Riget is indeed an excellent body of work. But the humor is based on Danish culture and might be lost on other viewers. If you are a Stephen King fan, then you'll probably enjoy his interpretation of that story. If you don't like Stephen King, then why watch his movies? Consider "Psycho" starring Ann Heche - a remake down to the very last word and camera angle of Hitchcock's "Psycho." What's the point? Or consider James Whale's original Frankenstein - an absolute horror masterpiece. Does that mean I shouldn't enjoy "Young Frankenstein" because it mocks the original? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It brings this story to people who wouldn't otherwise watch it. Some people don't like dubbed movies - they ruin the atmosphere and subtitled movies invariably cause me to miss visual cues. I agree, Riget "Rules", absolutely. But this version has some interesting qualities and I enjoyed watching it. It's better on DVD without all the cuts on cable/dish.
Add a Review
-
gorefreak9 December 2005I really looked forward to it when I heard that King was planning to do this show'(my favourite author), I watched the danish mini series when it aired in Danish television in 1994, back then I was thrilled with the show, it was simply brilliant. I wasn't disappointed with this version, it's basically the same story, but with changed characters, I don't think there's a lack of humour but it's just different. There is only one thing I can complain about and that is Bruce Davison/Dr. Stegman is doing a fine job but he gets nowhere near Ernst-Hugo Järegård/Helmer. In "Riget" the funniest thing was the Swedish Dr. Helmer, who hated danes, treating everyone like they had no brain, Dr. Stegman is quite unpleasant but not as enjoyably nasty as Helmer was. R.I.P.
-
Mindogger13 September 2007Let's get a few things out of the way here: 1) "Kingdom Hospital," although based on the Danish series "Riget," is NOT "Riget." 2) "Riget" is, indeed, a better production. 3) "Kingdom Hospital" is NOT horror. It can probably best be described as a black comedy/Gothic mystery featuring ghosts, but it is not horror.
Like the best of Stephen King's works, "Kingdom Hospital" draws its inspiration from a combination of another work and autobiographical details of his own life, in this case, Lars von Trier's "Riget," and King's own 1999 experience being struck by a drunk driver in a hit-and-run accident. King wrote 8 of the 13 episodes himself and shares writing credit with his wife Tabitha on a 9th. The remaining 4 were scripted by his co-producer, National Book Award finalist Richard Dooling.
"Kingdom Hospital" is not "Riget" and does not pretend to be. A straightforward remake of "Riget" would not have played well to mainstream American audiences, besides being redundant and unnecessary. If you want to see "Riget," you can rent "Riget," but don't look for it here. Instead, "Kingdom Hospital" uses "Riget" as the framework for a motherlode of subtext. From a modern re-telling of the Egyptian Anubis myth, to questions of Christian faith, from forays into the horrors of experimental medicine to frequent pot shots at American popular culture, from an exploration of obsessive attraction to biting commentary on the ways children have been treated historically--all of these things combine to tell a fascinating, multi-layered tale.
While the villain, Dr. Stegman, is rather one-dimensional in his obsessions and hubris, he serves as a mirror to the more fascinating Dr. Hook, a man so haunted by his own internal demons and guilt that he strives to be better. Stegman's lack of guilt serves as his downfall, while Hook's guilt and mistakes define him. Peter Rickman serves as the mirror to Stephen King, as he realizes he has defined himself by his craft (he is an artist), and just as King revealed in his memoir "On Writing" how writing ultimately healed him, so does Rickman's artwork (he's so defined by it that he uses drawings to communicate while comatose) set the stage for his own healing, and, ultimately, the "healing" of Kingdom Hospital. "It's what I do," he says at the story's climax. "It's solid."
