IIRC, “Red Dragon” was written by Thomas Harris, and is the first book of the “Lecter” trilogy (“Silence of the Lambs” and “Hannibal” are the other two books).
We really enjoyed it. Lots of “Kingisms” in it. The names really cracked us up. Besides the aformementioned “Johnny B. Goode” and “Jesse James”. did anyone else pick up on “Dr Hook” (putting on a pretty good medicine show) and “Dr. Massengil” (who is proving to be somewhat of a douche bag). The german shepherd with the german accent was a great touch The “Brand spanking new” issue of “Spanking Nurses” was great too. Lots of humor if you know to look for it.
Having read enough King (and seeing horrible adaptations of his works), little touches like that show that he had enough control over the production to make it, at least, faithful to his own version of the source.
I don’t worry that there’s little action yet. There’s usually lots of character development and foreshadowing going on before the fun starts - at least, in most of the King books I’ve read. But, when it starts, it moves fast.
Anyone else notice the doll on top of the elevator (#2, IIRC)??
That’s who we thought he was at first, but then decided it wasn’t. We’ve seen him in a couple of things though, playing the same type of character that Ethan Phillips does.
From what I could tell last night, the actors playing the psychic kitchen help couple truly did have Down’s Syndrome. They just seemed thrown in, however… I’m hoping that they’ll get better exposure in future episodes.
Overall, “Kingdom Hospital” was only OK. It wasn’t horrid, and it wasn’t great. It had its moments. I thought the anteater thing actually has potential, and the doctors in the hospital were exceptionally twisted. I particularly enjoyed Dr. Hook’s singing a happy little tune while cutting into the artist’s skull. A nice break from the sincere, give-it-your-all doctors that have become standard fare on network television ever since “ER” began.
It was interesting to see King revisit his own run-in with a vehicle so vividly. He’s been edging toward it for a while now, it seems, such as in Dreamcatcher. Anyone who’s read On Writing had to notice the similarity between the accident that the artist in “Kingdom Hospital” was involved in and King’s own accident, right down to the dog distracting the driver in the back seat… a little bit of trauma-purging going on here, I think, but I don’t mind.
I’m trying to figure out why King seems to like Craig R. Baxley as a director for his material so much. Baxley also directed “Rose Red” and “Storm of the Century,” both King originals written for the screen. Baxley has a very plain style, which doesn’t really suit King’s work all too well for my mind. His “scares” aren’t particularly scary, and there always seems to be something missing from the final product. King’s characters, for example, are almost always compelling and believeable as-written… but on the screen in Baxley’s hands they end up as cardboard cutouts. Even comparing the written screenplay of Storm to the final product on-screen, I found the written characters much more interesting. Baxley seems to lack something when it comes to bringing King’s characters to life on the screen.
That said, I did like the fact that all the characters who spent significant time in the hospital seemed slightly off somehow. They all had weird little quirks which brought in an overall sense of something wrong going on, beyond the physical manifestations. Sometimes it seemed a trifle overdone or mishandled, and I wonder how much better a different director could have handled these quirks, but I did like the effect anyway.
The music, also, was a nice touch. The original score wasn’t too impressive (it so rarely is for made-for-TV work), but the songs chosen for some parts of the film were definitely chosen to throw the viewer off-balance. The aforementioned Fountains of Wayne song, for example… nicely used, in a way that music isn’t often used for film or TV.
So yeah, while it wasn’t the greatest two hours of television ever, it definitely had its moments and I’m curious to see more. The Washington Post viewer sounds like he watched it while surfing porn on the internet or something… pretty clear that he wasn’t paying attention, or maybe wrote his review before he actually saw the show, based on the previews or somesuch.
I wonder what those here, who saw fit to condemn “Kingdom Hospital” before they saw it, think of it now that they (hopefully) watched it? lissener? Larry Mudd? Cervaise? Any thoughts?
On preview, I see that lissener lost a response to the ether… looking forward to reading it, when the hamsters decide to cooperate with you.
<ominous TV announcer voice>Stephen King’s… HAUNTED HAMSTERS</ominous TV voice>
I think it was the director’s style which has been off-putting for me. It’s not what you expect from a “King” miniseries. Of course, having read this thread, I now realize that it’s not his work, but I doubt many King fans know this. They’re probably as perplexed as I was.
Until this one, the style for a King miniseries has always been sort of linear, just simple scene-by-scene storytelling. This one struck me as, well, weird. There were many "What the fuck?" moments. The aardvark I could understand, because it tied in with the painting, but the talking dog was just surreal.
The opening credits looked like a Nine Inch Nails video, and the rest of the episode seemed just as disjointed. The humor seemed jarring, which, I suppose, was intentional, but it didn’t seem to flow.
