Critics’ reviews

Misery (1990)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 74: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Misery

74
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics find Misery an effective, darkly funny thriller, with praise centred on Kathy Bates and James Caan. Bates draws particular attention for making Annie Wilkes’s apparent kindness and threatening behaviour equally convincing, while Caan helps sustain the tense exchanges between writer and fan. The favourable reviews credit Rob Reiner’s handling of suspense and William Goldman’s screenplay with giving the adaptation a grounded setting, claustrophobic tension and something to say about celebrity and obsessive devotion.

The reservations concern how much the film achieves beyond keeping its audience tense, rather than whether its central performances work. RogerEbert.com finds the craftsmanship effective but short of greater inspiration, while The New York Times calls the story thin but engaging. The spread is fairly narrow, with no outright negative assessment: the Los Angeles Times supplies the clearest dissent, admiring the actors but finding Reiner’s approach flat-footed and too straightforward.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Phil Thomas
80*

Reiner proves he can handle thriller territory as effectively as comedy or fantasy. William Goldman’s screenplay builds a vivid, grounded reality from the Stephen King source, with outstanding turns from James Caan and Oscar-winner Kathy Bates as the unhinged Annie Wilkes.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

This is a superb adaptation that explores celebrity, fanatical devotion, and artistic dilemmas in a psychological suspense context. Kathy Bates delivers a monstrously scary, Oscar-winning performance as the number one fan, with the film delivering chills and jolts through claustrophobia.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
9 May 1991 · Derek Malcolm
80*

The critic finds the film entertaining and shrewd, praising Kathy Bates' inspired casting as the obsessive fan Annie Wilkes for her convincing, non-glamorous performance that balances kindness and threat effectively. James Caan and the supporting cast also deliver strong turns in this tense, well-paced thriller that avoids obvious pitfalls.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · CM
80*

The critic praises the darkly humorous adaptation of Stephen King's novel, noting the intelligent script's blend of psycho-thriller and commentary on celebrity. The casting of James Caan and Kathy Bates is highlighted as inspired, with Reiner effectively balancing tension and mental duels.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
30 November 1990 · Roger Ebert
75*

The film succeeds as a gripping two-hander thanks to strong performances, particularly Kathy Bates as the unhinged fan. Reiner delivers respectful craftsmanship that works effectively as a thriller without rising to greater inspiration.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 November 1990 · Vincent Canby
70*

The adaptation finds a funny idea in the novel about a writer held captive by his obsessive fan, turning it into an effective suspense tale. It highlights the perils of fandom and the writer's predicament in a paper-thin but engaging story.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1989 · Variety Staff
70*

This is a commercial gothic thriller and functional adaptation that succeeds as a two-hander with effective casting and nasty interplay between the leads. Bates creates a memorable character while tech credits are solid.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
30 November 1990 · Peter Rainer
60*

The two-character psychological thriller works better than most King adaptations due to its focus and strong acting by Bates and Caan. Reiner shows talent with actors but the film feels flat-footed and overly straightforward as pulp entertainment.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate