|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Nov 4, 2019 23:08:18 GMT
Saw this movie last week and it was pretty damn good. It's a very worthy continuation to Kubrick 's cult movie .It's chilling and suspenseful. I liked how it alluded to what came before in The Shining while being its own thing. Good continuation of the story that doesn't copy the original film. Ewan McGregor is wonderful as the adult Danny Torrance. Kylieh Curran is a true revelation : she gave one of the best child performances in years. But the show belongs to the gorgeous and grossly underrated Rebecca Ferguson. Man, give that woman more roles! I could feel the hair on the back of my neck standing up anytime she was appearing on the screen . She gave a truly compelling performance as the villainess. However, I must admit that the movie kind of falls a little flat in the third act when they arrive at the Overlook Hotel. It started to feel like one of those made-for-Youtube fan made sequels. I get that they had to reference the movie since more people are familiar with it than the novel, but they could've just done it with brief flashbacks. But all in all it was a very enjoyable movie, and soooo much better than IT 2. 7/10
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Nov 7, 2019 22:39:12 GMT
It's so weird that The Shining sequel (I KNOW IT'S NOT EXACTLY A SEQUEL) couldn't me more of an anti-Shining movie. While Mr. Kubrick's ice-cold classic was a real "show (but not a lot), don't tell", Mike Flanagan's take on this universe spells everything you need to know. It's more of a dark, supernatural fantasy movie than a horror story. While The Shining was bizarre and depressive, Doctor Sleep is always told in a more sentimental, "feel-good" light - akin to other Stephen King's stories such as Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me.
It's impossible not to compare, as making a sequel to a goddamn Stanley Kubrick takes a lot of guts and courage. That said, Doctor Sleep stands on its own, even if it falls short of being remarkable. The story is efficient and the filmmaking is solid - this Flanagan dude really knows how to move his cameras around.
It, of course, has a problem of being too long probably because, like Flanagan did in Gerald's Game, he *really* wanted to be faithful to King's novel. The movie follows step-by-step three different plotlines that take too long to meet, and it's a bit tiring.
Also, it's quite frustrating that the movie itself is weak on suspense and light on its psychology: from the first 20 minutes, you know all you need to know about its main players, their motivations and goals and agendas, about the new mythology, etc etc etc. There was nothing to find out, to keep you guessing, no mystery: you just had to wait until everything and everyone lined up. This ends up damaging Danny's arc, as his struggle not to become his father - that's planted during his first scenes - is undercut by a long second act (almost forgotten) until it comes back into play in the third act.
To end in a more positive note, as I really enjoyed it, Rebecca Ferguson's Rose is a fantastic villain, with tons of screen-presence. She's far from the hysterical figures from the 1980 movie, fitting perfectly into the more earthy, supernatural world of Doctor Sleep. She can be creepy, commanding, alluring, scary, but also nails the eventual heartbreak of Rose the Hat.
7/10
|
|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Nov 8, 2019 21:10:06 GMT
I’m mixed. I think on a whole Flanagan finds the right combination of Doctor Sleep, the original Shining book, and Kubrick’s adaptation but the film has two different tones. King for all his horror tropes is kind of sentimental writer for better or worse and Kubrick is cold and distant. That’s why Kubrick’s take worked because he made it his own.
Aside from that while I think Flanagan is one of the better horror directors especially making sure the horror is rooted in something personal as he did so well in The Haunting of Hill House, I never found this particularly scary or even all that creepy. It didn’t have that overwhelming dread of Kubrick’s film. Look it was always gonna be tough to live up to that film while making all parties happy and I give credit to Flanagan for trying, but I can’t help, but wonder if his attention wasn’t a little bit divided coming right off Hill House while developing a season 2. While I appreciate the slow burn too, I don’t know if it justifies it’s runtime.
Still it’s well made and well acted. It’s fine.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Nov 9, 2019 6:47:46 GMT
The second Flanagan takes us to The Overlook this movie loses me a bit. Too much nostalgia baiting and even a flashback scene of the original's most memeyfied(?) scene like the audience is stupid enough to forget but up until the helicopter shot over the water it was relentlessly chilling. Still really enjoyed it. Actors were positively on their game ESPECIALLY Ferguson, alluring, terrifying and kinda heartbreaking all at once.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 9, 2019 14:56:19 GMT
I really liked it up until the return to Overlook Hotel. In the book that never happened (if you have read the Shining, it's obvious it couldn't...). So, for about the last half hour, this was really a sequel to Kubrick's movie. A nice plot line but heavily based on the 1980 film... So they changed the whole ending of the book, something I didn't like. And Jack Torrance's appearance was a complete fail imo (unlike that of the book). Overall, it was a very good film with some good scenes and great performances (esp. Ferguson and Curran!!). But if someone hadn't seen Kubrick's shining, it wouldn't be very easy to understand the plot in the beginning. It's true Flanagan followed three different plot lines that didn't cross paths until about an hour in the movie. 7/10
|
|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Nov 9, 2019 16:14:02 GMT
I really liked it up until the return to Overlook Hotel. In the book that never happened (if you have read the Shining, it's obvious it couldn't...). So, for about the last half hour, this was really a sequel to Kubrick's movie. A nice plot line but heavily based on the 1980 film... So they changed the whole ending of the book, something I didn't like. And Jack Torrance's appearance was a complete fail imo (unlike that of the book). Overall, it was a very good film with some good scenes and great performances (esp. Ferguson and Curran!!). But if someone hadn't seen Kubrick's shining, it wouldn't be very easy to understand the plot in the beginning. It's true Flanagan followed three different plot lines that didn't cross paths until about an hour in the movie. 7/10 See apart of me liked going back to the Overlook allowing a chance for Danny to address his demons. The execution though was...okay. I just didn’t get that much of a kick out of it. It was nostalgic, but that’s it. I never got the same dread.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 9, 2019 16:33:10 GMT
I really liked it up until the return to Overlook Hotel. In the book that never happened (if you have read the Shining, it's obvious it couldn't...). So, for about the last half hour, this was really a sequel to Kubrick's movie. A nice plot line but heavily based on the 1980 film... So they changed the whole ending of the book, something I didn't like. And Jack Torrance's appearance was a complete fail imo (unlike that of the book). Overall, it was a very good film with some good scenes and great performances (esp. Ferguson and Curran!!). But if someone hadn't seen Kubrick's shining, it wouldn't be very easy to understand the plot in the beginning. It's true Flanagan followed three different plot lines that didn't cross paths until about an hour in the movie. 7/10 See apart of me liked going back to the Overlook allowing a chance for Danny to address his demons. The execution though was...okay. I just didn’t get that much of a kick out of it. It was nostalgic, but that’s it. I never got the same dread. I liked the idea but not the fact it was so heavily based on the first movie (some monsters and characters, similar scenes etc). It was something like a direct sequel or even a remake, while the book seemed to try not to repeat the Shining.
|
|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Nov 9, 2019 17:28:14 GMT
See apart of me liked going back to the Overlook allowing a chance for Danny to address his demons. The execution though was...okay. I just didn’t get that much of a kick out of it. It was nostalgic, but that’s it. I never got the same dread. I liked the idea but not the fact it was so heavily based on the first movie (some monsters and characters, similar scenes etc). It was something like a direct sequel or even a remake, while the book seemed to try not to repeat the Shining. Yea it literally rehashed the same “ghosts” to where some of them even said the same thing from the first movie.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Nov 9, 2019 20:21:23 GMT
I think this movie is probably the truest ever adaptation of Stephen King's writing, capturing the essence of both his strengths (wonderfully compelling, humane character arcs, moments of inspired dark horror like that magnificently unnerving scene with the child actor cameo) and his weaknesses (basically the entire plot is utterly batshit ridiculous to the point of almost being laughable and the ending f-ing sucks). I went along for the absurdity and had an absolute blast all the way up until the disappointing final ten minutes or so, though by no means did that ruin my experience. As inherently corny as they are, the True Knot are SUPERB villains, particularly Rebecca Ferguson's villain-of-the-year Rose the Hat. Such a charismatic, effortlessly entertaining performance and the true MVP of a refreshingly excellent cast across the board, although Kyleigh Curran gives her a run for her money as the precocious and truly badass Abra Stone. Like most King novels, this movie truly loves its characters, and Flanagan is a talented enough director to really take the audience on a ride that allows us to root for our heroes and fear our villains, with plenty of beats allowing both sides to shine (no pun etc). This movie has largely been touted as an attempted reconciliation between the vastly disparate style of King's writing (warm, generous, sentimental) with Kubrick's chilly, unforgiving filmmaking. As stated above, I think Flanagan's evocation of King is impeccable and King's worldview definitely wins out over Kubrick's within the context of this film (personally I'm someone who massively prefers Kubrick's film to King's novel, but nevermind). As far as the Kubrick side of the spectrum, it's more of a mixed bag. Now Flanagan is a downright brilliant visual filmmaker, as anyone who's seen The Haunting of Hill House already knows. And for the vast majority of its runtime, I LOVED Flanagan's callbacks to the 1980 film. Things I loved: the original WB logo leading to an updated rendition of the classic theme, the PERFECTLY Kubrickian opening shot, the great sound design and score, all of the witch elements in the prologue as well as the truly moving narrative subplot of young Danny learning to conquer his literal ghosts, the Abra closeup shot of her frothing at the mouth that mimics 1980 Danny, the CG snow nighttime alteration on Kubrick's opening credits aerial shots, and especially Henry Thomas' cameo as "Lloyd the Bartender" and this scene's 100% successful attempt at marrying the themes of alcoholism and fatherly abuse (largely missing from the film) with Kubrick's masterful iconography (overall I'm glad the movie went with recreating scenes from the 1980 movie instead of using original footage because it allowed for the scene I just mentioned which obviously requires a new actor). HOWEVER: overall I think the third act fumbles the ball in the final stretch. Everything after Rose the Hat's symbolically interesting and emotionally cathartic (but frankly far too brief and easy) demise is suddenly half-baked and underwhelming. It doesn't earn a lot of the iconography because aside from what I mentioned above it doesn't a) do anything interesting with it (Rose's bemused reaction to the blood in the elevator shot is a perfect example of failing the imagery) or b) attempt to recreate the same slow, unnerving sense of dread that the original film evokes. Why show us the imagery of the hallways and the hedge maze if you're not going to exploit what it is that fundamentally makes them scary? And it's weird, because the prologue pulls this off perfectly! It's like the King curse transferred over to Flanagan, because even though the ending is completely different from the novel it still manages to drop the ball just like the vast majority of King's work. And thus, it's a weirdly perfect adaptation of King. Oh, and McGregor's final line is without a doubt the most hilariously terrible piece of dialogue I've heard in 2019 (in an otherwise good script!). So yes, it has major flaws and I can definitely understand why some people would consider it an affront to the original masterpiece, but for 93% of the runtime I was totally onboard. Nowhere near as great as The Haunting of Hill House but still a solid piece of work from Flanagan and an imperfect but highly enjoyable and fascinating companion piece to The Shining. 8
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Nov 9, 2019 21:39:04 GMT
I think this movie is probably the truest ever adaptation of Stephen King's writing, capturing the essence of both his strengths (wonderfully compelling, humane character arcs, moments of inspired dark horror like that magnificently unnerving scene with the child actor cameo) and his weaknesses (basically the entire plot is utterly batshit ridiculous to the point of almost being laughable and the ending f-ing sucks). I went along for the absurdity and had an absolute blast all the way up until the disappointing final ten minutes or so, though by no means did that ruin my experience. As inherently corny as they are, the True Knot are SUPERB villains, particularly Rebecca Ferguson's villain-of-the-year Rose the Hat. Such a charismatic, effortlessly entertaining performance and the true MVP of a refreshingly excellent cast across the board, although Kyleigh Curran gives her a run for her money as the precocious and truly badass Abra Stone. Like most King novels, this movie truly loves its characters, and Flanagan is a talented enough director to really take the audience on a ride that allows us to root for our heroes and fear our villains, with plenty of beats allowing both sides to shine (no pun etc). This movie has largely been touted as an attempted reconciliation between the vastly disparate style of King's writing (warm, generous, sentimental) with Kubrick's chilly, unforgiving filmmaking. As stated above, I think Flanagan's evocation of King is impeccable and King's worldview definitely wins out over Kubrick's within the context of this film (personally I'm someone who massively prefers Kubrick's film to King's novel, but nevermind). As far as the Kubrick side of the spectrum, it's more of a mixed bag. Now Flanagan is a downright brilliant visual filmmaker, as anyone who's seen The Haunting of Hill House already knows. And for the vast majority of its runtime, I LOVED Flanagan's callbacks to the 1980 film. Things I loved: the original WB logo leading to an updated rendition of the classic theme, the PERFECTLY Kubrickian opening shot, the great sound design and score, all of the witch elements in the prologue as well as the truly moving narrative subplot of young Danny learning to conquer his literal ghosts, the Abra closeup shot of her frothing at the mouth that mimics 1980 Danny, the CG snow nighttime alteration on Kubrick's opening credits aerial shots, and especially Henry Thomas' cameo as "Lloyd the Bartender" and this scene's 100% successful attempt at marrying the themes of alcoholism and fatherly abuse (largely missing from the film) with Kubrick's masterful iconography (overall I'm glad the movie went with recreating scenes from the 1980 movie instead of using original footage because it allowed for the scene I just mentioned which obviously requires a new actor). HOWEVER: overall I think the third act fumbles the ball in the final stretch. Everything after Rose the Hat's symbolically interesting and emotionally cathartic (but frankly far too brief and easy) demise is suddenly half-baked and underwhelming. It doesn't earn a lot of the iconography because aside from what I mentioned above it doesn't a) do anything interesting with it (Rose's bemused reaction to the blood in the elevator shot is a perfect example of failing the imagery) or b) attempt to recreate the same slow, unnerving sense of dread that the original film evokes. Why show us the imagery of the hallways and the hedge maze if you're not going to exploit what it is that fundamentally makes them scary? And it's weird, because the prologue pulls this off perfectly! It's like the King curse transferred over to Flanagan, because even though the ending is completely different from the novel it still manages to drop the ball just like the vast majority of King's work. And thus, it's a weirdly perfect adaptation of King. Oh, and McGregor's final line is without a doubt the most hilariously terrible piece of dialogue I've heard in 2019 (in an otherwise good script!). So yes, it has major flaws and I can definitely understand why some people would consider it an affront to the original masterpiece, but for 93% of the runtime I was totally onboard. Nowhere near as great as The Haunting of Hill House but still a solid piece of work from Flanagan and an imperfect but highly enjoyable and fascinating companion piece to The Shining. 8This pretty much sums up my reaction as well as other posts that felt that the weakest part is during the final act specifically after Rose is dispatched of . I think it's still definitely worth seeing, but I was disappointed that part of the film became what I feared the whole film would end up being like, where nostalgia drives everything else. It's also disappointing that it's getting beat by Midway, not that I've seen that, but I'm guessing it's a lot worse. I've said this before, but I don't know why WB couldn't have squeezed this into October even if they also had Joker. Even last weekend, although technically November, still had people being in a Halloween spirit, so they could have switched it with Motherless Brooklyn.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Nov 10, 2019 2:43:25 GMT
I enjoyed it a lot. It wasn't super scary, but it was a very entertaining film. In particular I thought McGregor was fantastic as Danny, especially when you saw his inner thoughts, and the alcoholism. Curran as the young girl was more then up to the challenge as his equal too. Rebecca Ferguson was also a good antagonist too. I especially found the forever cult-leader aspect to be quite engaging. However, I do admit that I have mixed feelings regarding the last act, especially when it came to them recreating the famous scenes from The Shining. A lot of it came off as cosplay, and Flanagan geeking-out as much as he can. I'll admit it was very effective however, and I was amazed to learn that was Henry Thomas as Jack Torrance too.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Nov 12, 2019 18:19:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 15, 2019 14:32:23 GMT
I thought it was terrific, and for my money it improves upon the source novel immensely, as I felt the True Knot was kind of a weak villain in comparison to others in King's catalogue. Rebecca Ferguson was sensational, and Carl Lumbly damn near stole the movie even in his brief screentime. McGregor acquitted himself very well, Kyliegh Curran gave a strong debut turn, and Flanagan's direction was very confident and assured. The astral-projection scenes in particular delighted me. I also think that Flanagan utilizing the original ending of The Shining rather than Doctor Sleep was a stroke of genius.
If I had one complaint, minor though it is, it's that I felt that because Flanagan was swearing fealty to both sides of the King/Kubrick coin, I wish his visual style had been more composed and, well, "Kubrickian." There were times I felt he could've staged a shot one way to mirror how Kubrick would've done it, for example, just to strengthen that through-line. But that would have also compromised Flanagan's artistic style as well, which was in itself very palpable.
Flanagan has proven himself to be, along with Darabont and Reiner, a director who can tackle King multiple times and stick the landing more than once. Cannot wait to see his next effort.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 22, 2019 19:02:23 GMT
It was a good and worthy sequel to the Stanley Kubrick classic "The Shining" and to Stephen King's "The Shining" I mention both artists because Kubrick's adaptation differed from King's novel and Mike Flanagan stays honest to both as well as King's sequel "Doctor Sleep". The good thing is that this is one of the rare occasions that an adaptation is better than the source novel. The film was as expected not coming close to Kubrick's original but manages to be quite a fine movie of its own. The story brings the "Shining" topic much more forward and shows more facettes of the questionable gift. For fans of the film it offers many references to "The Shining" some obvious ones and many hidden ones too. We see a return of Danny Torrence who now is played by Ewan McGregor who was tolerable enough and delivered an adaquard performance. More exciting was Rebecca Ferguson's performance. The ironic thing is her character was much weaker written and McGregors. She really gave it life. Great performance. Also newcomer Kyliegh Curran was very good. Mike Flanagan is the new master of Horror in my eyes. He really knows how to do terrifying and tense moments. I missed some of the terrifying scenes that even Brough me to grounds as in "The Haunting of Hill House" or even "Gerard's Game" but he still does a very good job, especially bringing the Overlook Hotel back to life.
Current Nominations for:
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Rebecca Furgeson Best Adapted Screenplay
Rating: 8/10
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Nov 24, 2019 20:27:49 GMT
Rather disappointed in this, actually. The pacing really brought it down and there was no suspense or atmosphere. Ferguson absolutely killed it though.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 225
|
Post by Pasquale on Feb 23, 2020 11:54:06 GMT
3 hour cut is good.
Flanagan knows.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on May 10, 2020 9:15:23 GMT
Theatrical or Director's Cut? which one should i watch?
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on May 11, 2020 5:16:14 GMT
Theatrical or Director's Cut? which one should i watch? The Director's Cut is a fuller experience, though in a subtle way, with most of the additions just being extensions of scenes that were already present. There's one extended monologue towards the end that makes viewing the longer cut worth it alone. My problem was I couldn't always tell when a scene or moment was new, as I wasn't always sure if I was remembering it from the theatrical cut or the book.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jun 29, 2020 2:26:26 GMT
Finally caught this on HBO and really loved it for the most part. Really sorry I slept on it for so long but it gave me a really nice first watch when there’s not a lot of new stuff coming out. Loved the atmosphere and duration and though the entire cast was pretty great.
|
|