"Kingdom Hospital" is much better suited to viewing on DVD without the endless commercial interruptions that slowed the narrative during its prime-time run. On television the story was slow to build and often seemed to take pointless, meandering side trips, but watched in a single sitting, it takes on a new life, and those side trips pay off marvelously in end. This is fascinating stuff, great character studies, and far better than the standard slop served up on American television. A definite must-see! -
Uldead9 March 2004The First thing you have to know is that "Stephen King's Kingdom Hospital" on ABC is a remake of the Danish mini-series "Riget" and "Riget II" by Lars Von Trier. So it's essentially a process of "translating" something for the mainstream. My main problem with this was that they didn't focused on all the important things; it lost all the humor factor and it's special weirdo characters, and that was what made the original show so unique. And now we don't have any of that, we lost all the interesting characters and the black humor, what we get is the gore and the ghost story only. It really gives an idea about how little King and the Americans understood from the original. Yes, Ernst-Hugo Järegård is irreplaceable, but for God's sake, even the rest of these characters are all too normal, they look too nice, healthy, like models. Even when they supposed to be weird, it's somehow cliched, typical commercially "alternative". It's the paradox goal of this show, you can't turn the alternative to mainstream while remain alternative, because they are the antitheses of each other.
Another negative thing is that it's budget was probably like 10 times higher than the original, that's not negative on it's own, but they used that money on things that would have been much better without them, first of all it looks like a Hollywood movie, even though they tried to create some alternative look with the lighting but it's still too nice, too hyper realistic, that subtracts from the creepy mood a lot. And then we have some CGI characters, a talking sloth-bear, that has the teeth of the Worms from Dreamcatcher... As a conclusion you get what you have expected, a dumbed down, mainstream version of something original, and the worst is that it's badly executed.
My Rating: 3 / 10 -
Chickensmoke10 April 2007I enjoyed Kingdom hospital very much but i felt at times it was a bit slow and a few episodes were made up of unnecessary events, that weren't crucial to the plot, although some were enjoyable. The first episode was fantastic at the start but then dragged on for an extra 20 minutes too long and the first 4 episodes had a good atmosphere. Then the series got a bit boring although mostly enjoyable to watch. I loved the episode 'Butter fingers' and the last two episodes were excellent bar the unsatisfying ending. At times the show was quite scary and certainly creepy but there's nothing that will haunt you forever here. The effects were quite good especially on the creepy anteater that roams the old kingdom. I recommend it if you like the Craig r Baxley and Stephen King combination and if you enjoyed this or want to watch a enjoyable series by the pair but not one as long then i recommend 'Rose red', 'Storm of the century' and 'the shining (1997)'.Once again there is some cool atmospheric music from Gary Chang although lots of the music is just the same piece playing throughout the series. I found it entertaining because or the plot and the mystery once you watch one show you want to see the next! All in all kingdom hospital is good, when you've got the time for it.
-
renyard0129 June 2007Probably one of the best video representations of Stephen King's writing style (although he did not write the original novel), "Kingdom Hospital" definitely worth the watching! Granted, this mini-series is not for everyone. If you're into short, powerful horror films that end with all the loose ends neatly tied up, this one just won't be for you. Just as in his novels, King takes his time to explore characters, situations, the macabre, and so on. Like his novels, this is a rich exploration that takes the time and patience of the viewer.
What I liked the most about this series were the running motifs that tied the numerous subplots together in very subtle ways. Things like secret hand-signs, recurring phrases, and soundtrack songs like "Red Dragon Tattoo" by Fountains of Wayne. I also like the way that black humor was woven into situations in ways that seemed appropriate, and yet not overdone.
I'm sure that "Kingdom Hospital" will never win any artistic awards, but the quality of this piece surpasses much of what one can expect from American television miniseries. -
borax7611 October 2004When Kingdom Hospital originally aired I watched it every week, then the air-date changed and I missed an episode and couldn't bring myself to continue watching with an hour's worth gap. I got my DVD set last week (a few days early) and I absolutely love this show. In a commentary on the DVD Kingdom Hospital is described as a video book and it really feels that way, it's got a perfect pace and you can really ID with the characters who are very rich and well defined. I feel that the story is more effective when you watch the episodes close together, waiting 7 days for subsequent episodes is like torture. It's sad that the ratings were low because I'd really like to see more of Kingdom Hospital and the characters involved. Ed Begley Jr., Andrew McCarthy and Bruce Davison especially give excellent performances, I give the special effects a big 19. Buy the set and you'll be addicted.