I’m going to watch the rest of it, of course. It will probably make more sense when put into context with the rest of the series. At least, I hope so.
The maintainence man is the always fine Charles Martin Smith of American Graffitti, Never Cry Wolf, The Untouchables and a million other things. (It sez here on IMDB that he directed the first episode of Buffy!)
Actually, I just popped in here to say good things – and I’m surprised that it’s being received so poorly.
Maybe it’s because I went into it with very low expectations that I found myself being pleasantly surprised… on the other hand its post hoc detractors may be comparing it to Stephen King’s other work, and finding it foreign and strange.
Personally, I found that it matched the look and feel of Lars Von Trier’s Kingdom far more than I thought possible – and where it diverges, it does so to its benefit. I’m finding the differences are enough to keep me interested, and I’ve got to say that I love the anteater. I was leery of King’s bringing his personal stuff into The Kingdom, but it works.
As far as the transliteration of the characters is concerned, I am impressed. Diane Ladd, in particular, is awesome as Mrs. Drusse. Everyone else is just as I remember them, only American. I didn’t think it was possible.
Stegman is a disappointment, but I expected that. Bruce Davison is no Ernst-Hugo Järegård, there’s no getting around it. I also didn’t like the extended parking-lot scene – the hooligans were too overstated, and so was his reaction. The original was just better. Believable rabble, and Helmer’s reaction of removing his hubcaps and taking them into the building got the point across without coming across as total farce. Plus, I believed Järegård’s performance.
Another thing that bothered me a bit was the way they hit us over the head with the funny little hand-sign. It was much better when you only saw it once, and you are allowed to believe that it signifies nothing more than Dr. Hook’s devil-may-care attitude in the face of Stig the prig’s deadly serious demeanor. “Idiot!” Hell, we haven’t even got to that scene yet, and it’s already blown, really.
A few other minor quibbles-- I didn’t like the ancient fullery being changed to a mill. It dilutes the symbolism.
On the whole, though-- I thought it was pretty damned good, and I look forward to seeing the rest of the series.
preview
Yes, I figured that this must be at the heart of the negative reactions it’s getting. The director’s style is very faithful to Lars Von Trier’s original – which is a very good thing in my opinion.
Almost forgot to mention this: did anyone else notice that Lars von Trier is one of the Executive Producers of “Kingdom Hospital”? I was glad to notice that… perhaps that’s some of the reason why it turned out fairly faithful to the original.
Larry Mudd, the thing I don’t like about the director’s style is that it seems he’s trying too hard at some points. The bit with Stegman and the hooligans, for example, seemed overdone. I’m always prepared to “give the man a chance,” and I plan to keep watching, but Baxley’s directing, from “Storm of the Century” to this, has always struck me a little flat. He just doesn’t catch me up in what he’s doing. I think that King is determined to stay true to the feel of the original, but I see too many “Baxley-isms” that don’t work for it. Or rather, sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t… it’s split about even.
On the other hand, there’s plenty to like in the series so far, and it has lots of potential. I’m glad that others have liked it too.
Yeah, it seemed like they were hesitant to let the camera linger on them. It’s not like “Here are the kitchen workers. They are concentrating on their task. Now they are talking about trivial stuff. Hey, this guy seems to know something about what’s happening!” It’s “Here’s a quick shot of some commentary from a couple of retarded people with no obvious connection to the hospital.” Hopefully they will develop them a bit better in the next twelve hours, though.
Another thing-- I wonder when they will elaborate on Moesgaard’s (Err, “Jesse James”) little workplace morale stickers? Those little things define him to a tee.
Hearty agreement, there. I’m not really familiar with much of Baxley’s work, but I remember blanching when looking at his undistinguished resume back when this project was announced. No doubt about it, he’s a hack. Fortunately, he seems to be going to the original source for his own direction, mostly.
A question for people who’ve seen the orginal: Was there any built-on-the-site-of-an-industrial-accident in the orginal, or did SK just decide to put that bit from IT into this series?
As for Baxter, I’m not sure how I feel about that. I more or less liked Storm of The Century, but Rose Red…it was one of the scarier things I’ve seen in recent years, but it feel apart quickly the last night, making the whole movie sort of pointless. Ah well, at least Kingdom might be scary too.
The site was a place where pre-Christian Scandinavians took their cloth to be bleached. Later, it became the scene of ritual sacrifice, and the victims remained on the spot. Before the shiny new Kingdom hospital was built, a darker institution stood on the grounds. (That last is sure to be kept in the adaptation.)
The “Brand spanking new” issue of “Spanking Nurses” was great too. Lots of humor if you know to look for it.
