and to see the back-and-forth between him and Annie.  The movie is short enough and focused enough that it doesn’t drag.  The more intense scenes are tough to watch, but they fit the story.  I also liked seeing a King adaptation that leans more on people than on supernatural elements.  I stayed interested the whole way through.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to very strong recommendation.  “Misery” is a well-acted, well-made suspense film with two strong lead performances and a simple story told cleanly.  Kathy Bates’ Oscar-winning role is the main draw, but the whole movie works.  Rated R for violence and language, it’s not for younger viewers, but adults who enjoy tense, character-driven stories will find a lot to like.  If you can handle a few intense moments, this is close to a must-see for suspense fans.
.
Click here (9 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Walking the Miracle Mile

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 25, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Green Mile” (1999) – movie review
Today’s review is for the supernatural prison drama: “The Green Mile” (1999), starring Tom Hanks as Paul Edgecomb (a death row supervisor whose moral compass is tested by the inexplicable), Michael Clarke Duncan as John Coffey (a gentle giant convicted of a horrific crime, whose healing powers defy logic and prejudice), David Morse as Brutus “Brutal” Howell (Paul’s loyal second-in-command, steady and humane), Doug Hutchison as Percy Wetmore (a sadistic guard protected by political connections), Sam Rockwell as “Wild Bill” Wharton (a violent, erratic inmate whose chaos masks deeper menace), James Cromwell as Warden Hal Moores (a man caught between duty and desperation), Bonnie Hunt as Jan Edgecomb (Paul’s wife and emotional anchor), and Patricia Clarkson as Melinda Moores (Hal’s ailing wife, whose suffering becomes a moral fulcrum).  The film also features Barry Pepper, Jeffrey DeMunn, Michael Jeter, and Harry Dean Stanton in supporting roles that round out the emotional and ethical landscape of Cold Mountain Penitentiary.
Background:  This film came out while I was working in Saudi Arabia, and I did not hear about it for quite some time.  I’ve recently (finally) seen “The Shawshank Redemption“, so I approached “The Green Mile” with high expectations and a curiosity about another Stephen King prison story.  I knew it was long — nearly three hours — but I didn’t know it involved supernatural elements.  What I also didn’t know was how deeply it would explore themes of justice, mercy, and the weight of moral witness.  I watched this and found myself unexpectedly moved — not just by the story, but by the performances and the seeming dignity of its pacing.
Plot:  Set in 1935 Louisiana, the film follows Paul Edgecomb and his team of guards on “The Green Mile” — the death row block of Cold Mountain Penitentiary.  Their routine is disrupted by the arrival of John Coffey, a massive but soft-spoken Black man convicted of raping and murdering two young white girls.  Coffey’s demeanor and actions quickly unsettle the assumptions of guilt.  He heals Paul’s bladder infection with a touch, resurrects a crushed mouse, and later cures Melinda Moores of a brain tumor — each act accompanied by a mysterious expulsion of black, insect-like energy.  As Paul and Brutal begin to suspect Coffey’s innocence, they face a moral dilemma:  uphold the law or defy it in the name of justice.  The film builds toward Coffey’s execution — a moment of profound sorrow and ethical ambiguity — and ends decades later with Paul, now aged, reflecting on the burden of having witnessed a miracle and participated in the death / destruction of its instrument.
So, is this movie any good?  The acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  restrained and evocative;  a few;  yes — deeply.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Green Mile” is a slow, deliberate film that builds and sustains its emotional weight.  It’s not a thriller (in the normal sense), not a courtroom drama, and not a typical prison movie.  It’s a meditation — on guilt, grace, and the cost of innocence and bearing witness.  The supernatural elements are handled with restraint, and the film’s moral questions linger long after the credits roll.
Acting:  Tom Hanks is quietly masterful as Paul — his performance is all internal shifts and moral gravity.  Michael Clarke Duncan is extraordinary.  His Coffey is childlike, haunted, and transcendent.  Duncan’s physicality never overwhelms his vulnerability, and his final scenes are emotionally devastating.  David Morse brings warmth and steadiness to Brutal, while Doug Hutchison’s Percy is viscerally loathsome — a portrait of cowardice and cruelty.  Sam Rockwell steals scenes as “Wild Bill”, but it works as his chaos is the film’s counterpoint to Coffey’s calm.  Cromwell and Clarkson deliver understated performances that ground the film’s emotional stakes.  The ensemble — Pepper, DeMunn, Jeter — all contribute to the film’s sense of place and moral complexity.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is “Old South” warm and sepia-toned, evoking a sense of memory and myth.  The supernatural effects — Coffey’s healing, the mouse resurrection, the expulsion of illness — are minimal but effective.  The prison set feels authentic, claustrophobic but not theatrical.  The pacing is deliberate, with long takes and quiet scenes that allow emotion to build in the characters and in the viewer.  The flash-forward framing device (with Dabbs Greer as old Paul) adds a layer of melancholy, though it occasionally feels like a separate film.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s length is a challenge (to viewer bladder and butt cheeks) — some scenes linger a bit, and the pacing may test viewer patience.  Percy’s protection by political connections is under-explored, and Wild Bill’s backstory is hinted at but never fully developed.  The racial dynamics — a Black man with healing powers sacrificing himself for white characters — raise questions that the film doesn’t examine.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes — and more than that, I felt it.  “The Green Mile” is a film that asks you to sit with discomfort, with sorrow, and with the possibility of grace.  It doesn’t offer easy answers, but it offers moments of profound humanity.  Coffey’s final request — to not be in the dark — is heartbreaking in emotional simplicity.  And Paul’s long life, his “curse” of memory, is a quiet indictment of justice delayed and mercy denied.  The film received critical acclaim and was nominated for numerous major awards, though it didn’t win any Oscars.
Final Recommendation:  Highly Recommended. “The Green Mile” is not really a film for casual viewing.  It demands attention, empathy, and a willingness to confront moral ambiguity.  If you’re willing to walk the mile — to witness, to feel, and to reflect — this film will stay with you.  It has stayed with me…  and I suspect it will for some time.
.
Click here (25 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I Remember…