-
claudio_carvalho21 July 2005Along the last days, I had been watching this thirteen episodes TV series of Stephen King, and I really found the story confused and too long. There are many silly characters and unnecessary situations, and the story spins without reaching a point. Dr. Hook (Andrew McCarthy), Dr. Stegman (Bruce Davidson) and Peter Rickman (Jack Coleman) are the best lead characters. The character of Diane Ladd keeps a crying face most of the time and is very silly with her crazy theories. The director of the hospital is awfully stupid and never works. Elmer and his sexual fixation in Dr. Lona Massingale is also boring. The vandalism with the Jaguar of Dr. Stegman by the two retarded is also ridiculous.
I do not have the original names of the episodes in English, therefore I included a free translation, and I rated them as follows:
1st "Venha a Nós o Vosso Reino" ("Come to us Your Kingdom")(19 Jun 2005) My vote is seven;
2nd "Reino da Morte" ("Kingdom of the Death") (20th Jun 2005) My vote is seven;
3rd "Beijo de Despedida" ("Goodbye Kiss") (20th Jun 2005) My vote is six;
4th "O Outro Lado da Meia-Noite" ("The Other Side of Midnight") (21st Jun 2005) My vote is seven;
5th "O Reino de Hook" ("The Kingdom of Hook") (21st Jun 2005) My vote is seven;
6th "O Jovem e o Sem Cabeça" ("The Youngster and the Without Head") (16th Jul 2005) My vote is seven;
7th "Ruídos Sinistros" ("Sinister Noises") (19th Jul 2005) My vote is eight;
8th "Sem Coração" ("Without Heart") (20th Jul 2005) My vote is seven;
9th " Mão Furada" "("Butter Fingers") (20th Jul 2005) My vote is eight;
10th " No Terceiro Dia" ("On the Third Day") (20th Jul 2005) My vote is five;
11th "O Dia dos Ataques" ("The Day of the Attacks") (21st Jul 2005) My vote is five;
12th "Deveria ter Ficado em Casa" ("I Should Have Stayed at Home") (21st Jul 2005) My vote is eight;
13th "Episódio Final" ("Final Episode") (21st Jul 2005) My vote is nine.
Another interesting point is the number of favorable reviews in IMDb for this mini, all of them giving ten in the vote. However, most of them are written by persons interested in promoting this movie for some reason, since they have only ONE review issued in IMDb. My global vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Kingdom Hospital" -
FlyFlyStarling13 November 2005Well, that's the warning that should have come before the show-- as well as expecting the viewers to actually know some of the works being referenced (and I'm not just talking about Mr. King's references to his own publications). I have read several complaints on various sites about the "Emperor of Ice Cream" reference Lenny treats us to. Most of the American public, sadly, seems as uninformed about Wallace Stevens as they are about Emanuel Swedenborg.
The massive amount of obscure mythological references also fascinate me-- especially what I view to be the reason for Antibus' inclusion in this series. The white dog (Blondie)and the red ant-eater (Antibus, Anubis)-- are both symbols of the Egyptian God Seth (Setekh, Set, Sut)-- and Anubis is his son. Also, we have references to his dual nature, and he that 'eats disease'-- one of Setekh's names from the Book of the Dead in his role as a gatekeeper. Also-- we have the golden light and the sun referenced over and over again. Setekh is the defender of light; he stands on the prow of Ra's ship to battle the Apep monster (who attempts to devour light and order in the universe). Why was he included? Antibus is our psychopomp, our transitor, our gatekeeper as viewers. In such he takes on both the aspects of father and son-- he is Anubis who leads the souls of the dead to judgment, but he is also Setekh who keeps watch on the ways of the underworld -and the heavens above- and who devours and destroys any unclean thing.
