![]() ![]() Kubrick's film has a devoted cult following-I count myself as a fan-but it has also endured its share of criticism over the years for the narrative and thematic liberties it takes with King's novel, with King himself the most prominent foe. It's also a follow-up to The Shining, director Stanley Kubrick's icy, gothic 1980 adaptation of King's 1977 novel of the same name. ![]() Writer-director Mike Flanagan's adaptation of Doctor Sleep works somewhat better on this front, staging several showy sequences of psychic warfare and managing a relatively consistent tonal strangeness, in which the timing of everything is just little bit distorted, like a 33 rpm record played at 45 rpm.īut Flanagan's flawed, frustrating adaptation faces another challenge as well: It's not just an adaptation of a King novel. He's not trying just to make you jump out of your seat or recoil with disgust he's trying to make you unsettled and afraid. King's best work is interior, driven by mounting paranoia and obsession, a sense of inexplicable and inescapable dread. The first two- Pet Semetary and the second part of It -were more conventional scary movies, culling surface-level thrills and chills from King books that worked at a deeper level of psychological terror. ![]() Doctor Sleep is the third attempt at adapting a Stephen King novel this year, and the third to show the difficulties of the task. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |