What a bore...


Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, so can't comment on this movie as to how closely it captures the book. On it's own merits though and as a sequel to Kubrick's classic this thing falls way, way short.

i. The sense of dread that pervaded the original is completely absent here. The directing is journeyman... competent but not once was I remotely unnerved, or unsettled.

ii. The story was disjointed. For example, we spend about 15 minutes or so watching the Knot (whatever they were called), tracking and recruiting the 15-year-old blonde. It seemed like she was going to be a major plot point, but then she simply fades into the background.

iii. I thought the Knot were lame. The leader dresses like Stevie Nicks. Their MO is pretty tame compared to say the Southern vampire road gang of Near Dark. Those mofos knew how to slaughter with glee. This group just take bong hits from the mouth of a kid and some coffee thermos'.

iv. Further to iii. above, they literally get the crap kicked out of them EVERY time they go up against the girl and Danny. Sure they score victories when they kill her father and Danny's buddy, but they take far bigger losses than they dish out. Not once do they well and truly get the drop on our heroes.

v. Sometimes I thought I was watching an X-Men movie... The Shining seemed more like some mutant power than anything supernatural, especially when they flashed those goofy white eyes like Storm. During that big shootout I half-expected Magneto with full on cape and helmet to appear and toss their guns aside.

vi. The less said about faux-Jack the better.

vii. In the original, a big part of the dread was due to their isolation in the winter. In this movie, a major fire breaks out and the local fire and police departments arrive promptly.

viii. This Overlook wasn't frightening. It hasn't 'aged' in decades. The ghosts seemed more like vampires, and looked entirely too healthy to be undead. Except for bathtub lady. She was ugly but too energetic. She needed to be more creaky.

The actors were all game... it was the story and directing that undid this movie for me.

Based on the IMDB score, it appears I'm an outlier. Did anyone else NOT find this all that interesting?



reply

WATCHED IT WITH THE WIFE LAST WEEK..WE BOTH LIKED IT QUITE A BIT.

reply

The only reason i havent watched it yet is that it seems a tad long, but im still keen to check it out.

reply

I'll be curious to see your reaction. Did you see The Shining? And did you see it when it first came out at theatres, or did you see it later on DVD or similar? And did you read either, or both, of the books?

Your answers above will likely influence your response to this movie.

The scares and production values in this movie about on par with those in the 1997 The Shining mini-series. Good enough for a night of viewing and popcorn, but within days it will be fading from your memory.

I really enjoyed Flanagan's Hill House season on Netflix. It had a genuinely creepy vibe. Unfortunately he couldn't capture that same mojo for this movie, IMO.

reply

Ive read the shining a couple times a while ago, havent read doctor sleep. I saw the shining movie when i was a teenage for first time but i was born in 92 so yeah no chance of seeing it when it first came out. And i saw the movie before reading the book, but yeah i like both versions even tho they are quite different.

reply

I also liked hill house

reply

The book is almost the exact same, with less of the overlook or the overlook's ghosts. Danny's buddy and the father both survive in the novel, so the bad guys are even less threatening.

I thought Rose the Hat was actually better in the film, but compared to Grady in the original she's a lightweight.

If you read the novel you will appreciate the director a lot more for the changes he made. The hotel is gone in the book and the ghosts barely show up, the final fight is on-top a wooden stage in the middle of a field where the overlook once was.

reply

I think the director did a good job of being true to the essence of the book while managing to be a sequel to the Shining film (no small feat considering how different it was from the novel). This movie also kind of closed the loop by including some elements from the novel of The Shining that were left out of the Kubrick film.

reply

I have a lot to say about this movie, but don't have time to write the protracted rant I'd like to. So thank you for getting down the essence of a lot of my feelings here. BIG agree.

This movie was almost exactly what I was afraid it was going to be. Everything it remotely had going for it was a callback to Kubrick's inspired directing choices on The Shining, but in image only, and not in substance. With the source material being so different from The Shining, this had the potential to stake out a unique identity for itself and stand on its own without inviting comparison, but the endless unnecessary callbacks razed it down to the nostalgia bait that has been Hollywood's raison d'etre for the past decade. It makes itself a siren song to direct comparison, and direct comparison is not kind to it.

The Shining is a magick spell cast by a cinematic Ipsissimus. Every element shows a multifaceted and layered scrutiny of form and meaning, interrelationship of part to part and to whole, formally and conceptually. Every moving piece has been obsessively formed to interlock and overlay, refract and reflect into a perfect holographic clockwork prism. It's a 4-dimensional fabrige egg of a hypersigil, which plants itself deep in the psyche's shadow and unfurls over a lifetime. It's one of the most shining examples of a work of gestalt in film.

This in stark contrast, was just a movie, merely competently directed, interested only in putting across a plot, a visual and aural experience only incidentally.

reply

^^^^^
Uh... what he said...

reply

That's some lyrical waxing right there...

Are you a writer by trade?

reply

LOL nope, just caffeinated.

reply

I FIND THE SHINING TO BE DISJOINTED,UNEVEN,BORING AND POINTLESS...I THINK KUBRICK BUTCHERED THE MATERIAL AND WAS DAMN LUCKY TO HAVE NICHOLSON'S VOLCANO OF A PERFORMANCE TO CARRY THE BULK OF THE FILM...I MEAN,FOR REAL.DUDE CAST SHELLEY DUVALL...UGH!...ANYWAY,NON KUBRICKERS FIND THE SHINING AN ADEQUATE TO MEDIOCRE FLICK AND DOCTOR SLEEP TO BE THE BETTER VISION OF THE KING,WHILE STILL PAYING HOMAGE TO AND RESPECTING WHAT KUBRICK DID BEFORE.

reply

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I would add that the main plot doesn't get kicked off until halfway through the movie when Rose and Abra first make contact. That means the entire first half of the movie has our protagonists with no conflict and no direction. It really is poor storytelling, but I blame Stephen King for that.

reply

Have you read the threads and comments here that are tripping over themselves with superlatives and wild claims about how great this movie "way better than the Shining", "Rose the Hat is one of the scariest movie villains of all time", etc?

They are so over-the-top -- they repeat the same phrases and themes -- that I started to wonder if there was some sort of hidden agenda going on by the studio, or friends of the film makers.

reply

WAY BETTER THAN THE SHINING...I WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE...KING FANS OVER KUBRICK FANS TEND TO FEEL THAT WAY.

reply