But, even for this, Mr. King is not and has never been one of my favorite authors. Certainly there are some of his books I enjoy, but -on the whole- I am not easily scared and usually find his attempts at horror laughable. I think one of the best parts about Kingdom Hospital is that Stephen isn't attempting to scare us. Rather, I think he's trying to promote thought in the viewer and so I love the multiple plot lines and the slow build of the story.
Now, as to it being -or not being- Riget. Having seen both series I say, Riget is Riget. It's fantastic. I enjoy it. Kingdom Hospital is Kingdom Hospital. It's fantastic. I enjoy it. I'm not entirely sure why most people seem incapable of liking each for it's individual qualities as well as enjoying the slender threads of commonality that link the series.
Overall, I find Kingdom Hospital to be a wonderful series and truly wish they would have continued it. Pick it up on DVD, you just might like it. -
FloatingOpera730 October 2006"Kingdom Hospital" (2004): Starring Andrew McCarthy, Bruce Davison, Diane Ladd, Ed Begley Jr, Jack Coleman, Brandon Bauer, Megan Fay, Jennifer Cunningham, Lena Georgas, Jodelle Ferland, Jamie Harrold, Allison Hossack, Sherry Miller, Del Pentacost, Suki Kaiser, Kett Turton, Julian Richings, William Wise, John Cassini, William B. Davis, Lorena Gale, Christopher Heyerdahl, Eric Keenleyside, Michael Lerner, Peter MacNeill, Brenda McDonald, Duncan Minett, Peter New, Ty Olsson, Paul Perri, Gerard Plunkett, David Quinlan, Benjamin Ratner, Callum Keith Rennie, Ryan Robbins, Zak Santiago, Alan Scarfe, Gary Sekhon, Ron Selmour, William Morgan Sheppard.....Director Craig R. Baxley, Screenplay Stephen King, Richard Dooling, Tabitha King.
Some are familiar with the original mini-series "Kingdom Hospital" by Lars Von Tier but this was mainly the work of horror novelist Stephen King and Director Craig R. Baxley, who had just finished the mini-series "Rose Red" and "Diary of Ellen Rimbauer" for TV in 2002 and 2003. 2004's "Kingdom Hospital" is therefore a remake with the newest special effects/computer digital effects, and because Stephen King is behind this, it was going to draw attention. It was on ABC channel 7 and despite the fact that many people did in fact watch it (myself included) the series was not a big hit. This was due to the overall production. It looks like a horror comic book come to life, this feeling further enhanced by the very animated and exaggerated CG imagery of giant anteaters, pale children-spirits, odd camera angles, graphic scenes of blood and pain, etc. This was due to the cinematography by David Connell, no stranger to this type of thing. This is worse than "The Stand". The premise: A children's hospital was burned to the ground years ago in a terrible fire, later rebuilt but the new doctors and patients must deal with the issue of the restless ghosts of the children. Furthermore, there are other dark secrets in this labyrinthical and frightening hospital. The very idea of a haunted hospital can seem risible and corny, but if they had done a better job of direction and writing, it would have worked. "Rose Red" was wonderful because it did not suffer from the excess that this series has in spades. Possibly the only good thing about this is the music by Gary Chang and a few moments of real horror and supernatural thriller moments. But this is not Stephen King's best. His glory days are far behind him as "Carrie" "The Shining" "Misery" and others are classics of horror-thriller. This is not. This is pure commercial nonsense, with characters who are unrealistic, with a lousy script, too much mystery (similar to the ABC show "Lost") to the point one can easily believe the writers are making it up as they go along and don't even know the answer to the mystery themselves. This is a lousy lousy mini series and not to recommended. -
This 'remake' of Lars Von Trier's series does not do the original any justice. It annoys me that they have felt the need to film this poor imitation, apparently purely because the original is in a foreign language. They have lost all of the subtlety and almost all of what made Von Trier's frightening, along with the beauty that Von Trier captured. I don't know what Stephen King was thinking when he began writing this but I wish he hadn't. And Baxley's treatment of the script, particularly his choice of music, leaves a lot to be desired.
Do not bother seeing this if you have seen, or intend to see, the original, because you will only be disappointed. -
yarnartist200315 December 2006I started watching the series on ABC and then they took it off suddenly. In any case, I never got to see the entire thing until a couple of weeks ago, when I had to buy it because people keep stealing it out of the local video store. Prior to buying it, I saw the Danish series, which my son owns. (He hadn't watched Stephen King's version because he thought he stole it from Lars Von Trier. Then I told him that Von Trier was an executive producer and got full credit for the original version. So now he'll watch the King version.) I thought King's version was a very interesting adaptation of the original, with all the quirks and "weirdities" so typical of his work. (I saw another comment on here from someone who thought the people in the American version were too normal...good heavens, where do you live?) My preference? Well, I have to say I like the King version better. It has all the dark humor, but with an edgy playfulness that I found much more fun.
-
I watched a couple of the episodes when it came on on ABC but was quite truly lost. Years later I have recorded all of them except that the Sci-Fi channel did not do it in order so I recorded the ones I could and then they just happened to get recorded again out of order (the 1st couple episodes then the 2 hour finale completely missing out the middle episodes) so they showed up today and I saw them. First of all watching just the 1st couple then the last makes for a crummy mini-series. I like Stephen King and all but I don't think he does that great of a job as far as adapting either his own novels or someone else's. (Lars Von Trier in this case) I also don't know what is so great about Craig R. Baxley except that for some reason Stephen King thinks he is the bomb. I will say he is competent, but not altogether very original or exciting to watch. So far he has done Stephen King's "Storm of the Century" (another dragged out mediocre mini-series) "Rose Red" (A good story wasted on TV) & last but not least "Kingdom Hospital." Enough about him but he should go back to being a 2nd unit director like he used to be on "The A-Team." Back to this mini-series, it had a great idea & I don't know how much was adapted & changed from the original series, but so much just didn't translate well. It went on way too long, this could have have had 1/2 of the episodes & it could have been tighter & not quite so draggy. There were also too many pointless characters that not only wasted space, they took up a large amount of unnecessary screen time. I will say that Jack Coleman (Claire's Dad from the show "Heroes") is excellent in his almost stationary role as he conveys a wide range of emotions as well as some excellent narrations while being completely immobile much of his screen time. I have a feeling this could have been the role that got him the role he has now as I can honestly say almost any lesser actor could've/would've wasted this very challenging yet the most rewarding character of anyone on this pretty weak mini-series. I very much liked the little girl ("Silent Hill") as she has the creepy yet love-able routine down pat. The ant-eater was a cool character that sometimes looked good, but most of the time looked pretty lame. I realize the budget was probably little, but there is such a thing as less is more a la the 1st "Alien" movie. So if you are interested in this, I would suggest watching every other episode and you probably will understand it just as well. The best episode is probably the last which is a 2 hour finale. (1 hour 20 mins w/o commercials) It wraps up just about every plot & sub-plot. The music is some of the worst, in the worst places you can imagine. In fact, it detracts terribly in some of the sequences. There is a good scene w/some music (the criminal being brought in) which is funny as hell, yet seems really out of place at the same time. I do have to give props to the always good Oscar nominated Bruce Davison who is most famous for playing the senator in the X-Men movies. He does an admirable job of slowly going Crazy, although it was dragged out to much there too. So overall give this a try but I sure would like to see the original so I could see what I'm missing as it is rated 8.7/10.
-
peterlarsson-15 November 2005Having seen the first 2 episodes of kingdom hospital, i must say that i am already really disappointed. At first it seems like a remake of Lars Von triers "Riget" but stray of from the original, which is a lot better and much more scary.
I agree with PenGuhWin, the story works when it follows the original, but completely falls apart when they try to change it. It could have worked but it just doesn't.
2 seasons of Riget was made and a third was planned, but it was canceled because some of the actors died.
