IMDb user comments for
"Kingdom Hospital" (2004) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

78 comments in total

---

69 out of 107 people found the following comment useful :-
A mediocre and not funny remake, 9 March 2004
Author: Uldead from London, England

The 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

---

42 out of 66 people found the following comment useful :-
Awesome and way underrated!!, 11 October 2004

Author: borax76 from Weird NJ

When 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.

---

36 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
Couldn't someone else have made this?, 20 March 2004
Author: PenGuhWin

"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).

---

16 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
thumbs up!!, 9 December 2005

Author: gorefreak from Denmark

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.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
I like them both, 15 December 2006

Author: yarnartist2003 from United States

I 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.

---

18 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Kingdom hospital vs Riget, 5 November 2005

Author: peterlarsson-1 from Denmark

Having 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.?

---

8 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Above Average TV Fare Much Maligned By "Riget" Fanatics, 13 September 2007

Author: Rd Stendel-Freels from Not in Fresno

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Let'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!

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
If this were exactly like Riget, what would be the point?, 21 July 2007

Author: Silicon_Hills_Review from United States

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.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
An enjoyable Stephen King series that has its ups and downs. Mostly enjoyable., 10 April 2007

Author: Chickensmoke from United Kingdom

I 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.

---

11 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Just when I was getting hooked, 17 April 2004
Author: katran1 (Arien1@cox.net) from Phoenix, Arizona

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history