|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Mar 15, 2020 19:18:55 GMT
Although I found all the actors did a commendable job, I really had a problem with this film.
First, it looked like they chose the cast from a Diversity List. Stupid.
Second, unless you read the book, there were things you wouldn't understand, so it could be confusing.
Third, what the hell! Body count ridiculous and unnecessary.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with the film straying from the book. But as a stand-alone, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Lastly, it wasn't scary at all.
Such an ass-kissing (failed) homage to Kubrick. I didn't like The Shining either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 21, 2020 16:35:33 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.it looked like they chose the cast from a Diversity List. Stupid. It takes one to recognize. |
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Mar 21, 2020 20:48:06 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.it looked like they chose the cast from a Diversity List. Stupid. It takes one to recognize. Kubrick was a master of visuals and pairing a score. He fails mostly at having characters have depth. Love your analog hit of the tennis ball! So apropos! Didn't like Nicholson's portrayal. Felt her played himself and phoned it in. Doctor Sleep - I had no problem with the actors' performances, the cinematography, the score. But there just wasn't enough guts to it. It felt superficial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 22:25:17 GMT
Nicholson certainly isn't phoning it in. Kubrick wouldn't allow it, the perfectionist he is.
If you think the characters don't have any depth then you haven't been paying attention. It's subtle and not spelled out, like so many movies these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 22, 2020 3:17:12 GMT
Unlike you, Pinky, I’m a big fan of The Shining, but I also didn’t much like Doctor Sleep. (Haven’t seen the director’s cut, which is supposed to be better, though.)
While the story and acting were fine, it still felt somehow underwhelming, as if this were a major production for a minor story. It wasn’t a bit scary (even that murder scene was more gruesome than scary, per se), and the villains were disappointing and too easily dispatched. Worst of all, the director didn’t seem to understand Kubrick’s Shining at all, reducing it to a dull ghost story whose ghosts were like characters in a video game, made to be released and to attack anyone in their path. The Overlook Hotel itself is boring in this, remarkably.
That said, I liked the girl who plays the lead; I thought she did a great job of making her character, which could be irritating in the wrong hands, believable and likable.
It’s amusing that the script borrows the ending from King’s novel The Shining, as if to finally give him the Shining movie he’s wanted after all these years, but it’s really an unearned deus ex machina here.
Well made, yet extremely disappointing.
|
|
selfworth10
Sophomore
@selfworth10
Posts: 417
Likes: 174
|
Post by selfworth10 on Jul 16, 2020 21:45:43 GMT
Good gypsies, bad Evan McGregor 5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 28, 2020 10:10:13 GMT
Unlike you, Pinky, I’m a big fan of The Shining, but I also didn’t much like Doctor Sleep. I don't know how any fan of the Kubrick film can. You know what that movie was missing? Bad guys who's eyes glow so you know how sp00ky they are. And little kids who treat the shining ability like a fun superpower robbing it of all mystery. Then there's the cokey Stephen King ideas that Kubrick would have tossed in the garbage and replaced with something creepy. Psychic cats that know when someone is about to croak so Danny can reminisce with them about blueberries? Memories stored in filing cabinets - King ripping off himself is one thing (oh look, villains who feed on the fear of children!), but Dreamcatcher? Fans of this act like comparing it to Kubrick is unfair, but the movie INSISTS upon those comparisons. I'm astonished no one else was as bothered as I was by Elliot Torrence. And once compared, all I can see is the lack of subtlety and atmosphere and suspense Kubrick crafted 40 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 29, 2020 22:46:07 GMT
I enjoyed Doctor Sleep...and didn't think there was anything lost even though i hadn't read the book yet (I'm 150 pages into it). I do think it misses a little bit of the mark in the third act tho, and the going back to the Overlook stuff didn't capture the vibe it was going for. But overall I still enjoyed the flick.
|
|