By the whats up with that anteater thing.? -
katran117 April 2004It took me awhile to get into this series. In fact, after watching the two-hour premiere, I almost didn't come back to watch Ep. 2. But I did, then I watched Ep. 3, and I think that's where I finally started getting hooked. Unfortunately, ABC has now put out official word that they have cancelled the series, though they will show all the remaining episodes (while based on a miniseries, King had begun writing material for a second season, which ABC has now axed). Thankfully, ABC has agreed to release the series on DVD later this year.
I've most enjoyed the episodes where you see a lot of the ghosts. I think Jodelle Micah Ferland (Mary) is just adorable, she just breaks my heart. I'm really impressed by Kett Turton (Paul and the voice of Antubis). This is the first thing I've seen him in and I think he's great. And I just love Diane Ladd as Mrs. Druse. In my opinion, the episodes in which those three figure the most prominently are the best of the series.
Unlike many others who watch this series, I have not seen Riget so I have nothing to compare Kingdom Hospital with. I do plan to see Riget (my local Blockbuster actually carries it, under the title "The Kingdom"), but I think I'll wait until this series is over, since those who have seen Riget first seem the most disappointed with this new rendition.
Definitely bizarre, but it grows on you. Stephen King stated that viewers might not see the rewards of this show right away, but if they would just stick with it they would. It's too bad that more people didn't listen, or it might have survived. -
who_is_in_charge22 November 2005I totally don't get why anyone keeps putting this down. Its fantastic! Its so clever, its so, knowing. Its aware of everything it does. Perfection in every way, WATCH IT! lol. And as for 'sloth-bear' surely ya can work out from the name 'Antibus' that he is an ant-eater. Unless ya didn't watch it properly! Its very funny in a lot of places, and it perfectly compliments the horror, making it dark, but very witty. I think that the characters are all expertly chosen, of course they are, Steven King chose em! He knows what he is doing! I would recommend it to anyone who likes Stephen King, anyone who likes horror, anyone who likes comedy, anyone who likes drama, anyone who likes to be moved by a show. It will stick around in your head for life. I am so happy to have seen it. You will be too
-
skyfish6623 December 2007This fantastic mini-series had me hooked right form the very first episode for so many reasons, the story for one thing. wanting more after each episode. I am so glad i rented out both volumes at once on D.V.D. so I wouldn't have been left hanging for the next episode.
I LOVE this show, it has sadness, serenity, horror, twists & turns, and even a little bit of dark humour which is sure to be put a different perspective on things.
You will love "Kingdom Hospital" from beginning to end. You would surely be a fool to not watch this, it's a real treasure, television at it's best, kudos to the cast and crew for their outright extraordinary work on this piece, and again, without spoiling anything or giving anything away, the ending is sure to have you guessing, but in a good way, because no matter what those criticisers say, they will not hurt my respect and love of Stephen King's: "Kingdom Hospital". It is a great show with great acting, great music, and a great storyline, one for the ages. For a mini-series, this is utterly perfect, and is even better than a lot of feature films out there.
WATCH KINGDOM HOSPITAL ! ! ! 9/10
Adios ! Y'all -
spam-73025 December 2005Being a rather cheap copy of Lars von Trier's original i found this mini series annoying after the first few minutes. While for Stephen King this may be rather good, i find it just a disgrace when you compare it to the original. Within minutes i found myself confronted with all the clichés i hate about cheap TV horror - exaggerated characters (sometimes combined with weird appearance to make sure everyone realizes something is wrong), exaggerated camera perspectives, puzzlingly stupid dialogs (just to remind you something is wrong here) and of course the typical horror soundtrack. It appears like this is just one of those typical American remakes that only serves to target a broader audience, less demanding, less daring, streamlined and average. Not for me.
-
greenleaf2-12 August 2005I saw the trailer for this and it looked great. Well, it wasn't great. It was phenomenal. I watched it every night and wouldn't miss it for anything. It leaves you on the edge of your seat, wanting more in every scene. I would definitely recognize this as Stephen King, whether I read the credits or not. It's wonderfully written, and the plot and story is riveting. Turton and Ferland were absolutely brilliant at their roles. Turton played a wonderful part as evil boy Paul Morlock, and Ferland, at such a young age, is extremely talented and played this role very well. I especially love the music in this, it always has me humming. As soon as I found out this was on DVD, I bought it. I recommend to anyone.
