Author |
Message |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
 The Shining
 Quote: The Shining is a 1980 psychological horror film directed by Stanley Kubrick, co-written with novelist Diane Johnson, and starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, and Danny Lloyd. The film is based on the novel of the same name, by Stephen King, about a writer with a wife and young son who accepts the job of an off-season caretaker at an isolated hotel. The son, who possesses psychic abilities, is able to see things in the future and past, such as the ghosts in the hotel. Soon after moving in, and after a paralyzing winter storm that leaves the family snowed in, the father becomes influenced by the supernatural presence in the haunted hotel; he descends into madness and attempts to murder his wife and son.
Unlike most films by Stanley Kubrick, which saw a slow gradual release building on word-of-mouth, The Shining was released in a manner more like a mass-market film, opening at first in just two cities on Memorial Day, and then a month later seeing a nationwide release (including drive-ins) after extensive television advertising. Although initial response to the film was mixed, later critical assessment had been more favorable and it is now viewed as a classic of the horror genre. Film director Martin Scorsese, writing in The Daily Beast, ranked it as one of the best horror films. Film critics, film students, and Kubrick's producer, Jan Harlan, have all remarked on the enormous influence the film has had on popular culture which ranges from other macabre thrillers to the cartoon series The Simpsons. AWESOME MOVIE. 'Nuff said.
|
Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:46 pm |
|
 |
BacktotheFuture
I'm Batman
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:53 pm Posts: 5554 Location: Long Island
|
A very strange movie. Has so many hidden meanings that I don't know if Kubrick is a mastermind or just plain psycho. The guy in the bear suit. What the hell was that? Shelley Duvall is so bad in this movie. I don't think there has been anyone as annoying as her in a movie. Jack Nicholson was exactly the opposite. His performance is one of the best I've ever seen. I love Kubrick's style, but the movie is not as scary as I had expected. The old woman scene was more gross than scary. The twins were pretty scary, and then the scene where it's them talking to Danny and seeing their dead bodies was one of the scarier moments in the film. It's probably the best horror film ever, not because it's scary, but because it actually makes you think.
-A
|
Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:52 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
One of the best horror films of all time, bar none. Certainly one of the scariest. I would have loved to have seen what Kubrick could have done with another horror film. A
|
Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:59 pm |
|
 |
Terminator1997
George A. Romero
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:30 pm Posts: 9773 Location: Enjoying a cold pint
|
Friggin' awesome horror movie. Kubrick's best film. Nicholson is outstanding as Jack Torrance.
A+
|
Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:02 pm |
|
 |
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 40468
|
B+
Great, but overrated. Maybe it was because I had just read the book, and it turned out to be one of the least faithful book to movie adaptations I've ever seen? Maybe if I'd seen it alone, I wouldn't have been bugged by that fact. Still good though.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:28 pm |
|
 |
Jmart
Superman: The Movie
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am Posts: 21230 Location: Massachusetts
|
Not the scariest, but probably the creepiest movie I have ever seen. From the two girls, the guy in the bear costume giving the blow job, to the blood in the elevator, it's just an all around creepy movie. It's also a masterpiece.
A+
I might have to go watch the Simpsons parody again.
_________________My DVD Collection Marty McGee (1989-2005)
If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.
|
Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:52 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48677 Location: Arlington, VA
|
Quietly horrifying.
A
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:52 am |
|
 |
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am Posts: 15310 Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Unnerving and unsettling. The part with the old and naked woman with skin chunks chopped off of her was one of the few things that ever kinda scared me in a movie.
A
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:55 am |
|
 |
kypade
Kypade
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 7908
|
One of the few horror films I love.:o
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:56 am |
|
 |
Joker's Thug #3
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:36 am Posts: 11130 Location: Waiting for the Dark Knight to kick my ass
|
After Clockwork Orange this is my favorite Kubrick film ( then Dr.Strangelove )
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:26 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
I used to love the movie like you all did till I read the book and watched it again. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea. Anyway, B+.
'
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:34 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
B-
It's a good movie, but an awful adaptation of the source. The TV miniseries caputred the book much rather than this film did and that's pretty sad. Jack Nicholson is incredible, as always, but Shelley Duvall is flat-out bad and I was irritated by the boy who played Danny. Nice suspense throughout, but a terrible ending.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:18 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
Killuminati510 wrote: After Clockwork Orange this is my favorite Kubrick film ( then Dr.Strangelove )
It's in my top 3 or 4. I'm a Lolita whore.
A+
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:21 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Of all Kubrick films I have seen, this is the worst.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:27 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Wow...did you know that this film was nominated for two RAZZIES? Worst Actress (Shelley Duvall) and Worst Director (Kubrick)...
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:03 am |
|
 |
android
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:44 am Posts: 2913 Location: Portugal
|
That just proves the stupidity of those awards...
