kevin-38242
Joined Sep 2015
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings36
kevin-38242's rating
Reviews36
kevin-38242's rating
This movie was competently done. The acting was fine, the cinematography OK, the writing decent, the production generally satisfactory. But that's all I can say about it, and it could have been much more.
The main problem is that this movie isn't an advance on the 1979 TV adaptation. The storyline is much the same and, apart from the ending, both keep pretty close to the basic plot and characters of the book. Neither has the subtlety of the book, but that's the problem with trying to cram a pot-boiler into two hours.
I expect that, with forty years of advances in cinema technology, at least the visual effects would be better. But they're not. In fact, some of the effects in this movie are just cheesy. The glowing crosses are a case in point -- they look like cheap halloween props. If the crosses had crackled and spat like Star Wars lightsabres, lighting up the surroundings with eldridge fire, that would have been something to see. But they just glowed like they were powered by AA batteries.
Both this movie and the '79 TV adaptation misrepresent the arch-vampire, compared to King's original vision. But at least the TV version was scary. I mean, real change-your-underwear scary. But the boss baddie in this movie is just a cheap movie monster. We've all seen him before, from Hammer onwards.
In short, it wasn't a bad movie, exactly. I'm not demanding my money back. It's just that it's no better than a version that was made forty-odd years ago. And that's got to be a disappointment.
The main problem is that this movie isn't an advance on the 1979 TV adaptation. The storyline is much the same and, apart from the ending, both keep pretty close to the basic plot and characters of the book. Neither has the subtlety of the book, but that's the problem with trying to cram a pot-boiler into two hours.
I expect that, with forty years of advances in cinema technology, at least the visual effects would be better. But they're not. In fact, some of the effects in this movie are just cheesy. The glowing crosses are a case in point -- they look like cheap halloween props. If the crosses had crackled and spat like Star Wars lightsabres, lighting up the surroundings with eldridge fire, that would have been something to see. But they just glowed like they were powered by AA batteries.
Both this movie and the '79 TV adaptation misrepresent the arch-vampire, compared to King's original vision. But at least the TV version was scary. I mean, real change-your-underwear scary. But the boss baddie in this movie is just a cheap movie monster. We've all seen him before, from Hammer onwards.
In short, it wasn't a bad movie, exactly. I'm not demanding my money back. It's just that it's no better than a version that was made forty-odd years ago. And that's got to be a disappointment.
It's painful to criticize something that is so splendidly acted, filmed, and directed. In the end, though, a story needs to have a coherent, self-contained plot, even if it's a fantastical one.
The leading characters perform admirably, and managed to keep my interest long after the story stopped making any sense. The story itself deals with many themes -- too many for the writing to keep together. It's not that the writing doesn't make sense -- although sometimes it does not. Rather, it's that so many thematic elements are introduced, and never developed.
The central theme is aging. The central characters are an old-ish couple (but not much older than me) struggling to make sense of their lives, as well all do. The presence of some sort of alien artefact (maybe) in their back yard should act as a focus for that human drama.
It does not, though, because so many other elements intrude.
I suspect that this series was originally intended to span multiple season. It seems to me that at least two more seasons would be needed to develop all the storylines, and tie up the loose ends. However, since it's been cancelled, that's not going to happen.
If you're the kind of person who can read the first third of a book and not worry about the ending, this might suit you. After all, there's a lot to like. If you like resolution, this show is ultimately frustrating.
The leading characters perform admirably, and managed to keep my interest long after the story stopped making any sense. The story itself deals with many themes -- too many for the writing to keep together. It's not that the writing doesn't make sense -- although sometimes it does not. Rather, it's that so many thematic elements are introduced, and never developed.
The central theme is aging. The central characters are an old-ish couple (but not much older than me) struggling to make sense of their lives, as well all do. The presence of some sort of alien artefact (maybe) in their back yard should act as a focus for that human drama.
It does not, though, because so many other elements intrude.
I suspect that this series was originally intended to span multiple season. It seems to me that at least two more seasons would be needed to develop all the storylines, and tie up the loose ends. However, since it's been cancelled, that's not going to happen.
If you're the kind of person who can read the first third of a book and not worry about the ending, this might suit you. After all, there's a lot to like. If you like resolution, this show is ultimately frustrating.
Call me old-fashioned, but I preferred it when movies had a plot. Now we have to "explore" this and "introspect" that, and otherwise engage with pointless, post-modern psychobabble. Yes, the cinematography is wonderful, and the acting perfectly competent. There's a great sense of encroaching dread which leads to -- absolutely nothing.
The great thing about mental illness, if you are a lazy, self-obsessed screenwriter, is that nothing needs to make sense. You can present a sequence of unconnected, confusing events with no concern for whether they have any narrative consistency. After all, if you're nuts, you wouldn't expect events to have any temporal or spatial coherence, right?
It's OK for a story to raise more questions than it answers, but there has to be at least a sense that, somewhere, there actually are answers. In this movie, there aren't even any meaningful questions.
If 500 000 people saw this movie, the total amount of time wasted would equal a typical human lifetime. The writer would therefore be guilty of one murder. Fortunately, I think it's unlikely that it will attract such an audience, so the writer's crime isn't actually a capital one. Still, there should be penalties for abusing and insulting an audience this way.
The great thing about mental illness, if you are a lazy, self-obsessed screenwriter, is that nothing needs to make sense. You can present a sequence of unconnected, confusing events with no concern for whether they have any narrative consistency. After all, if you're nuts, you wouldn't expect events to have any temporal or spatial coherence, right?
It's OK for a story to raise more questions than it answers, but there has to be at least a sense that, somewhere, there actually are answers. In this movie, there aren't even any meaningful questions.
If 500 000 people saw this movie, the total amount of time wasted would equal a typical human lifetime. The writer would therefore be guilty of one murder. Fortunately, I think it's unlikely that it will attract such an audience, so the writer's crime isn't actually a capital one. Still, there should be penalties for abusing and insulting an audience this way.