Search
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Two Kinds of Truth (Harry Bosch #20) in Books
Jan 10, 2018
Another wonderful mystery novel featuring Connelly's excellently developed lead detective
Michael Connelly's iconic detective, Harry Bosch, is back again. Harry's basically a volunteer for the San Fernando police department, working cold cases for the tiny force and mentoring their three young detectives. When they are called out for a murder of a father and son at a local pharmacy, Harry assists the inexperienced team in trying to track down the killers. The case leads Harry and his detectives into the dark world of opiates--both the big money of pill mills and the sad, cold side of addiction. Meanwhile, Harry hears from his former employer, the LAPD, when one of his thirty-year-old cases is reopened based on new evidence. Even worse, the killer is claiming Harry framed him. The case threatens Harry's most prized possession: his reputation as a cop, and he knows that no one will fight to clear his name like himself. The two unrelated cases pull at different sides of Bosch as he works to discover all different facets of the truth.
I love Harry Bosch so much, and there will be a hole in my heart when Connelly no longer writes about him. I actually moved this book up in my rotation (something I rarely ever do!) so I could read it on a weekend trip to Chicago, and my only regret is that it meant I finished it in about 48 hours, and now it's over. Per usual, Connelly gives us yet another wonderful mystery novel featuring his excellently developed lead detective. This one covers the timely topic of the opiate crisis, which looms fairly large in America today. It's well-researched, as always.
Reading a Bosch novel is like picking up with an old friend, and this one is no different. Our Bosch is aging, which this book acknowledges well. We see Bosch still grappling with having left the LAPD--who can he trust, what can he do with his life now. We even get some appearances from previous characters in earlier novels. Perhaps the best thing is a fairly large role for Bosch's half brother Mickey Haller, the famed "Lincoln Lawyer." These two are still figuring out their own relationship, but it's a treat for us readers to get a glimpse of Mickey; we even get to see some of his enjoyable courtroom antics. There's even an appearance from Mickey's investigator, Cisco! (See, it's like being old friends!)
And, of course, we can't forget the actual story, which, in usual Connelly style is excellent and tracks along flawlessly along Bosch's own journey. The opiate tale is both fascinating and depressing, while Bosch's unraveling of the backstory behind the reopened cold case will certainly keep you reading. There's never really any crazy twists or turns, but the novel moves along steadily and easily. There's both growth and angst with Bosch--I have to admit, I worry about the end of his arc, but I will still enjoy every moment I get with him until them.
Another enjoyable one for the Bosch canon--certainly recommend!
I love Harry Bosch so much, and there will be a hole in my heart when Connelly no longer writes about him. I actually moved this book up in my rotation (something I rarely ever do!) so I could read it on a weekend trip to Chicago, and my only regret is that it meant I finished it in about 48 hours, and now it's over. Per usual, Connelly gives us yet another wonderful mystery novel featuring his excellently developed lead detective. This one covers the timely topic of the opiate crisis, which looms fairly large in America today. It's well-researched, as always.
Reading a Bosch novel is like picking up with an old friend, and this one is no different. Our Bosch is aging, which this book acknowledges well. We see Bosch still grappling with having left the LAPD--who can he trust, what can he do with his life now. We even get some appearances from previous characters in earlier novels. Perhaps the best thing is a fairly large role for Bosch's half brother Mickey Haller, the famed "Lincoln Lawyer." These two are still figuring out their own relationship, but it's a treat for us readers to get a glimpse of Mickey; we even get to see some of his enjoyable courtroom antics. There's even an appearance from Mickey's investigator, Cisco! (See, it's like being old friends!)
And, of course, we can't forget the actual story, which, in usual Connelly style is excellent and tracks along flawlessly along Bosch's own journey. The opiate tale is both fascinating and depressing, while Bosch's unraveling of the backstory behind the reopened cold case will certainly keep you reading. There's never really any crazy twists or turns, but the novel moves along steadily and easily. There's both growth and angst with Bosch--I have to admit, I worry about the end of his arc, but I will still enjoy every moment I get with him until them.
Another enjoyable one for the Bosch canon--certainly recommend!