What the others have said.. one of the creepiest films ever made, and Shelley Duvall is clearly underrated (but I understand why, since Nicholson is just out of this world in this...) A
I haven't read the novel though (I haven't read anything from King really - I only saw the films  ).. but I really doubt that the movie hasn't made justice to the book - it may not the the most faithful adaptation, but it was probably the best they could do 
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:10 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Actually, I did think that Duvall was really bad.
Oh and the movie did NOT make justice to the book.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:11 am |
|
 |
android
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:44 am Posts: 2913 Location: Portugal
|
I'm not saying she deserved an Oscar, but people seem to find her performance annoying... she was outshadowed by Nicholson of course, but she didn't have much to do other than running and screaming, and she was very good (and believable) at that..  that's why I don't get the hate and that Razzie nom (but Kubrick was also nominated, heh)
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:18 am |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Actually, I did think that Duvall was really bad.
Oh and the movie did NOT make justice to the book.
I wouldn't say it didn't do it justice, they are just completely different.
The film is far more frightening than the book, in my opinion.
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:19 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
makeshift wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Actually, I did think that Duvall was really bad.
Oh and the movie did NOT make justice to the book. I wouldn't say it didn't do it justice, they are just completely different. The film is far more frightening than the book, in my opinion.
But why call itself The Shining? You could say it's a stand-alone film that stole an idea and made something else out of it. The intentiuons of the book are not reflected in the film, neither are the characters.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:20 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: makeshift wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Actually, I did think that Duvall was really bad.
Oh and the movie did NOT make justice to the book. I wouldn't say it didn't do it justice, they are just completely different. The film is far more frightening than the book, in my opinion. But why call itself The Shining? You could say it's a stand-alone film that stole an idea and made something else out of it. The intentiuons of the book are not reflected in the film, neither are the characters.
I'd say there are enough similarities to justify calling it an adaptation.
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:23 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
makeshift wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: makeshift wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Actually, I did think that Duvall was really bad.
Oh and the movie did NOT make justice to the book. I wouldn't say it didn't do it justice, they are just completely different. The film is far more frightening than the book, in my opinion. But why call itself The Shining? You could say it's a stand-alone film that stole an idea and made something else out of it. The intentiuons of the book are not reflected in the film, neither are the characters. I'd say there are enough similarities to justify calling it an adaptation.
A crappy adaptation then. I am not saying that a good adaptation needs to film the book page by page. A great example is American Psycho which plot-wise s not that close to the novel, but completely captures the spirit of the book. The Shining doesn't.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:25 pm |
|
 |
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: makeshift wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: makeshift wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Actually, I did think that Duvall was really bad.
Oh and the movie did NOT make justice to the book. I wouldn't say it didn't do it justice, they are just completely different. The film is far more frightening than the book, in my opinion. But why call itself The Shining? You could say it's a stand-alone film that stole an idea and made something else out of it. The intentiuons of the book are not reflected in the film, neither are the characters. I'd say there are enough similarities to justify calling it an adaptation. A crappy adaptation then. I am not saying that a good adaptation needs to film the book page by page. A great example is American Psycho which plot-wise s not that close to the novel, but completely captures the spirit of the book. The Shining doesn't.
I'm not trying to say it was a great adaptation. Clearly that would be misleading because of how different the film and novel are. However, as a horror novel, I feel like it's job was to scare you. The film did capture that aspect perfectly. In that regard, they are similar. Also, the basic backbone of the novel is there - alcoholic caretaker takes family to remote hotel that is haunted.
Lecter, do you think the 1997 remake is the better film simply because it follows the source material more closely?
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:29 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
makeshift wrote: I'm not trying to say it was a great adaptation. Clearly that would be misleading because of how different the film and novel are. However, as a horror novel, I feel like it's job was to scare you. The film did capture that aspect perfectly. In that regard, they are similar. Also, the basic backbone of the novel is there - alcoholic caretaker takes family to remote hotel that is haunted.
Lecter, do you think the 1997 remake is the better film simply because it follows the source material more closely?
It is like there are two different stories. The one that the novel tells and the other one that the Kubrick film tells. The 1997 version tells the story that the novel tells. I generally prefer the story of the novel by much. Thus, I prefer the 1997 version.
Also, books don't scare me in general, so I do not complain.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:31 pm |
|
 |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
A wonderful film with a huge sense of atmosphere. Jack Nicholson is terrifying, and Kubrick is my god. This film deserves all of it's accolades, it really excels at so many levels. I never thought a horror film could be so wonderful, so entertaining, so meaningful and graceful. I really would love to see more of this today. There are still good horror films, but I haven't given one anything above a B in ages it seems.
A
|
Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:28 pm |
|
|