criterionforum.org

Brian C wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:09 am That AV Club article is very insightful, and I agree that the film is a thoughtful attempt to reconcile the visions of King and Kubrick.

Spoiler

To be honest, for all the fretting about the Kubrick callbacks in this film, I think the ending is much stronger than King's. King had a very big problem in writing the book in the story obviously had to go back to the Overlook, but he had destroyed the Overlook at the end of The Shining. Since Kubrick's film did not, however, Flanagan was free to set the adaptation there, and it's a much more satisfying from a storytelling standpoint than running around on a bunch of rocks where the hotel used to be, and much more fitting to Danny's story as well.

Overall, I think the film is about as strong of an adaptation as could be hoped for, piggybacking on the legacy of Kubrick's film to deliver what is much more distinctly a King adaptation. JamesF mentioned above that this replicates the experience of reading a King novel, and I think that's spot-on.

I'm in agreement with the both of you for the most part. It feels kind of weird to see the film's attempt reconciling at first but it eventually becomes more thematically succinct when it all comes together and all the old ghosts come out to uh, play. I do however disagree with you regarding the ending. Spoilers for the book.

Spoiler

Dan survives in the book and well it feels thematically fitting there too as he has the ability to reconcile with his father's ghost after Rose dies. The ending to Flanagan's film feels more like it's paying a debt to King's novel by copying it's ending. For no other reason other than to (In my opinion) offer more emotional heft by killing Dan which I don't think the film quite lands. The novel ends with continued sobriety and good cheer and well, the film just ends with a ghost visit. Can't say I liked it more than the book.

Walter Chaw's 3 out of 4 review is one of the best I've read for the film which only came second in its opening weekend and may end up losing Warner some money since global box office isn't any better than domestic. Perhaps it will find its audience over time, including some of the critics who've been lukewarm towards it.

As long as WB still give it a UHD release I'm good. Stinks that it's not finding a theatrical audience as it's the best major studio horror film released this year, at least of the ones I've seen. Not a groundbreaking film, but real a solid, atmospheric work that does a really good job walking the fine line between King's work and Kubrick's film.

The more I hear that this film is a more of an appropriate follow-up to the 1997 mini-series than the film, the less interest I have. Really, even relenting a little bit from Kubrick's vision but still trading on the images from his film feels sleazy, and like a no-win compromise.

For what it's worth, I don't really like the 1997 mini-series much at all, and felt Doctor Sleep was a very worthy follow-up to Kubrick's film.

I haven't heard much of anything about the miniseries in discussion about the film. Most of the discussion seems to be about the legacy it has to live up to.

Should Doctor Sleep the film not have acknowledged Kubrick's Shining? I haven't seen the film yet but I think the chances of the film getting made in the first place with that stance would have been close to zero as far as the studio is concerned.

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:41 pm The more I hear that this film is a more of an appropriate follow-up to the 1997 mini-series than the film, the less interest I have.

I’m not sure if anyone else has said this but I hope you didn’t get that impression from my earlier post, as most references to the miniseries were more meant in jest.

“Finch” wrote:Should Doctor Sleep the film not have acknowledged Kubrick's Shining? I haven't seen the film yet but I think the chances of the film getting made in the first place with that stance would have been close to zero as far as the studio is concerned.

Indeed, Warner has wanted to do a prequel or follow-up years before King wrote Doctor Sleep (Mark Romanek was developing an adaptation of King’s ditched prologue “Before the Play” iirc?), so it was something of an industrial inevitability.

I’d be intrigued to see a Venn diagram between people’s opinions of this film and 2010: The Year We Make Contact!

Note: Tagged spoilers in this post include both spoilers for the Doctor Sleep film and The Shining novel.

I've never seen the miniseries but my understanding is it's a bit more slavishly faithful to the novel than the Kubrick film. I have read the novel and there are a few lines and references to things specific to the novel that were not adapted by Kubrick but are not contradictory to the Kubrick film either such as

Spoiler

Dan and the apparition of Jack both quoting Jack's oft repeated threat from the novel "Take your medicine." It's a dumb line and Kubrick smartly didn't use it but it's a fine and suitably subtle reference for fans of the novel.

