|
Post by deembastille on Nov 11, 2019 0:17:10 GMT
I haven't seen it but I want to which is really weird since I tried reading the book multiple times and just couldn't get through it. its one of those books where im sure id be able to read it once I see the movie because it would make more sense.
i understand dr sleep 'fixed' what Stanley Kubrick 'ruined' but does mr king realize the remake/miniseries with Rebecca De Mornay and steven webber?? they did a much better job than kubricks jumble of WHATISITYOUWANT???? wendy was more how she was written in the book instead of that slobbering hittable mess in kubricks. jack was supposed to be ok in the beginning, nice and loving when not drinking [kissin kissin] and not the psycho that jack Nicholson naturally brought with him in every role he has played. love him but he looks naturally whacko.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 11, 2019 3:21:21 GMT
Minor spoilers Did anyone else find it surprisingly touching when Danny was comforting the elderly man with the shine on his death bed? Easily the best “small” moment of the movie, and the scene to make me realize I was really on board with what Flanagan was doing. A horror movie with a true heart. same
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Nov 14, 2019 18:33:13 GMT
Here are some quick thoughts on it that I wrote on Letterboxd. In general I liked it a lot, I only have a few minor issues with the final act. Even though the scene where The Shining theme plays over the mountains was amazing. I'd give it an 8/10. "The Haunting of Hill House" (which I'll definitely watch soon), but based on the promotional material and the trailers I didn't have that high hopes for this one. However, I saw that a lot people I follow on Letterboxd really liked it so decided to check it out anyways.
Doctor Sleep is long and its runtime can be felt in the second half, but I don't mean that in a negative way. You feel that it's a long story, but it never drags so it gives an 'epic chronicle'-like effect which makes this movie feel way grander in scope than most (horror) movies. The direction in this is fantastic, I'll be lining up for Flanagan's next movie for sure. The acting is also great: Ewan McGregor and Rebecca Ferguson shine (I'm sorry for the pun) in their roles, but I was also surprised by the phenomenal acting by all the child actors. It's really rare for child performances to be as good as they are in this movie.
It's not so much scary, but like The Shining it relies on its atmosphere, performances and just great storytelling to keep the viewer glued to the screen. There was a moment, about two-thirds into the movie, where I even thought that it might be a 4.5/5 movie. However, if there is a point of critisism I can give, it's that the final act sometimes feels a bit more like a movie referencing The Shining than a proper sequel to The Shining, a balance that the previous parts of the movie captures extremely well. Still it's just a minor complaint. In general Doctor Sleep is a movie that builds upon the story of the first movie in a refreshing way, like all great sequels do. Every year has those surprisingly great movies and I can't be happier to say that (at least for me) Doctor Sleep is one of 2019's biggest surprises.
|
|
|
Post by Maly Class Productions on Nov 15, 2019 6:32:31 GMT
Surprisingly I wasn't bored. Well luckily I wasn't because it wasn't scary at all. There was nothing even eerie or chilling either.
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 15, 2019 11:56:37 GMT
Surprisingly I wasn't bored. Well luckily I wasn't because it wasn't scary at all. There was nothing even eerie or chilling either. Surprisingly I didn’t find it scary either. I found it got a little chilling once it got to the hotel. I just found it to be a really, really good movie!!!
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Nov 16, 2019 14:56:54 GMT
I enjoyed it. It was generally faithful to the novel, and I liked how it was connected to the Kubrick Shining universe, especially with the finale.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 1, 2019 10:19:36 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 13:40:25 GMT
Kubrick's shining was probably great for it's time and a good kick off for this type of horror genre. It also retains it's own distinct flavor which no one has been able to recapture, probably why so many Kubrick humpers would swear by him to their death. But Kubrick's style would not work today, people are just not there anymore.
I actually thought suspiria did an even better job of remaining true to this predecessor whole still being accessible to today's audience, but alas, it did have limited release, and probably had an esoteric reception. If I'm not mistaken, it had fairly limited circulation in the theatrss
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Dec 10, 2019 20:04:57 GMT
I actually thought suspiria did an even better job of remaining true to this predecessor whole still being accessible to today's audience, but alas, it did have limited release, and probably had an esoteric reception. If I'm not mistaken, it had fairly limited circulation in the theatrss
So, you thought the new Suspiria was accessible to today's audiences? Really???
Perhaps to the hardcore arthouse crowd, but I have a feeling the average moviegoers hated this film. I mean the people I watched it with aboslutely despised it, some even thought it was the worst horror movie they'd ever seen. Personally I found it really underwhelming too. It was neither scary nor beautifully shot, two aspects the original excelled in.
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Dec 10, 2019 20:07:15 GMT
I haven't seen it yet, but it made it into Tarantino's Top 3 of the year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 21:07:35 GMT
I actually thought suspiria did an even better job of remaining true to this predecessor whole still being accessible to today's audience, but alas, it did have limited release, and probably had an esoteric reception. If I'm not mistaken, it had fairly limited circulation in the theatrss
So, you thought the new Suspiria was accessible to today's audiences? Really???
Perhaps to the hardcore arthouse crowd, but I have a feeling the average moviegoers hated this film. I mean the people I watched it with aboslutely despised it, some even thought it was the worst horror movie they'd ever seen. Personally I found it really underwhelming too. It was neither scary nor beautifully shot, two aspects the original excelled in.
maybe not accessible, but just good. It was genuinely creepy and disturbing but in a good way. I was thoroughly entertained. Ddoctr sleep was entertaining too but it was also kinda cheesy. Suspiria had just the right mix of arthouse film noirs and creepy throlls.
|
|