Kubrick's The Shining

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."



[/ QUOTE ]

anything by Tom Clancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except 'Clear and Present Danger'.

Oh, and 'Sum of All Fears' since they pussied out and didn't make the terrorists Arabs like they were supposed to be.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]


The first time I saw The Shining, it rocked. Then I read the book, and the movie didn't measure up. The TV version was truer to the book, but lame. Question: In your opinion, did Kubrick do a good job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick messed up big time because although he essential changed it from a story about both madness and the supernatural to one about madness, he still cheated in the movie by letting the supernatural in, specifically in the unlocking of the freezer door and the picture at the end with Jack in it as the old caretaker(which of course makes no logical sense), and because he didn't believe in the supernatural or feel particularly inspired by the feeling of it. The supernatural was tossed in only in a few jarring cheats, actually lessening the coherence of the movie.

Nevertheless, he put out a very watchable movie with some classic moments, brilliant camera work, and some real chills and eerie moments. The casting was great, and good attention was sometimes paid to atmosphere, the foundation of horror.

The use of the axe instead of the croquet mallet was probably regretable over-all, but it's hard to miss the blunt, as it were, scariness of an axe, and Kubrick used its effect well, even in camera moves.

A terrible waste of time and huge cheat was the endless draggy progression of handyman Scatman Crothers back to the Overlook Hotel only to be immediately hacked to death without even a fight. This wasn't a subversion of audience expectation to throw them into a more disorienting, unknown world like Janet Leigh's death in the shower shortly into Psycho was; it was the same world expressed no more interestingly or precariously. It was simply a very padded waste of time and a cheat of audience expectations to no end, except to give Jack someone to kill besides the other main characters. It seemed to show his distaste for the material, the genre and its conventions, and the audience, at once.

It was ultimately a project he couldn't quite believe in even as he took it on. It winds up being in many ways watchable despite him rather than because of him. When he surrendered to the material and worked with the brooding, lonely atmosphere of the hotel to create creepy moods with the kid, and when he focuses on letting Nicholson's talent loose, the movie soars. It's material he needed to let find its own rhythm more, as his own interjections showed a great deal of his own indifference.

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.

And the end was pretty much a loss all around.

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]

And the end was pretty much a loss all around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember a hedge maze in the book. Just the topiary animals, as in the miniseries.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the book but I've had this conversation a few times, so take this for what it's worth:

Kubrik was to the book The Shining as Ridley Scott was to Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. If you take the movie (In Scott's case, Bladerunner as a direct book-to-movie interpretation, then it's going to be awful. If you view the book as more of a framework for the movie, you'll enjoy both a lot more.

Of course, when was the last time you saw a movie and said "Man, that sure was every bit as good as the book."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of fair. Kubrick didn't respect the book or make as good a movie as could be made out of it, but he added some great atmospherics of his own, and used Jack Nicholson, whose personality everyone thought would be an overbearing cliche in this movie, very well.

Ultimately, he screwed up a lot, but the movie still has many excellent scenes.

By the way, the book was very good, but the first 50 pages or so were deadly dull. It picks up suddenly, then gets really good.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going toi add the Lord of the Rings trilogy more for the extended versions though, for a lover of the book they left a lot out and the firxst time I watched each film there were bits that pissed me off that either were included or missed out but on rewatching they are good films.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I walked out of TTT very upset. All was redeemed with the extended box. Very, very well done. One of the few, if not only, DVD's where I actually listened to the commentary track(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are morons, do you realize each LOTR movie would have to be like 6 hours long to do COMPLETE justice to the book. Who gives a [censored] if they forgot key elements from the book. I would not be surprised if 1 of every 2 (or higher) ppl that watched LOTR did not read the book, of course it has to be "made for hollywood" or w/e you fgts wanna say.

once again, very few book to movie transformations are going to please everyone. there are exceptions, but let's remember one thing, your imagination has no limits, unfortunately most movies have limits, and sadly, the film-makers cannot read and please the minds of you [censored] retards.

go jump off a 2-story building

[/ QUOTE ]

Take your medication immediately or you will be reincarcerated.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
One criticism I've heard of The Shining movie is that Jack Nicholson seemed crazy the whole time (partially due to the fact that he was well-known for his role in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest). The whole point of the book is that he is driven to insanity- if he starts off crazy it loses the effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Jack got crazy-ER.