I have not read Doctor Sleep but

Spoiler

the ending of the movie must have been pretty drastically rewritten so that it could follow the canon of the Kubrick film because the whole last act takes place at the Overlook but in the original novel of the Shining, the Overlook blows up much as it does at the end of the film Doctor Sleep.

I think Flanagan took great effort to make the film work as both an adaptation of King's work (particularly his themes) and also serve as fine follow-up to the Kubrick film, offering a great meditation of revisiting past traumas.

Rebecca Ferguson, who plays Rose the Hat, is a star. So much presence without the aid of an obviously insidious exterior. It would have been neat if her character and Snakebite Andi were the only members of the True Knot crew since they were the only ones who appeared to have any charisma and interesting tricks up their sleeve.

For the most part, DOCTOR SLEEP the movie is very good and refreshingly free of stupid jump scares. The finale is sadly a lazy ode to the Kubrick film but with the previously terrifying phantom visions now being a clunky deus ex machina beating you over the head with false nostalgia in the manner of JURASSIC WORLD - the old monsters now being heroic icons kicking the ass of the new.

I'd have preferred a new remake of THE SHNING that follows the book closesly (and isn't a cheese Lifetime special) followed later on by a DOCTOR SLEEP movie ala the two IT movies.

filmisnotpop wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:50 pm Rebecca Ferguson, who plays Rose the Hat, is a star. So much presence without the aid of an obviously insidious exterior. It would have been neat if her character and Snakebite Andi were the only members of the True Knot crew since they were the only ones who appeared to have any charisma and interesting tricks up their sleeve.

Computer, show me a post that ensures that I, a person that has zero familiarity with this story, will never see this film

These sound like characters in a Pokemon game

I really enjoyed this on the surface for its editing, special effects and nicely executed dream sequences and beyond that I found it to be quite a thoughtful and emotional continuation of the Kubrick film. What I differentiate with this film from let's say the newest Halloween and many other franchise or legacy horror reboots is that this isn't a simple copy and paste of events that happened in the source material.

Spoiler

Halloween seriously just replayed the events of Carpenter's original the only things we're let on with that it's a continuation is because we're told it's years later from the original events and Laurie and Michael are old now. With Doctor Sleep it was as easy as just playing off the theme of one being haunted by the past and not properly ever dealing with it. I was able to fully accept the retreading and recreations of iconic scenes from Kubrick's film because they actually had purpose to appear as they did throughout. The metaphor is even clearly shown with Danny merely boxing away the bad memories in the hedge maze. Not resolving his past only keeping them at bay so he can continue to guilt/pity himself into the behavior that plagued Jack. Halloran telling Danny in another context that everything circles around and at the end we're back at the Overlook where he receives no closure with his "Lloyd", his father and him having to open up those chests after all to kill Rose. The film plays itself out nicely with what it's juggling. I teared up three times: when Rose's group feed then murder the little boy because his cries for help were terrifyingly convincing, when Jack bullies Danny one last time in the Gold Room and of course the last vision of his mother as he is about to be engulfed by flames.

So overall I really got an emotional trip from this film and I cannot wait to watch it again. I hear there's an extended version for home release as well but I haven't heard much about it.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that though I liked the movie I'm not sure McGregor was the right choice for Danny. He seemed to be directionless in his performance.

Yeah, I think McGregor seems like a good choice on paper but he has a fair number of roles where he has come across a bit listless or less than engaging and here's another one like that.

I was concerned about that but at the same time they probably needed someone with a little name recognition for the role and I am racking my brain trying to think what notable white male actor in their 40s would have been a clearly better choice. Heath Ledger, if he was still alive. I dunno. Dan Stevens? Christian Bale?

Would have been fun to see Danny Lloyd actually but he wouldn't have been "famous" enough for the studio and he's retired from acting anyway.

I haven't seen the film as yet but apparently according to imdb Danny Lloyd does appear in Doctor Sleep as "Spectator". Is that just footage from the earlier film?

colinr0380 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:37 pm I haven't seen the film as yet but apparently according to imdb Danny Lloyd does appear in Doctor Sleep as "Spectator". Is that just footage from the earlier film?

He is physically in the film and has a cameo as the father in the stands at the baseball game.

Big Ben wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:59 pm

colinr0380 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:37 pm I haven't seen the film as yet but apparently according to imdb Danny Lloyd does appear in Doctor Sleep as "Spectator". Is that just footage from the earlier film?

He is physically in the film and has a cameo as the father in the stands at the baseball game.

There's nothing to suggest he's the boy's father. He simply comments on how well the kid plays.

captveg wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:00 pm

Big Ben wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:59 pm

colinr0380 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:37 pm I haven't seen the film as yet but apparently according to imdb Danny Lloyd does appear in Doctor Sleep as "Spectator". Is that just footage from the earlier film?

He is physically in the film and has a cameo as the father in the stands at the baseball game.

There's nothing to suggest he's the boy's father. He simply comments on how well the kid plays.

I was under the impression that he was indeed the child's father due to inference. I suppose it doesn't matter all that much as "spectator" is about as vague as it gets.

Screen Rant may imply that, but the film itself doesn't. His dialogue is essentially a guy in the stands who tells another guy, "Hey, check out this kid batting. He's gonna be a great player - always seems to know what pitch is coming." The scene itself suggests no familial connection to the "baseball boy" character, especially since the boy is walking home alone after the game.

Now, there could be a deleted scene that suggest he's the boy's father (and gets influenced by Snakebite Andi to let the kid walk home alone or something), but that seems overthought for a cameo.

Man, I thought this was terrible. Like an X-men movie transplanted into the King universe but more dull. The ending almost made me gag in its callbacks to the Kubrick film, complete with McGregor limping with an ax. Then you have one of scariest scenes in the Kubrick film repeated ad nauseam to the point where its a gag, and oddly caps off the film. The vampire gang plot could not be more cliche, Danny is a cliche, the gifted kid is a cliche. Odd and unsettling violence doesn’t make the film scary, just more questionable in its totality.

That's pretty much my take on it. The ending with the

Spoiler

old nostalgic monsters becoming heroes

put me in mind of Jurassic World or Return of the Jedi - and I do not approve!

I thought it was pretty great, honestly, especially the Director's Cut which has enough room to breathe and become its own sort of idiosyncratic entity that happens to reconcile three other idiosyncratic entities (The Shining book, The Shining film, and the Doctor Sleep book).

As an adaptation it is both pretty faithful but smart about what to change and how and as a film I really enjoyed the craft, the storytelling, and the calmly rhythmic pacing which I found pretty fresh for a horror flick.

I dunno, I just think Flanagan is a natural born storyteller and his technical ability and vision seems to be improving steadily.

Well much to my surprise I really liked this a lot. I thought Flanagan’s Hill House was unjustly overrated, and JamesF describing this as a great emulation of a King novel is well-stated in all its goofy imperfections, involving cinematic qualities, and difficulties executing strong, cumulative endings for his stories; but as Persona indicates, the fusion of the original novel, Kubrick's movie, and the sequel novel on which this is based, somehow works seamlessly.

I never read Doctor Sleep but King’s The Shining remains the most gutwrenching artistic work linking the consumer into the psyche of an alcoholic that I've ever absorbed. Jack is physically sober through a solid chunk of that book, and a completely different character than in Kubrick’s film, but so horribly tormented with resentment and shame. Written by King at the height of his own active addiction, it’s a therapeutic confession, and it feels like a suicide note.

I know many people people in recovery who have recommended Doctor Sleep to me over the years but I never read it. Some of these friends continue to cite it as integral in helping them in early sobriety (I read The Shining sometime in my first few months, and it captured my acute experience better than any movie or book ever has for a period of my life during the moment of consumption). It’s obvious from Flanagan’s film version that he’s interested in using the dynamic, suffocating forces of addiction (and general mental illness and trauma without supports) to channel the existential disillusionment and pain of hopeless isolation, as much as it provides solutions in both the enigmatic trust of invisible energies and corporeal groups of likeminded people. From the way it’s been described to me, and the procedure the film takes not only in its depictions of the actual sober living groups but thematically regarding personal development, Doctor Sleep is nothing less than a love letter to AA, but it's certainly more than that too.

