Kathy Bates was ideal main character

**Leighjavu** · June 17th, 2009

A tale dealing with a family's battle against the horrors of human (mis)behavior that one is ruining lives with . The seed plot of revenge planted by an unlikely source. It really was an accident...The Islesboro setting, and the non-glamourized acting with the characters made this seem like it could be non-fiction. A good movie!

**delores 74** · June 18th, 2009

Have you read the book? I agree that Kathy Bates was a WONDERFUL Dolores, but whoever wrote that screenplay should be hit over the head with the hardcover edition of the book until they begin to absorb the story through osmosis. Dolores is one of my favorite SK books, and the movie absolutely BUTCHERED the novel. The biggest SK movie disappointment ever, IMO.

**Leighjavu** · June 18th, 2009

Originally Posted by delores 74

Have you read the book? I agree that Kathy Bates was a WONDERFUL Dolores, but whoever wrote that screenplay should be hit over the head with the hardcover edition of the book until they begin to absorb the story through osmosis. Dolores is one of my favorite SK books, and the movie absolutely BUTCHERED the novel. The biggest SK movie disappointment ever, IMO.

( I feel like I am communicating with the real Dolores, with an e,

)
Shame on me to admit that , no I have not read the novel..yet.
I wonder, how long would it would take to get a complete edition of King's work on film?
I believe that a movie is just a taste of the tale, for those who can't or won't read the book. The original jist of the story is something to use and fabricate to get the desired effect of the majority of watchers, just as the original story gets the effect from a selection of readers. The skill or talent (if that's that you'd call it) involved in watching a movie does not equate what it takes to read.

There was another King novel that I had read, and my husband had not but He sure liked the movie! There was a character that seemed signifigant in the book yet absent in the movie. Without reading the book, you'd never miss him.
Movies are "Based" on the novel , which is merely a disclaimer stating that they are not to be held accountable for omitting or altering the actual story. Movies are insults to writers, because every word they crafted, all the pain that went into writing it for their specific audience...has now been mainstreamed for the general public.

Given the subject matter of D.C. the movie would have been rated XXX if it were filmed just like the book, am I right?
Books help to shape personalities and imaginations.
Movies help to mold opinions and perspectives.

**aptpupil** · June 19th, 2009

Competely disagree.

I loved "Misery" - both the novel and the movie, and I regard it as one of the best film adaptations of SK's work.

Of course things are changed somewhat. After all, what works as words on a page doesn't always work as well in a movie setting.

James Caan and Kathy Bates were excellent, and done the original story justice, IMO.

**ginapenn** · June 19th, 2009

AptPupil, I agree. I thought Dolores the book and the movie were both good. Misery the book and the movie were both good but to me were completely different. Dolores Claiborne hit home with me since I was an only child and had a very destructive relationship with my mother.

**aptpupil** · June 19th, 2009

LOL Gina!

I guess my post might have carried a little more weight if I'd actually been talking about the correct novel!

Saw Kathy Bates and just thought "Misery"!

As for "Dolores Claiborne", I have to be honest. Didn't particularly like the book, so have never motivated myself to sit through the movie!

**Leighjavu** · June 19th, 2009

Originally Posted by aptpupil

Competely disagree.

I loved "Misery" - both the novel and the movie, and I regard it as one of the best film adaptations of SK's work.

Of course things are changed somewhat. After all, what works as words on a page doesn't always work as well in a movie setting.

James Caan and Kathy Bates were excellent, and done the original story justice, IMO.

I'm lost, whom did you disagree with? Cracking sreenwriters over the head? or
something I said.

**barbiespoodle** · June 22nd, 2009

Kind of glad someone said that the movie did not do the book justice, but then again, I find that if I read the book before the movie, I am almost always disapointed. For some reason, movies never capture the imagination the way a book does.

DC is in my collection to read. I have seen the movie and pretty much liked it, or at least the over all theme of it. Now I can't wait to read the book.

**Perse Jr.** · June 23rd, 2009

I loved this movie, and I actually watched it way after I read the book, so I didn't catch any differences or anything like that. The scenes were so real for me, I could almost smell the ocean breeze. The colors and settings were perfect. Remember when Dolores was coming home to her dilapitated shack with Selena? The boards, messes, broken things...yet Dolores still made a warm home. Kathy Bates was a perfect fit, and I really appreciated her accent. Usually I am so annoyed at those who try to do a Maine and/or New England accent. Most omit the "r" with too much emphasis. Kathy pulled it off perfectly. GREAT movie! Jennifer Jason Leigh was great too, and I loved David Stathairn as Joe; I've been a fan of his since The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd (remember that show????).

**Moderator** · June 23rd, 2009

I can't remember if it was Kathy or her assistant who'd asked me about Maine accents before doing the filming and I'd told her that it was very different from one part of the state to another but that for the Dolores Claiborne character she should listen to people from the mid- to southern coastal region of Maine. My recollection is that her speech coach went into bars and tape recorded conversations of the locals to get an authentic accent to copy and it seems to have worked.