-
favrefanmt_2331 May 2004Stephen King has officially lost his touch. I saw hints of his newfound mediocrity riddled through the bad-but-watchable ROSE RED. But this pretty much solidifies it. For whatever INSANE reason Lars decided to take his BRILLIANT miniseries RIGET and sell it to ABC and Stephen King so they could make RIGET, American STYLE, aka KINGDOM HOSPITAL. I'm not exactly sure where communication between Stephen and the muses broke down but it was somewhere before he started writing this piece of trash. Every week is 40 or so minutes of nothing happening. It doesn't even seem that all these little things are building up to anything. It just feels pointless to watch (which is why I quit after episode 5 or 6). Nothing makes sense. Now I know what a lot of you are going to say "That was the idea behind the original." Well, there's a huge difference between surrealism, and not making any sense. The original had a lot of stuff happening that seemed odd but it was all the purpose, and it was effectively understood by the viewer.
But this...I would rather bathe in the waste product of all of New York then stand for this mini-series a second more. If you really know your film, you should have already seen RIGET aka THE KINGDOM. If you haven't, you should. But don't waste your time with this mini-series which is on a descending spiral towards the honor of worst mini-series of all time. -
PenGuhWin20 March 2004"Riget" is one of the most unique films you could ever hope to see. Flawed though it is, it never loses your attention, and you never cease wanting to see more of it, even after hours. "Stephen King's Kingdom Hospital" has the opposite effect. Having sat through three episodes now, I'm on the verge of wondering just why I'm wasting my time. The premiere episode was okay - the second somewhat less than that, and the third out and out awful. I finally figured it out. Whenever they stick to remaking "Riget," the thing works. Whenever they veer from that path, it completely fails. I always thought "Riget" was basically a comedy, with some moments of true horror, and lots of suspense. "SKKH" has none of this. Nothing's funny. Nothing's scary. Nothing's even suspenseful, because they don't give you enough plot for you to even follow. What's annoying is that all they had to do is REMAKE the original for the whole thing to work - but nooooo... they had to go and "improve" it with talking anteaters, singing nurses, and oh-so-cute references (I'm told) to various other Stephen King novels, as if maybe THAT will keep us interested. The sad thing is that "Riget" was never finished - the first series leaves you with an incredible cliffhanger, and the end of "Riget II" tops THAT - cutting off just as everything finally seems to be coming to a climax. If SKKH had followed the original, we could at last have looked forward to seeing the thing resolved (even if it is in English, with a completely different set of actors). Now... who cares? It's already so far from the original that it can't possibly even be following the same storyline as the original. What a missed opportunity - what a shame. Sigh. Well, at least we have the originals (and I urge all of you who might like the U.S. version to try and hunt up the original and see how it MIGHT have been).
-
confusedGIRL7 June 2006"Kingdom Hospital" is thrilling, as well as addictive. After watching the first episode of this series, you will not be able to stop. It is very different, much like many of Stephen King's stories. The characters all pull you in and you will feel suspense as you watch what what happens to them. This is, in my opinion, the best creation of Stephen King. There are many twists and turns. Some of these twists are slightly predictable and will have you on the edge of your seat, waiting to see if your prediction is correct. Other turns will catch you off guard and leave you amazed that such a thing could happen, even in a fictional story. WATCH THIS SERIES!!!