Here are the first two pages of the novel, sent to me by a friend earlier tonight as I was talking to him about this film (and he deserves the credit for declaring the book "a love letter to AA")


I appreciate how trauma and self-destructiveness are woven into this film about strengths, control, and power; offsetting one another with complementary yin/yang responses to form a complex and relatable life. The idea of a higher power as existing both beyond the self and within as a bridge of connection is integral to how AA functions to help its members digest such nebulous concepts, by providing a path for relief in our powerlessness over the intangible and consequential sobriety to the power in tangible opportunities around us, that we fail to see by focusing on the former (and this extends to all people, really, regardless of membership to said club- for the potent fear of the limits of control does not discriminate). When Cliff Curtis approaches Danny knowing his “look” we initially wonder if he means that he shines too, but he's really picking up on something else- yet what we come to realize is that this is King’s fascination with the story: the layers of intimacy that exist between us in foggy energy and defined outlets; the risks we take to live a fuller life, engage in self-betterment and aid others, or the ones we don’t and the suffering that comes from those choices too. We can all 'shine' a little bit, they say. Can getting sober- not only physically but emotionally and spiritually- allow us to shine a bit more, connect to others and access a part of life that those drunk, or simply blind in self-delusion or unwillingness to develop, fail to recognize?

The fear of that which we don’t understand is also complemented with the acceptance of that mystery. The AA meeting eight years later reinforces this idea of spiritual connectivity and the power of belief in individualized meaning-making and healing, just as the broken fragmented person existed before. Yet the same person had the superpower to quite literally connect to others throughout all these changes- such a gift was simply meaningless and futile when he was spiritually bankrupt. And of course the solution is in the 12th step of turning one's attention to selflessly helping another person in need, while the villains of this film addictively feed off of others, taking lives and causing harm as a career to maintain their selfish gains, much like Danny’s former stage of being. In fact, they're a strong reminder of what could have happened if Danny had descended beyond the immoral behavior with a prodding conscience, to completely detaching himself from his moral compass into fixed oblivion. I don't think these people are beyond saving, but they have been conditioned for long enough where it becomes harder (not to mention the blatant unwillingness- the key factor), and this process of moral resignation is documented with Snakebite- who when we meet her is broken from trauma but has a clear code of ethics even if it's problematically skewed by anger.

The film is profoundly engaging on a purely sensory and narrative level as well. Flanagan and his team have edited this masterfully (I watched the three hours director's cut, which felt like no more than a breezy two hours), and the players are all up to their tasks, especially Rebecca Ferguson who embodies the functional addict leader with equal parts charming seduction, relentless sociopathy, and impulsive lust for 'more' that clouds her strategic self-preservation with defective traits of substance-dependency self-preservation. Oh and Ewan McGregor is a great casting choice as Danny, partly because he brings an authenticity to the role as an alcoholic in long-term recovery in real life. Maybe like Cliff Curtis' own brand of shine, we can smell our own, and I'm not convinced of a better casting choice for that grating first hour of realistic rock bottoms.

This is a film about the power of reform, and how the courage to do what's moral, or to act in conscious contact with one's higher power, is where the real super 'power' lies. The sacrifices made in the final act actually fall in step with the motifs of the story and the program, just taken to a wild fantastical extreme- but one that emphasizes that the refusal to operate on fear (Fuck Everything And Run) is a win, no matter how that's actualized. The earlier lock box analogy is great too- how he’s not had a visitor (analogy for a craving or overwhelming shame attack, etc.) in years once he’s become spiritually fit, but this also reaffirms the realization that the demons still exist somewhere and that no one is 'cured' or recovered from addiction, trauma, mental health issues, life. I'm not sure that this is an objectively great movie, but it's definitely a good one and most importantly it's a very affecting portrait of the ideas of recovery, and King's interest and personal experience with psychological deterioration, crises, and the path of growth, as universal themes of living a spiritual life. Danny's dogmatic compassion and full-measures of selflessness prevail as he passes on the 12th step, and now Abra will have a chance to bestow that step onto others because she's learned by example, just as Danny did from Dick Hallorann- and then again was granted a second chance at life from Curtis, just as anyone- alcoholic or not- has the power to do. None of the characters who are good people and die in this film have their death framed as tragedy- their positivity is what's remembered and their lives are cemented as miracles. It's beautiful.