Forced premise (2 more)
Storytelling & writing that drives you insane
Not interesting
You'll probably love it or hate it
Dustin Tillman is a psychologist in Ohio; he's married with two sons and rarely even thinks about the horrific incident of his childhood, when his adopted brother, Rusty, murdered Dustin's parents and his aunt and uncle. Dustin was just a child then, and his brother was arrested largely on the testimony of Dustin and his cousin Kate and the 1980s' fears over satanism. But now Dustin learns that Rusty is being released from prison; his appeal has been granted, and his verdict overturned based on DNA evidence. Meanwhile, Dustin is struggling with one of his patients, Aqil, a former police officer who believes there is a link among a group of drunken college boys who have died by drowning. As more and more things start going wrong in Dustin's life, he gets drawn into Aqil's paranoia-- and he threatens to bring down his family with him.
This book had an interesting premise: linking two sets of crimes in the past and present, but I felt like that premise was a little forced/falsified, and I never got into the book, or the characters. As a reader, you'll probably find the way it's written either brilliant or incredibly irritating, and I fell squarely into the irritating camp. There are very abrupt chapter switches between the present and the past that are quite annoying, making it difficult to tell exactly where you are in time. The changes in point of view aren't as bad, allowing you to hear from Dustin, his son, and others, but it still gets confusing quickly. (Sidebar: doesn't anyone just tell a linear story from one person's point of view anymore?)
Even more, the story is written quite like the characters think--which is fine in theory--for instance, this includes Dustin's tendency to just stop mid-sentence, something his family teases him about. After a bit you get somewhat used to the random sentences that end mid-thought, or the weird white spaces, but it's still strange. Other parts are the story are split into two or three parts on a page and told almost in parallel, causing you to flip back and forth to read each set. I never was quite sure of the point of that. Yes, people in the novel are going crazy and on drugs. I could get that concept and not have to flip back and forth constantly to read chunks of the story. It's one of those storytelling devices that, to me, could be amazing, but just winds up driving you slightly insane.
This novel is also very dark. Again, that's fine. I just finished The Roanoke Girls, which was incredibly dark, and loved it. But this one: I just didn't find it that interesting. I found myself finishing it more out of a vague curiosity and duty than anything else. I figured out one of the main plot points pretty on and wasn't engaged with any of the characters. Then, after all of this, the ending is awful and vague, and there's no resolution, and I found myself just throwing the whole thing down in disgust. Definitely not one of my favorites. I can see the potential for others, but it wasn't for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review.
This book had an interesting premise: linking two sets of crimes in the past and present, but I felt like that premise was a little forced/falsified, and I never got into the book, or the characters. As a reader, you'll probably find the way it's written either brilliant or incredibly irritating, and I fell squarely into the irritating camp. There are very abrupt chapter switches between the present and the past that are quite annoying, making it difficult to tell exactly where you are in time. The changes in point of view aren't as bad, allowing you to hear from Dustin, his son, and others, but it still gets confusing quickly. (Sidebar: doesn't anyone just tell a linear story from one person's point of view anymore?)
Even more, the story is written quite like the characters think--which is fine in theory--for instance, this includes Dustin's tendency to just stop mid-sentence, something his family teases him about. After a bit you get somewhat used to the random sentences that end mid-thought, or the weird white spaces, but it's still strange. Other parts are the story are split into two or three parts on a page and told almost in parallel, causing you to flip back and forth to read each set. I never was quite sure of the point of that. Yes, people in the novel are going crazy and on drugs. I could get that concept and not have to flip back and forth constantly to read chunks of the story. It's one of those storytelling devices that, to me, could be amazing, but just winds up driving you slightly insane.
This novel is also very dark. Again, that's fine. I just finished The Roanoke Girls, which was incredibly dark, and loved it. But this one: I just didn't find it that interesting. I found myself finishing it more out of a vague curiosity and duty than anything else. I figured out one of the main plot points pretty on and wasn't engaged with any of the characters. Then, after all of this, the ending is awful and vague, and there's no resolution, and I found myself just throwing the whole thing down in disgust. Definitely not one of my favorites. I can see the potential for others, but it wasn't for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Outsider in TV
Apr 17, 2020
A great adaptation
I've had this series recorded on my box for quite a while, lockdown has finally allowed me time to watch it and it really is a brilliant adaptation of the King book.
It isnt an entirely accurate adaptation of the book, but it is a very good attempt. There are some changes but there are a lot of things that match the book too, and the majority of the changes aren't necessarily for the worst either. The story is a great one, not a surprise considering it's based on a King novel. It moves seamlessly from a detective crime thriller to a supernatural horror and the cinematography and soundtrack support this so well along with a decent amount of gore. It also has a fantastic cast. Ben Mendelsohn is perfect as Ralph and Cynthia Erivo is too as Holly, backed by a wonderful supporting cast.
