You put this
"It's a pretty well-known piece of film trivia that King didn’t love Kubrick’s version of his classic book, and Doctor Sleep director Mike Flanagan has attempted to bridge the gap between the original film and the novel"
3 paragraphs later
"It's a pretty well-known piece of film trivia that King didn’t love Kubrick’s version of his classic book, and Doctor Sleep director Mike Flanagan has attempted to bridge the gap between the original film and the novel. The script is clearly adapted"
Why repeat yourself?
Is it necessary to see the original as my wife hasn't seen The Shining?
definitelyIs it necessary to see the original as my wife hasn't seen The Shining?
It may have meant more in the book, but it doesn’t relate much to the film.I will wait for 4KBD on this one. In the meantime, can I just say 'Doctor Sleep' is a frickin' terrible title for anything: Album, book, DJ, sedative, film, gadget – ANYTHING.
Considering it's attempting to tie in both the original source novel, the disowned classic film adaptation, and the recently penned sequel novel, into one relatively cohesive whole, I would think that familiarity with either the original book or movie would be a pre-requisite, no?
You say that, but Dr Sleep was longer than The Shining and it felt it tooNot long got back from seeing this and thought it was great.
It is missing the Kubrick factor but I think it would of been 3.5 hours long if he had his hand in it and also another 10 years away from being made as he was such a perfectionist.
7.5/10 for me. Enjoyable and fits in with its parent film I think.
Doctor Sleep is basically in the same position as 2010: The Year We Make Contact.
Think about it.
Original story by Stephen King [Arthur C Clarke].
Story made into a genre-defining film masterpiece by Stanley Kubrick.
Sequel written by the author years later.
Sequel made into a film by a different filmmaker.
Film is actually really good, despite not holding a candle to the first.
Only difference is that Clarke didn't hate Kubrick's 2001