Critics’ reviews

Misery (1990)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 77: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Misery

77
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics find Misery an effective psychological thriller, with praise centred on Kathy Bates and James Caan as the obsessive fan and captive writer. Bates draws particular attention for making the fan frightening without losing the story’s dark humour, while Caan helps sustain the confined contest between them. The reviews also credit William Goldman’s screenplay and Reiner’s direction with maintaining tension, grounding Stephen King’s premise and drawing out its concerns about celebrity and artistic control.

The reservations concern how far that craftsmanship takes the film. Some critics find little personal expression or depth beyond the suspense, and there is a smaller concern about the stretched running time. The spread is largely favourable, with no outright negative review. The Los Angeles Times offers the clearest dissent: it admires the central performances but finds the film a capable exercise, less enjoyable than Reiner’s lighter work.

RogerEbert.com
30 November 1990 · ★★★½/4 · Roger Ebert
88

The film is a solid, respectful adaptation of Stephen King's story that works well as a two-hander thriller thanks to strong performances from James Caan and especially Kathy Bates. Reiner brings the tale to the screen competently without adding much personal inspiration or depth beyond good craftsmanship.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · CM
85*

The gore is toned down and the psychology played up in this darkly humorous adaptation of Stephen King's novel. William Goldman's intelligent script operates both as psycho-thriller and as sly comment on celebrity, with inspired casting and Reiner capturing just the right level of tension.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Phil Thomas
80*

Reiner proves he can handle thriller territory as effectively as comedy or fantasy. The Goldman screenplay grounds the King story in reality with strong performances from Caan and Bates as the central captor-victim pair.

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

This superb adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller deals with the trappings of celebrity, fanatical devotion and artistic dilemmas within a psychological suspense context. Kathy Bates gives a monstrously scary Oscar-winning performance as the number one fan who turns torturer.

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

The critic praises the inspired casting of Kathy Bates as the obsessive fan and notes the film's shrewd execution of its premise without going for obvious thrills, highlighting strong performances from Bates, James Caan, and Richard Farnsworth. The script and direction maintain tension effectively despite some stretching of the runtime.

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

The film turns Stephen King's novel into a suspenseful and often funny tale of a hack writer held captive by his obsessive number-one fan. It highlights the perils of fandom and the writer's predicament with a focus on the central cat-and-mouse dynamic.

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

Misery is a commercial gothic thriller and functional Stephen King adaptation centered on the volatile relationship between a captive writer and his deranged fan. Kathy Bates delivers a memorable, quirky performance in the key role, supported by solid tech credits and effective casting.

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

Misery succeeds as a tight two-character psychological thriller adapted from Stephen King, with standout work from Kathy Bates and James Caan in their tense, confined roles. Reiner demonstrates range but the film feels more like a capable exercise than a personal statement, lacking the enjoyment factor of his lighter fare.

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