I was reminded by START’s Scariest Movies thread of this film.
I think it’s a landmark in film-making, both for the sheer psychological terror that it causes without anything horrific being shown on screen (unlike, say, in Ringu), and for the pioneering use of the Steadicam. Kubrick really put the filming environment to good use (although the interior shots were filmed in a London studio) - even the patterns in the 1970s carpet take on an eerie significance.
I don’t think I’ve ever been so enthralled and at the same time, so terror-stricken, as I was the first time I saw The Shining.
Say what you like about Jack Nicholson, but he’s a truly amazing actor. And although the casting of Shelley Duvall irritates some people, I think she performed well - Wendy needs to be shown as suppressed and self-effacing at first, but then to reveal the steal underneath once her child is threatened.
So what do you think of this film? It’s a film that tends to polarise viewers. What were your reactions upon seeing it for the first time?
It’s one of favorites of all time. I’ve got the evil grin “Here’s Johnnnyyyy” thing down pat.
I have tried and tried and tried to read the book, but I always picture Jack and then put it down.
I loved it. I also understand that there was a large contingent of Stephen King purists who were upset by this film.
This movie is always Exhibit A in my argument that Stephen King novels inspire great movies, but they are not great movies *of *the book. Did the movie have a lot in common with the book? No. Was it the most freakalicious spine-tingling creepy scary movie I’ve ever seen with absolutely NO gratuitous violence or underwear-clad girls learning Sex Is Bad? Absolutely. Would it have been a worse movie had it been a more faithful adaptation of the book? Definitely.
When I first saw this movie, I was about 10 years old. My parents were out for the evening (in the eighties it was acceptable for a responsible 10 year old girl to amuse herself for the evening in a locked house). The TV was on the main floor. My bedroom was all the way up three floors in the attic. I was so scared being all alone in that big old Victorian house after watching that movie, I couldn’t make it all the way upstairs. They found me the next morning, curled in a ball on the stairs to the attic.
“Come play with us.”
shivers
Creeeeeeeepy.
I’d have to agree mostly with the O.P., in that The Shining is, I believe, the second most recognized and parodied horror event in cinematic history beyond the “Psycho” shower scene. But the movie as art fails miserably. I’m sure I’ll hear it from more than a few; but I don’t think Kubs, beyond “Eyes Wide Shut,” was a very good storyteller. And one of his worst scripts was “The Shining.” Shelly Duvall is quite possibly the worst actor in all of humanity and Jack was VERY misplaced opposite her. It was very difficult to maintain the creepy fear when Duvall spoke every other scene. Add in the traditional unspectacular fright scenes, scare moments and predictable escape routines and all your left with is a deadpanned screenplay with tired acting and less than enthralling chills. Two thumbs down on this one Roger.
I was dissapointed by the lack of the topiary stalkers from the book (Kubrick went with the maze instead). Overall, I think this movie was creepy more than scary. It had a lot of good visual or mood moments that creeped me out, but overall it was a bit too slow, and Duvall a bit too grating, to really rank as truly frightning.
“The Shining” was terrible. I have no idea if it holds up to the book or not, but what the hell was Kubrick thinking? Why does Nicholson START the movie as if he’s already nuts if the story is going to be about his descent into madness? And did the director or anyone else on the set realize that Shelley Duvall was intensely annoying? Didn’t Wendy and the kid realize that daddy was acting nuts on the drive UP to the hotel? And the long, boring static shots of characters speaking to each other with…painful…pauses…between…each word didn’t help matters.
It’s depressing to think that Kubrick decided to make a horror film and leave all the traditional scares out of the thing, as if he was somehow “above” mere horror and suspense.
On the other hand, there IS a theory out there that Kubrick was actually after something far different with “The Shining.” For anyone who hasn’t read this:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0052.html
Have you seen the mini-series version? I think it worked pretty well, and it’s far more faithful to the book.
This is one of the “great” movies that I had never seen until recently. My nephews have it on DVD and we chose to watch it one night when I was visiting.
What a yawn fest. The supposedly “scary” bits are so poorly telegraphed that they are laughable.
I wish I could watch it objectively, but I can’t get the book out of my head. The book is a favorite, and I’ve read it more than once, so the movie doesn’t work for me because I can’t help but compare the two, and think of the missing/changed scenes.
I have a feeling if I’d seen it without having read the book, I’d feel differently.
Shelly Duvall was so miscast. What was Kubrick thinking? She would have driven me crazy too.
Homer: “No beer and no TV make Homer something something…”
Marge: [cautiously] “Go crazy”?
Homer: Don’t mind if I do!
I’ve seen both versions of “The Shining”, and I’ve read the book. In general, I don’t like comparing books and movies; as long as the general plot is there, and the characters don’t stray too far, I’m happy.