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , on July 1, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Remember.  Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.
    —     Stephen King
.
Click here (1 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Two Towers

Posted in 2019 Book Review, Book Review, Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 7, 2019| 6 Comments »

Today’s reviews are for the book:  “The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger” (1982©), written by Stephen King and the movie:  “The Dark Tower” (2017), which is based on the book.
“The Dark Tower” (2017) — movie review
This movie is based on the book by the same name.  Okay, it’s not exactly the same name.  The book is the first of a series (8 books in total) nominally called:  “The Dark Tower Series“, all written by horror writer Stephen King.  The movie, like the books, is a blending of science fiction / magic, American western lore / Arthurian legend, and dystopian future, with a bit of existential / quasi-religious philosophy thrown in for seasoning.
The movie stars Idris Elba as the titular “Gunslinger” (hero) named Roland Deschain, Matthew McConaughey as Walter Padick (aka “the Man In Black”) (bad guy) and Tom Taylor as Jake Chambers (the boy who must be saved by the Gunslinger).
Basically, we have a multi-universe tied together by a “Dark Tower” which separates all of the universes from the dark evils which would destroy / enslave them all if the tower should fall (ever be destroyed).  Somehow children have the ability to destroy the tower and the Man in Black sends his minions to kidnap them to be used to accomplish this.  The “Gunslingers” are the defenders of the Tower.  At the start of the movie, they lose a major battle with the forces of darkness and Elba / Deschain is the sole survivor.  Disheartened, he seeks only to kill the Man in Black to avenge the death of his father (not to protect the Tower).
Blah, blah, blah, magic, gunfights and chase scenes ensue until we get to the main / concluding battle.  Three guesses who wins…  Three guesses who gets to be the sidekick and next “Gunslinger”…
So, is the movie any good?  How’s the acting and the special effects?  How closely does the movie match the book?  Well,…  The movie is okay.  It’s entertaining for a minor action / SciFi movie.   It’s definitely NOT great cinema.  The acting is fair to okay.  The special effects are a little better than “just” okay, but nothing ground-breaking and nothing we haven’t seen a dozen times (at least).  Not having read the entire series, I can’t say how closely the movie is to the series.  To the first book – not very closely at all.  Well, both have the two main characters, so there is that.  The boy is completely different in the movie.
Final recommendation:  moderate. To be honest, I’m not a big fan or either Elba or McConaughey. I haven’t seen Elba in a lot of roles, so maybe I’m just not “there” yet. I’ve seen McConaughey in lots of different roles and I’m hard pressed to name one role where I got up saying, “That role makes him a star.”  He’s okay.  Even good, sometimes…  But I feel like he’s getting older and I’ve not seen a DiCaprio / “Inception” role / performance.  Again, maybe I’ve just missed it (the performance).
“The Dark Tower:  The Gunslinger” (1982©) — book review
As mentioned above, “TDT:TG” was written by Stephen King.  The book is actually a compilation of short stories which have been turned into a book.  I guess, more accurately, a series of books.  I haven’t read any of the other books, so I don’t know if they are also compilations or if they are actual true-form novels.
As mentioned above, the book is a western / feudal / dystopian story about a group of “knights” called “gunslingers” who are supposed to defend a Tower.  This first book, jumps around introducing the main character Roland Deschain who grows up as a knight-in-training and then sets about trying to find and kill a mysterious “Man-In-Black”.  The Man-In-Black has multiple names.  I just remembered him as “Walter” (which is used in this book).  Roland does a lot of wandering around (in a desert, mountains, a tunnel and a forest) and meets a boy named Jake, who he brings along on his “adventure”.
The “Tower” series of books is supposed to be the linch-pin for King’s writing career, tying together all of his other novels / stories.  I have only ever read “Salem’s Lot” and “Carrie“, and both of those were back in my Army days (1970’s) and I don’t remember any references to the “Tower” or the “Gunslingers”.
This book came to me from my son who says it is his favorite book series of all and that he has read the complete series multiple times…  Okay…
Final recommendation:  give it a pass to moderate.  I don’t know if this is a book I would have read if it hadn’t come so highly recommended.  It reminded me a lot of the movie “Cloud Atlas” with the way it jumped around in time and location.  I didn’t enjoy that movie and I didn’t enjoy this book.  Or, at least most of it.
Again, if it hadn’t come so highly recommended, I would not have finished it.  The writing style is overly flowery / imagery.  I felt like the author was adding words to fill out the book length, not to actually make a point in the story.  I was repeatedly bored;  waiting for something – anything – to happen.  Then, when things finally did happen, they still just weren’t interesting.
Having said all of this, in the last 20-30 pages, Roland finally confronts the Man-In-Black and they get into a lengthy philosophical conversation which I did (finally) find very interesting.  Almost interesting enough that I could imagine reading another one of the books.  The discussion is VERY briefly held in the movie, too.  But, it is almost an after-thought there.
Full disclosure:  I got the book from my son after hearing there was a movie coming out.  He loaned me the book, but I never got around to reading it.  I saw the movie last year, but didn’t like (understand) it, so I was still not motivated to read the book.  Over the summer, my son asked about the book / movie and egged me on about reading the book (“give it a chance”).  Since I didn’t really remember the movie, I decided to read the book and then revisit the movie.  I did both, in that order.  I’m glad I did or the movie would still have made no sense.  This is definitely one of those cases where you need to read the book first, then see the movie.
.
Click here (7 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Not Sure Anyway…

