Kingdom Hospital

First of all, as a former college English teacher, let me comment on the disturbing lack of good grammar, spelling, punctuation, ability to construct thoughts into logical sentences, etc., that I found in many of the comments posted for this program. It is frightening. Even more frightening than "Kingdom Hospital" has turned out to be. I began watching the program, because it was by Stephen King. The first double episode was interesting, but went no where. I decided to watch it again to see what was going to develop. Again nothing. However, I have noticed a pattern in recent episodes: Each begins with the insertion of new characters and the hour is spent explaining how they fit in. In last week's episode, April 22, I finally found something worthwhile: the dog eating the heart that was to be transplanted into the obnoxious lawyer (a redundancy, I admit) and the anteater doing his form of surgery: "Out with the old; in with the new." I found it hysterically funny. I do have a personality fault, in that once I start to read a book, I can't put it down, no matter how bad it is. I have to keep reading, hoping that it improves, that it provides some kind of insight. I have wasted a lot of time reading bad books. I hope that isn't the case with this mini-series. I trust King will give us some kind of pay-off before we are done with the 15 hours. There are so many ways the subplots, the character developments, the various themes can develop that I admit, I'm hooked, and will keep watching.

I 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.

It 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.

"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).

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.