The Shining (1980)

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

After rewatching The Shining directed by visionary, Stanley Kubrick, I noticed subtle details that amazed me. So much effort was put into this and it is seen in every shot. Overall masterpiece and my favourite horror film ever.

When I was in high school, and was supposed to be sleeping, getting ready for school the next day, many nights I was awake all night reading the early Stephen King novels. I have not read him for quite awhile now. I don't know if his writing style would have the same impact on me as it did back then, but at that time I did like the way he wrote about the thoughts of the characters. I know that there are those who find him to be too expository. I have just finished reading every User Review on IMDb for Stanley Kubrick's, "The Shining". Prior to that, I read as many professional reviews as I could find. In addition, I read Bill Blakemore's analysis, Rob Ager's excellent analysis, and Juli Kearns' wonderful shot by shot analysis of this incredibly deep film. While I do not claim to know all about the film because it may not be possible, due to Kubrick's famous adoption of H.P. Lovecraft's view, "in all things mysterious, never explain", I have come to believe certain things about the film. After watching the film many times, in more and more detail each time, I am persuaded by Juli Kearns' view that many of the scenes are actually Jack Torrance's mental images of the novel he is writing. Only a few of the scenes are real life experiences of the characters.As I read comments from negative reviews of the film, what Kearns argues makes more and more sense. Many negative reviewers wrote that the acting seemed wooden, and not credible. Keep in mind that Torrance is suffering from writer's block. If he is having trouble writing, what he is imagining for his writing project may not be quality, believable dialogue. This would explain why, for example, when Halloran starts making calls to find out what is happening at The Overlook, and then plans to travel there, many reviewers found his dialogue to not be credible. This would also explain the criticism of Shelley Duvall's performance. Many found her annoying, and at least one review opined that a person in this situation would not respond in the way that she did. If we apply Kearns' argument that many of Wendy's actions are actually Jack imagining her in his writing project, we can then understand why she acts the way she does.For me, this film is a horror masterpiece, and one of the best films ever made. It also employs, as Kearns and others point out, Kubrick's habit of inserting narratives underneath the surface narrative. Many people see many things under the surface of this film. The intriguing one to me is the metaphor of The Overlook as America, and the death of Halloran, and the blood pouring from the elevator representing the genocide of both the Native Americans, and African Americans. Any conclusions, or mistakes made in drawing conclusions is mine alone, and should not be attributed to Blakemore, Ager, Kearns, or anyone else.I do not believe in ad hominem attacks because I respect people too much to do so, but I would like to invite those who found negatives in the film to read the analysis of Blakemore, Kearns, Ager, and anyone else who has written thoughtfully about Kubrick's, "The Shining", and then to view the film again. You may see a lot more in this film than in previous viewing(s).I will not disparage the novel, while praising the film. Without the novel, Kubrick and Diane Johnson would not have had a story to build on. Also, as many others have pointed out, those who dislike the film, (many it seems, very intensely) do so because it did not follow the novel 100%. For those viewers, keep this in mind. There are two different ways to bring a novel to the screen. A translation is when the film producer follows the novel word for word. An adaptation is when the film producer uses certain aspects of the novel, discards other aspects, and then adds elements all the producer's own. Many of you who do not like the film, dislike it solely because it is not a translation, which, apparently you were expecting. If you are able to see it as an adaptation, and not a translation, you may see the film differently. Then again, perhaps not. Another aspect of this issue is that, in American films, probably more than elsewhere, the pressure for film makers to produce profits for their investors causes the films to spoon feed everything to audiences. Kubrick challenged audiences to think and draw their own conclusions. His films strongly encourage repeated viewings. It is an interactive process. Kubrick credits the intelligence of his audience. If all you see or are looking for is a horror film, I believe you are missing a tremendous amount of the richness of narratives Kubrick hid in this gem of a film.I will close by expressing tremendous respect for Stephen King, Stanley Kubrick, Diane Johnson, the performances of Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Barry Nelson, Joe Turkel, Philip Stone (the scene in the men's room with Nicholson was one of the greatest in film history), Anne Jackson, Billie Gibson, Lia Beldam, Lisa and Louise Burns, John Alcott (cinematographer), Garrett Brown (inventor of the Steadicam, allowing all of the amazing tracking shots), Ray Lovejoy (amazing editor), long time Kubrick assistant Leon Vitali (who, with his wife conducted the search for, and found Danny Lloyd), and all others involved with the making of this one of a kind film.

The Shining is the best horror film I've ever watched and one of my favorite films of all time. In this genre, it is unparalleled in vision, atmosphere, and class.I was constantly wondering what his style of film making would turn out to be. Though because of how mysterious the premise of The Shining is, I can't say I've really learned much in that department other than the fact that Stanley Kubrick was definitely influenced by some of David Lynch's earlier works, which is awesome. This is not a bad thing though, that I didn't learn much, as the mystery of this film along with its endless possibilities for theories is what makes it so timeless and engaging. Even with its 2.5 hour runtime, I never felt drained by the end, in fact I was left with more questions I had going in. I love that this movie never gives the audience the satisfaction of knowing exactly what's going on. Much of the film feels like amusement art, where we're immersed into the world of the characters, enveloped in realism and tension. I say realism because one of the core themes of The Shining is about family. This makes way for many dialogue sequences that don't really seem like they are just the "what you see in the movies" type of thing. Because they can seem real, the story, at times, feels more grounded and personal.Even on a surface level, The Shining is such a well-made, perplexing cinematic masterpiece. Without even trying to further read into the plot, The Shining is already one of those slow but unsettling festivals of tension that effectively utilizes music and cinematography to captivate the audience every second of the way. Everyone who has praised this movie has talked about the cinematography, and I'm going to do it here again. It's amazing. The use of the Steadicam camera stabilizer along with the intense score made the tension so powerful and the film so visually appealing.Of course, I can't forget about Jack Nicholson. I haven't seen many of the movies he has starred in so this was definitely a sight to behold. Aside from the fact that he gives many great performances throughout the film, he just knows how to demand screen presence. My attention was always on him when he was on camera; he really has a way of "face acting" that helps the viewer kind of piece together what is going on inside his head. As far as acting goes in general, it doesn't get much better than this guy. In fact, as far as movies go, it doesn't get much better than this one either.

Watched this for the second time, read the book in between the two views. I will say I hated the movie the first time. I didn't understand it. When I read the book, I kept imagining Shelley Duvall and the boy as the characters...the actor selection being the worst part of the movie. Jake Nicolas as Jack Torrance was a very good selection. I would agree with Stephen King that Stanley Kubrick drifted away from the movie, focusing in on Jack as the evil person and not the hotel. Also, the hotel exploding in the book is one of the best endings in a King novel. I don't understand why that was changed. The second time I watched the movie, I understood the premise of the story. This made following the movie easier and made the movie more enjoyable.