But you're right; Kubrick was seriously ham-handed because he didn't respect the material. Ironically enough, the material was substantially degraded because of his own lack of understanding of it and contempt for it. The one who brought it low was Kubrick himself. As Stephen King said, "He just didn't get it." It became kind of a Kubrick riff on stuff he didn't really like and wasn't in sympathy with.

Not that he's a guy who seemed to like or have sympathy with a lot of things.

[WDC]

I'd also vote for Mystic River.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The first time I saw The Shining, it rocked. Then I read the book, and the movie didn't measure up. The TV version was truer to the book, but lame. Question: In your opinion, did Kubrick do a good job?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick messed up big time because although he essential changed it from a story about both madness and the supernatural to one about madness, he still cheated in the movie by letting the supernatural in, specifically in the unlocking of the freezer door and the picture at the end with Jack in it as the old caretaker(which of course makes no logical sense), and because he didn't believe in the supernatural or feel particularly inspired by the feeling of it. The supernatural was tossed in only in a few jarring cheats, actually lessening the coherence of the movie.

Nevertheless, he put out a very watchable movie with some classic moments, brilliant camera work, and some real chills and eerie moments. The casting was great, and good attention was sometimes paid to atmosphere, the foundation of horror.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Kubrick did a good job of creating tension, but not releasing it, which eventually leads to dullness, IMO.

I also can't agree about the casting, I think it's terrible all around, especially Shelley Duvall. Nicholson is too over-the-top, from the very first scene (interview) he seems like a psycho.

[ QUOTE ]
The use of the axe instead of the croquet mallet was probably regretable over-all, but it's hard to miss the blunt, as it were, scariness of an axe, and Kubrick used its effect well, even in camera moves.

A terrible waste of time and huge cheat was the endless draggy progression of handyman Scatman Crothers back to the Overlook Hotel only to be immediately hacked to death without even a fight. This wasn't a subversion of audience expectation to throw them into a more disorienting, unknown world like Janet Leigh's death in the shower shortly into Psycho was; it was the same world expressed no more interestingly or precariously. It was simply a very padded waste of time and a cheat of audience expectations to no end. It seemed to show his distaste both for the material and its genre, and the audience, at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kubrick really didn't seem to understand what a horror film was while he was making this. This scene is one of the worst, for the reasons you describe, and also because, well, it's ridiculous. Crothers is psychic, he knows what's going on in the damn hotel, that's why he rode hundreds of miles to get there. When he does get there, he walks practically naked down a dark hallway saying, "Hello? Is anyone here?" Friday The 13th has more realistic scenes in it.

[ QUOTE ]
It was ultimately a project he couldn't quite believe in even as he took it on. It winds up being in many ways watchable despite him rather than because of him. When he surrendered to the material and worked with the brooding, lonely atmosphere of the hotel to create creepy moods with the kid, and when he focuses on letting Nicholson's talent loose, the movie soars. It's material he needed to let find its own rhythm more, as his own interjections showed a great deal of his own indifference.

P.S. -- the hedge maze scene in the book was easily one of the best, and it is missing from the movie. Although it would have been hard to create with the special effects of the day, it was a gigantic loss.

And the end was pretty much a loss all around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree.

And those who haven't read this book, btw, are really missing out. King's become something of a hack in his old age, but this book is brilliant, really his first great book (Carrie's a bit short and simplistic, and Salem's Lot has some very clumsy passages and pacing). Kubrick's film may be a masterpiece to Kubrick fans (I don't count myself among those) but this book is a flat-out fantastic example of gothic fiction and a must read for anyone interested in the genre. I must admit, I only watched the film after reading the book, and was one of those that compared them incessantly.

The TV movie was pretty bad, but I liked the casting of Rebecca De Mornay as Mrs. Torrance - that is much closer to what the character is in the book than Duvall.

Oh, and the kid talking to his finger all day long - that was just silly.

[jb9]

I always thought Kubrick's film was one of the best horror films ever made, possibly the best.

Then I read the book (which is great) last summer and found out Kubrick didn't stay true to King's book.

Now I think that Kubrick's film is one of the best horror films ever made, possibly the best.