|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel on Sept 21, 2019 18:14:40 GMT
Thanks for sharing that. As somebody who enjoyed the novel I have been looking forward to seeing a movie adaption of it and I think it might have been a mistake to make it before having another remake of 'The Shining' with Stephen King in charge of it so he could tell it the way it is supposed to be told in a shorter version than the miniseries but I think this could be good and stand alone as its own movie. There are heaps and heaps of Stephen King adaptions coming out and the new TV Shows of 'The Dark Tower' and 'The Stand' and the remake of 'Firestarter' are the ones I am looking forward to the most and I hope we get 'The Regulators' and 'Duma Key' next. 'Duma Key' is long overdue and some of my friends who are Stephen King fans can't believe it hasn't been adapted yet 'cause they think it is one of his best novels.  Downloading it now. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Sept 23, 2019 13:52:18 GMT
It's interesting to hear all of the positivity on Doctor Sleep as a novel. Most people I've heard talk about it don't seem to have as many kind words as I've seen here. I may check it out before the movie comes out, but a lot of readers seem to think the movie could improve upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 1, 2019 10:20:30 GMT
Heeeeere's Vits to tell you that he agrees with most people's opinions on THE SHINING, except that 2 things ruined it: A) Imagine a tennis match where your opponent throws the ball at your face by accident over and over again and keeps waiting for you to hit it back. That's how I felt watching Shelley Duvall's performance. B) The way that JACK TORRANCE (the protagonist) transitions from normal to crazy was too rushed. As I was watching the movie, I was thinking "What if we had seen the downward spiral into madness?" and then I read that it was different in Stephen King's novel. I've said many times that changes in adaptations don't matter as long as they don't ruin the essence. By removing the element of JACK's struggle to stay sane, it comes off as if he had been evil yet sane all along. It ruined the character. Stanley Kubrick clearly had enough ideas to write an original script and that's what he should've done. Even if you think that's wrong, I still stand by what I said first because, while watching the movie (with no knowledge of the novel), I found the character to be flawed. That being said, there is a change that was for the better: Making the movie much more ambiguous. I'm not saying that the novel had too much exposition; I'm saying that I appreciated the ambiguety while watching the movie without knowing that I could find answers elsewhere. I'm also glad that DANNY TORRANCE (JACK's son) no longer meets his future self (Kubrick turned him into an imaginary friend). King sometimes tries to mix too many elements in his stories. We already have ghosts, telepathy and clairvoyance; time travel would've been overlook overkill! 8/10 DR. SLEEP tries to be a stand-alone movie and a direct sequel to THE SHINING. That's a problem, because both movies are very different in terms of tone, narrative and visual style. Things feel more jarring whenever an iconic shot is recreated. Honestly, I don't have a problem when a sequel severs ties with its predecessor if it's made decades later (especially with a different cast and crew), so I would've accepted it here. Everything was working without the references. In fact, the performances, characters, dialogue, plot, imagery, scares, editing and sound are top notch. 8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
northernlad
Sophomore
@northernlad
Posts: 898
Likes: 620
 
|
Post by northernlad on Dec 1, 2019 15:58:37 GMT
Reading the book right now and enjoying it...for the most part. And from what I've seen of the trailer to this movie...I don't want to see it any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 1, 2019 18:07:52 GMT
Reading the book right now and enjoying it...for the most part. And from what I've seen of the trailer to this movie...I don't want to see it any time soon. I've heard mixed to negative things about the book, and the consensus that I've heard is that the movie improves on the book in many ways. But I haven't read the book yet. I found the movie to be surprisingly strong. It includes hints at some of Stephen King's worse impulses as a writer, but handles them seamlessly and Flanagan really does a great job visualizing some ideas that could have been totally absurd in practice or as exposition, and makes it really aesthetically engaging. It's also very respectful to both King and Kubrick, which I didn't think was possible since neither was especially respectful to one another. Flanagan maybe goes one or two steps too far with the Kubrick stuff, but I mostly really liked it, and I think the general proceedings are rather welcomed by the time we get there. The cast is good, it's really well shot, it's got a nice tone, and I think tells an engaging story. All of that would be enough to be a good film, but I think it's kind of a remarkable achievement in that it's a good film in the face of the extraordinary challenge of being a good adaptation to the book while being a good sequel to the film, and reconciling the two when it seemed like they may have been irreconcilable. I think it's quite good and that Mike Flanagan is the real deal. |
|
selfworth10
Sophomore
@selfworth10
Posts: 415
Likes: 173
|
Post by selfworth10 on Apr 23, 2020 9:50:26 GMT
I liked some of it , but the ending was meh and not scary. But yeah the gypsies was ACE.
|
|
