PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,650
Likes: 4,067
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 21:43:34 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Nov 12, 2019 12:41:37 GMT -5
But Doctor Sleep revels in its connections to The Shining, frequently recreating its visuals and sounds. I didn't have to go in with a Shining bias, the film goes out of its way to remind you of Kubrick's film repeatedly. And its recreations are the most shallow invocations of the original film, a parade of references which recreate the aesthetics of The Shining but none of the depth or substance. Yes, I'm holding Doctor Sleep to The Shining's standards, the film invites (even demands) you do that. It's like the Ready Player One set-piece, only instead of a fun rollercoaster ride which lasts a couple of minutes, its two and a half hours. I don't know, if anything I wish that this movie was as interested in re-creating The Shining as you're making it out. Only something like twenty minutes of it plus a few flashbacks are set anywhere near The Overlook and the story otherwise doesn't really mirror or imitate the structure or tone of The Shining at all. The vast majority of the film's runtime is instead devoted to what feels like a kind of middling YA fantasy story about good psychics and bad psychics fighting each other, and that part has its pros and cons, but isn't necessarily something I was terribly interested in seeing in the first place. It was the few parts where the film was trying to actually do something with Kubrick's imagery where I was actually interested and engaged and it felt like the film was at least trying to deliver on what it had promised. Well, that's part of the problem. The film flip-flops between shallow recreation of The Shining and lame YA movie that feels like a low-rent X-Men movie (as if one low-rent X-Men movie in 2019 wasn't enough). There are a handful of ideas in how the film re-contextualizes The Shining, mostly relating to Danny's relationship with his father but even these don't every come together in a satisfying way.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,532
Likes: 3,135
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 0:22:29 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Nov 12, 2019 13:03:04 GMT -5
So you're saying you WOULDN'T have wanted to see a third movie called Hallorann. Gotcha.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,650
Likes: 4,067
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 21:43:34 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Nov 12, 2019 13:31:42 GMT -5
You are correct, though I did think Carl Lumbly stepped into that role nicely.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,532
Likes: 3,135
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 0:22:29 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Nov 12, 2019 13:43:16 GMT -5
Well, there's two more things we can agree on.
|
|
frankyt
CS! Gold
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 21,947
Likes: 2,017
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 22:21:29 GMT -5
|
Post by frankyt on Nov 14, 2019 8:36:27 GMT -5
Spoileys incoming!
I kinda liked it. Sure there were some goofy parts and lines, like all horror movies, and like a Stephen king horror movie it's about 35 minutes too long, but I found the various uses of shining to be interesting (would love a prequel about grandpa whatever his name was) and would have appreciated a greater focus on those (why did crow just leave all his other people to go fall into the trap without warning them - since he clearly knew something was up) individual powers, outside the 15 year old didn't really understand what everyone could do.
Didn't love the ending but that's a horror movie for ya.
7/10 on the sliding genre scale
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,628
Likes: 3,184
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 21:44:13 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Nov 20, 2019 19:14:48 GMT -5
Adapting a novel into a movie is always a tricky thing, and generally the old adage is that the movie is never as good as the source material. These reasons can vary, but probably the most consistent criticism is that the film, working to constrain itself to a set running time, has to truncate itself to the detriment of plot, characters, or even the theme itself. And yet one of the most interesting caveats to this general norm has always been Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's novel, The Shining. King hated Kubrick's interpretation, largely because Kubrick eschewed the exposition and general lack of subtlety prevalent in King's works in favor of a ghost story steeped with ambiguity, lack of explanation, and little regard for whether or not the audience fully grasped what was happening or why. To myself and many others who view The Shining as a classic in cinema, this strengthened the film mightily. What's scariest is the unknown, which Kubrick fully understood, and the more in the dark the audience is while still being given enough to work with to understand the basic framework of what was happening the more chilling the events at the Overlook Hotel were. Now nearly thirty years later, director Mike Flanagan of Castle Rock fame has adapted King's 2013 sequel to The Shining, Doctor Sleep, though it's as much a sequel to King's novel as it is a sequel to Kubrick's version. This isn't the first time someone has attempted a sequel to a Kubrick film, though to me it's always a bit misguided to follow in the man's footsteps at all. 2010: The Year We Make Contact isn't a bad film, but it's not a memorable one either and does itself in by attempting to undo the fascinating mystery of 2001: A Space Odyssey by attempting to explain away everything. Doctor Sleep seems to be trying to do the same here, serving as an appeasement to King that leans heavily on the expansion of a sort of Shining universe while also paying direct visual homage to Kubrick's masterpiece. As we know is the case when trying to please everyone, you end up pleasing absolutely no one, which is the definite result of Flanagan's Doctor Sleep. While always watchable, Doctor Sleep is an overly long bore that contains nothing memorable about it, and by attempting to serve as a bridge between King and Kubrick collapses entirely as a noble but laughable misfire.
Danny Torrance (Ewan McGregor) is now an adult, struggling as an aimless alcoholic while attempting to push out the traumatic events of his childhood that we witnessed in The Shining. He's still plagued by visions of the creepy old woman from the Overlook Hotel (who we see way, way too much of in this film) and memories of his late mother. Danny (actually he goes by Dan now) finds his way to a small town in New Hampshire where he gets a steady job working at a hospice and goes sober, seemingly on track to turn his life around. This is interrupted when he begins communicating with Abra (Kyleigh Curran), a teenage girl who bears some of the most powerful energy levels of the shining that anyone has ever felt. Abra's power is picked up by Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson), who leads a small group of sinister people that feed off children's shining abilities in order to fuel their sort of immortality. After some ludicrous battles with their group, Dan and Abra determine that the only way to truly defeat Rose the Hat is to trap her at the ultimate resting place of evil: the Overlook Hotel.
I'll start with one of the lone positives of Doctor Sleep by saying that the cast all around do a solid job given the ridiculous and plodding material they're given to work with. I've long been a fan of Ewan McGregor and he works well enough as an adult Danny Torrance. The character never comes off as the tormented alcoholic that perhaps he should be given the traumatic experience he's had, but he's likable enough. Dan is a bit of a stiff overall though, and the attempts at humor in the film generally fall embarrassingly flat. The film is in desperate need of a true foil, and sadly the typical adult-kid buddy dynamic of Dan and Abra doesn't cut it. Ferguson does strong work as the antagonist, but she too is crippled by a one-dimensional character that constantly lives in the absurd and never the compelling. I've long been a fan and critic of King's writing, which often times is rambling and ridiculous making it clear a meager outline was used before jumping in, but here Flanagan is certainly at fault too. The biggest problem with Doctor Sleep is how Flanagan constantly undercuts any room for suspense at every opportunity. We know a trap is being set in this scene because in the previous scene the characters told us they're doing so. We know Rose and her gang are bad because instead of showing them grabbing a child in a pivotal scene, we see them doing it in a useless cold opening instead. Doctor Sleep's lengthy running time is most glaring in these situations, because anyone even remotely surprised or intrigued by the events that occur here probably haven't watched a lot of movies. For a filmmaker looking to follow in the footsteps of Kubrick, Flanagan has left absolutely nothing to the imagination, having characters explain, explain, explain instead of trusting his scenes to reveal themselves. Doctor Sleep is a big jump from The Shining, where now we're living in a sort of mutant world of good and bad guys with the shining power, and it's handled as ridiculously as it sounds, culminating in a completely out of place gunfight (yes, in a movie where we have people with powers we have a full on shootout in the woods instead of them using their powers against one another) that Kubrick would've never allowed. It's silly stuff that needed the right handling to make work, and Flanagan does a terrible job of reigning it all in.