Posted in Quotes, Writing, tagged , , , , on June 16, 2018| 1 Comment »

We are writers, and we never ask one another where we get our ideas;  we know we don’t know.
    —    Stephen King
From his book:  “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft“
.
Click here (16 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Daydreams And Wanna-Be’s

Posted in 2018 Book Review, Book Review, Reading, Reviews, Writing, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2018| 1 Comment »

“On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft” (2000©)  —  book review
Who hasn’t day-dreamed of writing the “great American novel” and becoming wealthy and celebrated?  Okay, maybe not me in over 40 years, but still…
Today’s book review is for “On Writing“, by Stephen King.  Yes, that Stephen King.  The horror novelist / writer.  Well, actually, he does write in other genres, too, but that’s the one I know him for.  This book came recommended to me by various sources – some “best of” lists and also a couple of blogs / sites I follow.  I found it on sale for $3 at my local Half-Price Books store, so I snatched it up.
The book is basically a three-part tome:  King’s life leading up to writing, how to write well, and finally, advice on life and how to get started getting your writing published.  Part one is extremely interesting and amusing.  I got several belly laughs out of it.  Part two is mundane, yet (probably) useful.  I have already begun applying some of King’s suggestions in my own writing here on this blog.  Part three will probably be useful if I ever (again) imagine myself sitting down to write the great American novel or autobiography.  One of King’s recommendations is to write about what you know.  I’m afraid the only thing I know the most about is me.  (Sad, but true.)
So, final recommendation:  very highly recommended!  Is this the finest book I’ve ever read on being a writer.  Yes!  With the qualification it is also the only book I’ve ever read on being a writer.  Having said that, it is a fast read at less than 300 pages and I found it enjoyable and informative.  And, of course, multiple quotes will appear on this blog in the future…
One last mention:  King recommends all wanna-be writers start off by reading Strunk & White’s:  “The Elements of Style“.  (According to part 1 in the book, King is a former high school English teacher.  Go, figure.)  Fortunately, for cheapskates like me, the book (“Elements“) is out of copyright and you can find it in pdf format at multiple locations on the web.  At fewer than 30 pages, it should also be a quick read.  The book cover on Amazon looks very familiar, so maybe King’s book is the second book I’ve read on writing.  LOL…  I probably read “Elements” in high school and blotted the contents out of my memory.
.
Click here (9 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I Will Love You… Forever

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , on February 25, 2018| Leave a Comment »

The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them.
    —    Stephen King
.
Click here (25 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

By Their Acts Thy Shall Know Them

Posted in Leadership, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , on October 28, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Being good is commendable, but only when it is combined with doing good is it useful.
    —    Stephen King
.
Click here (28 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Tossers

Posted in Faith, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , , , , on April 23, 2016| Leave a Comment »

The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything.  Once God   —  or Satan is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance…  logic can be happily tossed out the window.
      —    Stephen King
.
Click here (23 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Books Are…

Posted in Quotes, Reading, tagged , , , on January 13, 2013| Leave a Comment »

Books are the perfect entertainment:  no commercials, no batteries, hours of enjoyment for each dollar spent.
    —    Stephen King
.
Click here (13 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started