I would guess that people who can live for millennia would freely change names to fit into local society. 
The film version of Rose is one of the all-time great cinema villains. I cant wait for this Blue Ray to come out.
Hmm that thought did strike me too. Yes, it looks awesome. Might watch it if its not too scary.
It is scary. Rose and her gang chase down and kill kids who Shine and use their essence to prolong their seemingly eternal lives. There is one scene especially that is horrific and Ill put it in spoilers if you would rather not know.
They kidnap and kill a young little leaguer. The actual murder isnt shown explicitly but before he is killed you hear his heartrending screams and see him being held down and tied up by adults. We see The Knot breathing in his steam as he is slowly dying.
You should tell Shakespeare. And the author of Acts.
Yeah I thought that might be a dubious factoid that I found on the net. Still…
It is true that there was a big 19th c flower naming trend, though. The Victorians were mad for flower symbolism in general.
But it’s also true that the English name Rose wasn’t originally for the flower, but a form of the Norman Roheis, ultimately being Germanic in origin and having more in common with names like Roger and Robert than Lily and Violet.
Thanks. Finger on the mute button then.
We took a break from the theatre then. We got come candy. If it helps at all, apparently when they shot the scene, his screaming alarmed the adults in the scene so much that they were slightly traumatized and the actor playing the kid (Jacob Tremblay), jumped up and hit the snack table, leaving them to deal with their emotions.
I didn’t know anything about the film other than it was a sequel to THE SHINING and I walked away very impressed. I’d say it’s easily the best King adaptation in 25 years (at least)–though I haven’t read the book though am very fluent in a lot of his early written work.
Movies often have trouble visualizing battles in King books that are almost all mental or internal (Exhibit A: both adaptations of IT) but this did a really fantastic job of representing the basic idea of inhabiting psyches in a way that wasn’t confusing or overly complicated.
From a cinematic perspective, it was smart to never really evoke the visual style of its predecessor either (except for a few of those overhead Iowa shots). Rather, its real kindred spirit is SALEM’S LOT, which is about another legion of vampiric monsters. There are a lot of echoes with the original mini-series of that book and this one that I felt work really well, especially since the amount of CGI is kept to a minimum and the concentration is on the horror of the killing instead of trying to just throw in a ton of digital nonsense.
I don’t know how the book ends (and whether King glossed over its predecessor’s ending, very different from Kubrick’s version) but it allowed for a wonderful sense of closure and the doubling of the actors from the original was far more successful than if they had tried to have some uncanny valley imposters.
In other words, it was understated the way really scary movies should be, reserving the high-impact moments for maximum impact and allowing for a slow build. And I really couldn’t think of a weak link in the cast (though I was surprised we saw so little of Bruce Greenwood, considering how famous he is).
It’s strange that when I see a movie that gets a lot of hype and it largely lives up to it, I’m satisfied but also a little blase. But when a movie that I didn’t expect much from at all (and mostly went for curiosity’s sake) turns out to be really really good, as DOCTOR SLEEP is, it somehow stays with me longer. But it’s not long for this earth now that the holiday weekend has begun in theaters, so I’m really glad I caught it.
This article addresses some of the differences between the endings (both book vs movie Shining and book vs movie Doctor Sleep): How the Doctor Sleep Movie Changed Stephen King’s Book to Match Kubrick’s The Shining
Thanks! That’s actually very helpful and makes me far less interested in reading the book now. That the film took more risks is notable (sometimes, that’s for sake of narrative economy and expediency but it sounded like good instincts were at play here, too). Cool!
I finally saw it and I liked it a lot. I have recently watched IT chapters 1 and 2 with my wife and this movie is much better than either of those.
I actually read Doctor Sleep when it came out in 2013. I think the movie’s climax and resolution are actually quite a bit better than the one in the book. Obviously, the book was a sequel to the book and this is clearly a sequel to the movie, but I like this version of the ending at the hotel better. A little bit of fan service in giving us all the characters and locations in the hotel, but I was OK with it.
Anyway, this movie impressed me a lot.
Has anyone seen Gerald’s Game from the same director? Good, but not quite as good as this.