The big selling point of Doctor Sleep is of course the return to the Overlook Hotel, which comprises maybe the last half hour of the film. Does it live up to the promise? No, not at all. Flanagan hits the viewer over the head with the same images over and over (seriously, how many times is the naked old lady in this film?) and while some ventures into the Gold Room and Room 237 initially bring giddy delight, Flanagan fumbles the ball with unimaginative sequences. Perhaps the most egregious is that instead of using archival footage or CGI face replacement, Flanagan casts the roles of Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall and everyone else from the original with new actors. While in some ways he was going to be damned no matter what route he ultimately went down, it does not work whatsoever here. The new actors look nothing like the original cast, nor do they muster up any of the big energy they're attempting to mimic. It really just begs the question of why do it at all since the result is such a dismal one. Doctor Sleep doesn't really answer or attempt to answer the events from The Shining, which is fine but also makes one wonder what the point of a sequel was in the first place. So that Dan Torrance can finally confront his demons and achieve peace in his life? It's hard to understand what King or Flanagan are really going for here, but either way there's little getting around how uninteresting and uninspired the whole project comes off. There was certainly potential for something more, even with the silly plot lines surrounding the whole affair, but it feels like little more than any run-of-the-mill bad teenager with powers movie with The Shining loosely sprinkled in.
Given the talent involved and knowing the big shoes that had to be filled, Mike Flanagan should really be disappointed in himself for this one. Nothing is more frustrating than when a director undercuts his own movie, and thus the audience, stripping the film of any dramatic tension in exchange for bad dramatic irony, and that's what Flanagan does time and time again in Doctor Sleep. Kubrick's The Shining is a masterclass in creating tension and narrative while still dabbling in subtle ambiguity. Flanagan's Doctor Sleep is a great example of how to over direct and end up with a completely uninspired film as a result.
5/10
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 22:45:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 24, 2019 15:42:52 GMT -5
Doctor Sleep(11/7/2019) Of all the movies to come out this year Doctor Sleep isn’t necessarily the movie I was most excited to see but it was the film I was one of the films I was the most curious about. The film is a delayed sequel to The Shining, an all-masterpiece from Stanley Kubrick, or perhaps more accurately an adaptation of Stephen King’s sequel novel to the original novel of “The Shining” upon which Kubrick’s film is based. Stephen King famously isn’t a fan of Kubrick’s The Shining but I certainly think that movie is a masterpiece and making a sequel to it certainly takes balls. I would normally be kind of offended at the very thought of doing something like that and would dismiss such a project as I would with that 2010: The Year We Made Contact movie from back in the 80s, but I can’t deny that Stephen King does still have some ownership over this story and that he has the rights to write his own sequel and that it would be foolish to ignore Kubrick’s film when making an adaptation of that sequel, so I was mostly willing to give this a chance.
Ironically I think the aspect of the movie that play around with Kubrick’s imagery are probably its most successful. There was something oddly refreshing about the way Mike Flanagan is able to recreating Kubrick’s sets and imagery in a rather low-fi way. I imagine that there was some temptation to dump a bunch of money into an elaborate CGI set like the one in Ready Player One with the original actors somehow recreated in a computer but Flanagan instead just cast a bunch of people who look a lot like the original actors and put them into physical sets that have been carefully fussed over and it mostly works. The problem is that there really isn’t all that much of this in the grand scheme of things. I’ve heard people complain that the movie has too much Kubrick fan service in it, but from where I sit that stuff is a clear minority of the film’s runtime and it pretty much the only part that really delivers on what the film is being sold as. The rest of the film is largely beholden to Stephen King’s own new story which in some ways seems to have been constructed in such a way as to be the opposite of what people would want out of a sequel to Kubrick’s film.