Keeping that in mind - Kubrik’s version was fine, as long as you’re not trying to compare it to the book. A lot of what I felt were big plot points - particularly details about the hotel’s past, and the Torrances’ family issues - weren’t covered very well. I didn’t think Duvall was very effective except in the scenes where Wendy is scared for her life. I really like the little twin girls. Nicholson was excellent as Crazy Jack, but I had problems accepting that Jack was crazy from the beginning - he definitely had problems, but wasn’t totally gone.
The ABC version was very slow, but was much more faithful to the book. I thought they were a bit heavy-handed with Tony, but lots of people who read the book don’t realize who Tony is; I would accept that as an explanation. I also like how this version shows Jack’s past and his growing entanglement with the hotel’s past.
I loved both the movie and the book, but I have to agree. The topiary scene in the book was terrifying. Scariest part of the whole book. I think it was probably left out of the movie simply because it would have been difficult to do. Today you could do it with CGI, but back then it would have been an immense effort to create all the intermediate stages of topiary creatures, and to get the sense that they were moving only when you couldn’t see them, without making it all look cheezy.
Well, whoever said that this movie polarizes viewers was obviously right! As I mentioned in START’s thread, I list The Shining as probably my all-time favorite in the horror genre, so it’s no secret what side of the fence I come down on.
To me, every time that there is a faithful adaptation of a Stephen King book, it fails at some point because King has this annoying habit of building up a delightfully weird and mysterious story and then blowing it all to hell toward the end by getting all surreal and having the mysterious bad guy fully reveal himself as a demon or something (see: Storm of the Century). In fact, if there’s one thing that I would criticize the most about Kubrick’s version it would be the bizarre unexplained Furry scene toward the end. However, in the context of the story it somehow doesn’t bother me as much; at that point in the movie it’s all about the descent into madness and questioning what’s real anyway.
With that in mind, I’m so glad they didn’t try to do the topiary scene. It may have come off great in print, but if they had tried to make the bushes come alive and start stalking someone, I would have laughed just like I did during The Ring 2 when the deer start attacking.
Personally, I was rooting for Jack to kill both her and the kid. I was more saddened by the fact that he axed Scatman Cruthers.
I’m not really a King fan, but I’ll note that a lot of his books read like adaptations of screenplays, and yet when converted to movies tend to be kind of yawnfests. It doesn’t help, of course, when the screenwriter throws in some plot-disembowling twist, like the kid surviving in Cujo. Lame, lame, lame.
If you want to see the worst adaptation of a King novel, though, watch the one King wrote and directed himself: Maximum Overdrive. Boy, did that suck.
I liked Misery, though.
Stranger
No arguement.
But I seem to recall reading somewhere that even Stephen King wasn’t 100% satisfied with Nicholson as Jack. The story’s about his gradual descent into madness, and you can see from the first time that you look at Nicholson that he’s nuts.
Sorry, no cite for the above.
I saw The Shining for the first time recently and thought it was great. I watched the entire second half of the movie eyes wide open and with a smile. It was the creepiest thing I had seen since The Ring. Matter of fact, it was the second thing I actually found creepy since The Ring. And I can’t but help think it’s success was a fluke. I just can’t picture this movie having been good with any other actors, or directors. Sure, it was slow, but I think the pacing gave the story some extreme momentum leading up to the end. The begginning of the movie is watching a snowball roll down a hill, the ending is watching an avanlanche launching itself into hell.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Personally, I was rooting for Jack to kill both her and the kid. I was more saddened by the fact that he axed Scatman Cruthers.
When I first saw “The Shining” it was with a whole bunch of friends and we were somewhat the worse for wear on, well, the kinds of stuff one got worse for wear on when one was young and foolish. In the scene where Jack gives Scatman the chop, everyone in our group freaked out totally, girls screaming,g uys screaming and one voice wobbles up from the back of the room “S**t man, did he just *kill * Hong Kong Phooey?”.
Kubrick seems a very misogynistic director casting either weak or non-actors in his female roles (apart from “Lolita”, I guess - witness “The Killing”, “Barry Lyndon” or most notriously "Eyes Wide Shut with that egregious Kidman woman)) or absenting women almost completely (“Paths of Glory”, “Doctor Strangelove”, "2001, “FMJ”). He apparently made Duvall do up to 120 takes of some scenes just to exhaust and terrify her. Maybe things weren’t right at home.
http://www.drummerman.net/shining/ has some interesting things to say on “The Shining”.
mm
Willie: “Boy, you’ve got the *shinnin’ *”
Bart: “You mean, the ‘shining’?”
Willie: “Quiet! You wanna get sued?”
Marge (to an unconscous Homer): “You stay here (the freezer) until you’re no longer insane.”
And mamboman’s post reminded me:
Marge: (after watching Willie get axed to death) “Oh my! I hope that carpet was scotchguarded!”
Also, the painting of the naked Scotch babe over Willie’s bed, in homage to the naked black babe painting over Skatman’s bed.