-
Kingdom Hospital is one of my all-time favourite shows, and I think you have to be at least a little wacky to appreciate its dark humour and morbid jokes. Many pretentious snobs have put down this show as terrible because it "rips off" the original Danish program Riget (which it doesn't, this is an adaptation). People are going to think I'm an uncultured idiot for saying this, but I like Kingdom Hospital much more than Riget, and no, not because I didn't understand the first version. While I did very much enjoy Riget, I found it ludicrously overhyped for what it was. Riget was no more original than Kingdom Hospital either, seeing as Lars Von Trier himself was heavily influenced by earlier shows like Twin Peaks. Kingdom Hospital simply stood out to me as the more engaging and complete show. Maybe it's the strong theme of friendship and unity; everyone from eccentric psychic Sally Druse (Diane Ladd) to the visually impaired security guard Otto with his German shepherd (Julian Richings) becomes a part of a family, the Keepers, those who protect the hospital, its patients and its staff from the supernatural netherworld residing amidst the floors. At first the giant anteater (Kett Turton) really threw me off, and it took me two weeks to develop an interest in watching the rest of the episode. By the time the "Na Na Na (Kiss Him Goodbye)" song scene came up, I was hooked like a junkie. So many comedic scenes, but also scenes of strong caring, loyalty, love and above all else, miracles. Kingdom Hospital is a place where medical miracles never cease, but neither does violent death. Everything is in a fragile equilibrium which is threatened by a ghostly boy and of course the pompous Dr. Stegman (Bruce Davison), who begins to lose his own mind after botching a neurosurgery and more or less lobotomizing a young girl. It's a lot of weirdness to take in, but it grows on you and eventually all does begin to make sense.
There are many Stephen King clichés that some viewers may find annoying or even advertising in nature. Lots of references of his books, even a radio announcer mentioning Stephen King's name. Antubis resembles in nature the Turtle from Stephen King's 'It' in many ways. There are quite a few typical King plot devices, too. Either way, I don't think I would have loved this show even half as much if it wasn't for the superb and talented acting. Such a great cast bringing to life some wonderful characters, from Brandon Bauer and Jennifer Cunningham (Christa and Abel, two young adult orderlies with Down's syndrome and a psychic connection), to Del Pentecost (Bobby Druse, an orderly, Sally's son and Otto's closest friend). It was nice to see some actors coming in who looked real, not all dolled-up and fake like supermodels. I was expecting another cheap medical melodrama with a Kim Kardashian lookalike in a lab coat or something, as usual. Boy, was I wrong! So many scenes in this show are as incredible as they are harrowing. Mary's vividly eerie recollection of a deadly fire over a century ago, Otto getting his eyesight back despite being told that he was going completely blind, Peter (Jack Coleman) rescuing Antubis from beneath a collapsed scaffolding, among others. Excellent soundtrack too, and the 35mm opt rather than conforming to that cheap yet religiously trendy HD digital cr*p was a genius move on the director's part. All in all, this probably won't be anybody's favourite, least of all the die-hard Riget fans, but at least give it a chance. Remakes are all too often terrible, but this is a miraculous exception, as miraculous as the miracles within the gripping story. -
lovely_anne_6328 February 2006There is obviously an audience out there for very dumbed-down versions of masterpieces but it still hurts. Lars von Trier's original Kingdom works on so many levels - entertaining, scary, thoughtful, full of lifelike though odd characters and the genius of the "dogme" style of filming created by von Trier. But this version is only horrific in it's wasted opportunities - populated by blandness and distracting in its use of animation (CGI) and badly worked out (edited?) sub-plots. It is a disappointing collection of ugly features that once made up a renaissance classic. I give it 2/10 because you may be looking for background imagery for a techno-party and this would suit well. In summary, I cannot understand how King can put his name to this - it can only be the dollars. It must have been a lot.
-
vzz419 April 2009I just got this on DVD, have been wanting to see it again for years. It is pure genius and a masterpiece. Think Stephen King channeling Quentin Tarantino. Although, I want you to realize, that Kingdom Hospital is pure King and the previous comment is just an analogy. King has let us glimpse this genius in his writings, but he let it all loose in Kingdom Hospital. I must see for lovers of the shadows and things that go bump in the night.
Well, they are saying I have to have 10 lines for a post, so I continue.
To really see this genius in writing, read Hearts in Atlantis. The movie they made from Hearts was a tiny part of the book, and then it was dumbed down, very disappointing. The book was so good, I had to reread it again as soon as I finished the first read. Kingdom Hospital is King's genius on film. It does not get better than this.