A lot of ink has been spilled about why Stephen King hates the movie version of The Shining but one of this quotes about it that has always baffled me is his contention that the film is supposedly a failure because Kubrick looked down on horror genre, which never really made sense because most of the things Kubrick added to the story were freaky supernatural elements and most of what he took out were endless bits of back story that over explained everything. Granted, I haven’t actually read King’s book so I might not be in the best position to diagnose that but I’ve looked into the differences pretty extensively and that seems to be the case. That complaint is all the more strange given that this King approved sequel doesn’t even seem to be trying to be anywhere near as horror inflected as Kubrick’s movie. Kubrick’s movie is essentially a haunted house story mixed with a psychological thriller that boils over in violent ways. In that movie The Overlook Hotel and the various ghosts inside of it are the real stars while Danny Torrence’s psychic powers are heavily de-emphasized. This sequel instead focuses mainly on Danny’s psychic powers and does a lot of world building on top of them and turns things into a sort of YA fantasy story about other people who “shine” fighting against another group of psychics who hunt and kill people who “shine” to feed off their power like vampires. That’s not the worst idea in the world but it’s not what people want out of a sequel to The Shining and I don’t think it’s overly well executed in and of itself.
A big part of the problem, I would argue the problem that kind of sinks the movie is that these evil psychics are kind of lousy as horror villains. The film spends an unusual amount of time hanging out with them while they’re on the road searching for victims and almost seems to want to establish them as a personable band of misfits. That is the exact opposite of what you want to do if you want to make your villain intimidating and scary, if I were making this I would have cut that stuff to a minimum and made these psychic vampires as simple and mysterious as possible. Additionally, the film doesn’t do a whole lot to make them seem all that powerful either. Their leader, Rose the Hat, is certainly well played by Rebecca Ferguson but our heroes seem to get the best of her at every turn and it’s eventually established that all you really need to do to take these bad guys down is shoot them so it seems a bit odd that by the end of the film we’re still supposed to view her as a threat that’s so intimidating that desperate measures and dangerous methods need to be taken to have a fighting chance against her.
So, what we have here is a movie that doesn’t really work, but the ways that it doesn’t work are kind of fascinating. I almost want to give it a “thumbs up” just because there’s a certain entertainment value in watching Mike Flanagan desperately try to square the circle of making these competing visions work within a single movie. However, I do empathize with anyone who walks into this movie unfamiliar with all this baggage expecting a sequel to The Shining or any kind of Stephen King horror movie for that matter and instead get this weird mishmash of visions. In some ways I wonder if this kind of mess is exactly what King wanted when he wrote this book that doesn’t operate at all like Kubrick’s movie and then gave it a pretty terrible title on top of that. So ultimately I think that hiring consummate Stephen King fanboy Mike Flanagan was a mistake as, at the end of the day, he was more interested in pleasing King than the film’s natural audience. Part of me thinks they should have hired a guy who would have tossed out even more of King’s ideas and made a true sequel to Kubrick’s movie but as I outlined previously King’s partial ownership over the story is kind of the one thing that justifies making a sequel to a Kubrick film in the first place so you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I’ll give it this though, it’s better for a movie to have too many visions coursing through it than to have no vision at all. **1/2 out of Five
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 23:36:50 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Feb 26, 2021 1:02:35 GMT -5
I watched the directors cut tonight, having never seen the theatrical or read the book.
It drags in the middle somewhat, but Flanagan nails the camera and theme callbacks. The first and third acts are nails, and as bad as Snakebite Andi and and dad were, the guy that played Crow, and Cliff Curtis were great as well as all 3 leads.
Despite the villains being kinda lame as a concept, I thoroughly enjoyed the themes of facing your demons amd how Ewan MacGregor played it.
8/10. So glad I stayed up on a vacation day to watch this.
|
|
Fanible
Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2002
I peered into the vastness and saw nothing. Felt nothing.
Posts: 19,184
Likes: 788
Location:
Last Online Nov 6, 2024 0:31:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Fanible on Feb 27, 2021 15:15:48 GMT -5
I still haven't watched it yet, so if someone who's seen both versions can recommend one versus the other.
|
|