Yep, Kubrick pretty much just took the setting and names and made his own movie. In a way though, it kind of made it more shocking for me. Like when Dick comes to rescue him, and Jack slices his ass with the axe, it was one of the most unexpected movie deaths I've ever seen because in the book... He lives and saves them all. So yeah, that was a WTF moment for me.

A

Brilliant. Stanley Kubrick's best work and one of the best horror films ever.

I agree with your assessment of brilliance, but it is far from Kubrick's best work (qv: 2001: A Space Odyssey, plus after that, several other films ahead of it in the Kubrick's best work line).

5 out of 5.

At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book - which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death - because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.

What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy - since most of us have read the book - and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to "leave him the fuck alone". This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.

Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question - how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel? - but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well - seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that - but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel?

When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history - probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap - and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted?

Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.

I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that.

Have you ever read his article in EW? He is, in essense, a moderate-to-lame level KJ poster.

Truer words have never been spoken.

The man can write a horror novel, but perusing his DVD collection might bring someone to tears.

Yeah, I did while I still subscribed to EW. I was more referring to his screenplays and such, but I guess it's the same deal. His blind defense of the last Harry Potter novel was frustrating to read.

One only has to watch Maximum Overdrive to understand why it's the only film he's ever directed.

As far as the poor adaptation argument is concerned, I personally consider cinema and literature to be two wildly different art forms, and thus don't fault a film for making alterations from the book. Yes, if one has already had one version imprinted in their head they will no doubt compare the second version they see to the memories they already have, but I think that's unfair. My sister lambasted Children of Men because the film only resembles the book in title, premise and character names. However, anyone who has read P.D. James novel can attest that it would hardly be captivating cinematic fare.

There is a fair point to be made that it matter less if an adaptation retains the same exact storyline as much as it captures the "spirit" of the original incarnation. But where the plot devices unarguably unfold a certain way, one's interpretations of said "spirit" can be wildly interchangable from one mind to another.

Possibly the best directed horror film ever made. The nice complextion and blend of the open sets and long narrow empty hallways with the contrasting quickening tempo in the score and constricted camera angles set up for a nice feel of isolation pressing into the victims of the house.

A+

Just was able to catch this last nite. I had heard it was slow/boring. The movie couldn't have been more opposite than that. Fantastic scenes, very memorable dialogue, and one of the creepiest atmospheres ever. (I know I couldn't stay in a hotel like that for 5 months) Jack Nicholson is perfect, and I actually liked Shelly Duvall after the first scenes. She wasn't the brightest or most perfect lady, but she feels real. The little boy is also great with his voice and expressions.

Grade: A-

Yeah, Kubrick > King in terms of consistency. Kubrick can get away with butchering King's work. King has talent and is perhaps the best writer of American coming-of-age work mixed with equally American horror, but he's never written a perfect book really.

Yeah, I love King too, but Kubrick is untouchable in both film and art in general.

One only needs to watch the mini-series of this to see how wrong King was about this film.

So does anyone actually have any clue what the guy in the dog suit was for??

I think just for shock. It is kind of disturbing.

Finally caught up to watching this. It's quite the experience, very well made and with excellent performances. The film is simply a mood, the setting and scenery, the application of the steady cam and the sound it just delivers high end eerie immersion and is a great directional effort. So very glad I finally saw this and also very satisfying that I now get those famous references that come from the film.

A-