There are some changes that I didn't appreciate as much though, some fairly small and minor nods towards the books - especially the references to Holly from the Bill Hodges trilogy series. Also I didn't appreciate the mid credits scene at the end of the final episode which appears to hint towards another series and a different ending. This series works so well as a standalone and I really dont appreciate them potentially looking at turning this into yet more series! It's also frustrating that the Bill Hodges trilogy has been turned into the Mr Mercedes series for another network, as really these 2 series should be linked with the same cast and theme.
Overall though this is a brilliant adaptation and definitely worth a watch.
It isnt an entirely accurate adaptation of the book, but it is a very good attempt. There are some changes but there are a lot of things that match the book too, and the majority of the changes aren't necessarily for the worst either. The story is a great one, not a surprise considering it's based on a King novel. It moves seamlessly from a detective crime thriller to a supernatural horror and the cinematography and soundtrack support this so well along with a decent amount of gore. It also has a fantastic cast. Ben Mendelsohn is perfect as Ralph and Cynthia Erivo is too as Holly, backed by a wonderful supporting cast.
There are some changes that I didn't appreciate as much though, some fairly small and minor nods towards the books - especially the references to Holly from the Bill Hodges trilogy series. Also I didn't appreciate the mid credits scene at the end of the final episode which appears to hint towards another series and a different ending. This series works so well as a standalone and I really dont appreciate them potentially looking at turning this into yet more series! It's also frustrating that the Bill Hodges trilogy has been turned into the Mr Mercedes series for another network, as really these 2 series should be linked with the same cast and theme.
Overall though this is a brilliant adaptation and definitely worth a watch.
Terry Nation's apocalyptic drama-adventure series came out of the same mid-70s interest in self-sufficiency that produced The Good Life, but also clearly owes a debt to George R Stewart's 1949 novel Earth Abides. A man-made virus devastates civilisation forcing the few who survive to rebuild; over the course of three series the programme deals with individual responses to the catastrophe, the characters coming together to build a community, and then an attempt to reconstruct something like a nation.
Many changes on both sides of the camera mean that Survivors is an inconsistent show, with nearly everyone agreeing the best episodes are all in the first season. This is not to say the first season is perfect or the others are not worth watching (though there are a few dud episodes). The best episodes are ones which mix character-based drama and big ideas - the capital punishment-themed Law and Order, in which the members of the community must decide what to do with one of their number they believe to be a murderer, is a particular highlight. Series anticipates Nation's Blake's 7 in the way a supporting character ends up as the de facto lead, in both cases a ruthless pragmatist becoming a very unconventional hero.
Criticisms that the show is middle class are somewhat justified; members of the working class are either comic relief or shotgun-toting menaces (trade unionists are also depicted as a menace). The low budget of the later episodes (most of which were made on VT rather than film) also shows. The second season can be a bit dull but the others are seldom less than interesting, and occasionally extremely good.
Many changes on both sides of the camera mean that Survivors is an inconsistent show, with nearly everyone agreeing the best episodes are all in the first season. This is not to say the first season is perfect or the others are not worth watching (though there are a few dud episodes). The best episodes are ones which mix character-based drama and big ideas - the capital punishment-themed Law and Order, in which the members of the community must decide what to do with one of their number they believe to be a murderer, is a particular highlight. Series anticipates Nation's Blake's 7 in the way a supporting character ends up as the de facto lead, in both cases a ruthless pragmatist becoming a very unconventional hero.
Criticisms that the show is middle class are somewhat justified; members of the working class are either comic relief or shotgun-toting menaces (trade unionists are also depicted as a menace). The low budget of the later episodes (most of which were made on VT rather than film) also shows. The second season can be a bit dull but the others are seldom less than interesting, and occasionally extremely good.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Based on the famous and beloved novel by Charles Dickens, Armando Iannucci (Veep, The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin) brings us this fresh new take on David Copperfield. And it’s like no other Dickens adaptation you’ve ever seen before.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Zookeeper's Wife
8.5
Rate It
Book
Now a major motion picture, starring Jessica Chastain and Daniel Bruhl, based on a remarkable true...
Pricing Derivatives Under Levy Models: Modern Finite-Difference and Pseudo-Differential Operators Approach: 2017
Book
This monograph presents a novel numerical approach to solving partial integro-differential equations...
Choice of the Cat
Games and Book
6.0
Rate It
App
Knock things over. Take a nap. Enslave humanity. Power, fame, and catnip are yours for the licking! ...