Doctor Sleep Review

I was recently listening to an interview with Rebecca Ferguson, who plays the villain in Doctor Sleep, on BBC Radio 2. She was asked about a potential sequel to The Greatest Showman (who'd have thought that would come up in this review). In short, her answer was that something which worked so well once and was adored by fans and critics alike should really be left untouched, since no sequel could surely live up to the magic of the original. It was a perfect standalone story and no follow up could ever do it justice so who would be stupid enough to even try. Cue a call for listeners to go see her upcoming sequel to The Shining, of all films.

The film follows Danny Torrance (Ewan McGregor), the child of Jack Nicholson's murderous psychopath Jack Torrance. Having struggled through addiction and settled into a quiet suburban life, Danny is forced back into the world of the supernatural when a young girl (Kyleigh Curran) with psychic abilities like his own is placed in the path of a gang of cultists who feed on psychic energy.

Right off the bat, one of the biggest problems this film faces, is that it has a lot to live up to. It has to try and stand on its own as a horror film, whilst also acting as a sequel to Kubrick's original which is considered by many a masterpiece, as well as having the added audience expectations of a Stephen King adaptation. Because of all this, I feel the best way to start this review is to look at it from each of these criteria.

So firstly, how does it stand up as a standalone horror film? For the large part, this film could be viewed on its own without necessarily needing to know the story of the Kubrick original, although obviously without knowledge of the original there will be some confusing moments. In terms of the horror, Doctor Sleep is surprisingly light on scares, focusing more heavily on the story. Where Kubrick used imagery and atmosphere to invoke a feeling of dread, this film sort of relies on you already being scared by the subject matter, or else you probably won't get much from it scare-wise.

If you're a casual fan of horrors, this might not be the film for you, if only because there isn't all that much horror for most of the runtime, including the surprisingly naff opening sequence. There's certainly creepy things happening but it was very rare that I would feel at all affected by a scene and there was never a moment where I was particularly scared. Saying that, it's somewhat hard for me to gauge what is actually scary as I am very unaffected by horror films for the most part. There was one scene around a third of the way through which did genuinely unsettle me, but I think this was largely because of the performance of the actor rather than the thing happening to them (hopefully you'll know what I mean if you've seen it, but i'd rather not risk spoiling it).

Next, how does it work as a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining? Put simply, it kind of doesn't, but it doesn't necessarily have to. It's certainly a weird dynamic that this film has with its predecessor, coming out almost 40 years after the original, and telling a completely different story. I certainly went in knowing that this film wouldn't be anything like the original, and I got about what I expected. For the most part, I forgot it was a sequel at all, until the film would inevitably throw in a reference to the Overlook Hotel's carpet or room 237 or any number of iconic features of the original. It did feel at times like the film was trying to have it both ways. It would insist that it was a separate story and that it could stand on its own, but then inevitably it ends up being a clip show of The Shining's best moments.

Aside from the plot, it certainly didn't feel like a sequel to Kubrick's work. Tonally it is completely different, as much less of a slow build to a dramatic conclusion than the original. Stylistically, it doesn't really have any standout Kubrick moments, except for those which were literally copied and pasted, but this genuinely was never an issue for me. It would have been a mistake for any director to have gone into this project with the mission statement of living up to Kubrick. On top of this, since this strays from the psychological horror genre more than its predecessor, this film does have some genuinely touching moments, and allows itself to embrace those more personal character moments.

So finally, does it work as a Stephen King adaptation? My relationship with Stephen king is that I've tried a little bit of everything. I've seen a number of the adaptations, read a few of the books and delved into some of his short fiction, so I'm far from an expert but I know a little of it all. This certainly does feel like a Stephen King adaptation, but not like some of the horror adaptations he's best known for. If you've read a Stephen King book, you'll know that they are packed with interesting ideas, surrounded by detours and some padding and almost always a questionable moment. In that sense, this is very much a King adaptation. Maybe the issue for me is that the advertising for the film did focus heavily on the horror, but it doesn't really have that feel to me. It's good and definitely worth a watch if you're a fan of the book, but it's not like some other King adaptations.

In terms of the acting, the main cast are largely pretty good. Ewan McGregor puts in a fine performance, conveying his range from a character struggling with addiction, to a man forced into responsibility. Rebecca Ferguson is suitably menacing, although not particularly scary, as can be said for most of her cult followers. The only performances which didn't work for me were the actors trying to portray characters from the original film (This next bit I'll talk about all takes place in the first quarter of an hour of the film). In the first 10 minutes particularly, the film re-casts young Danny and his mother, and neither performance works at all for me. The exception here is the actor recreating Dick Halloran, Danny's mentor in psychic ability, who is suitably charming and kind to young Danny.

Overall, Doctor Sleep is a well-made and enjoyable film, as long as you are only going in with the expectation of seeing an enjoyable film. This is probably an issue since a film should surely appeal to its own demographic, but as a horror film and particularly as a sequel to The Shining, it does falter somewhat. I spent the whole time hoping for more sequences such as those in the original, and yet whenever it tried to deliver on these scenes it felt underwhelming. I'm glad I watched it but I can't see myself watching it again.