User reviews

Well, this just didn't work. Like Stephen King once said, it's all beautiful on the outside, but it has no essence (I am paraphrasing).

First of all, the cast. No disrespect to anyone, but no one sold their character to me. I've only seen Jack Nicholson in other movies, and he is usually a terrific actor. But his portrayal here, I'm afraid to say, sucked. Duvall actually did a better job here, in my opinion, but her character also needed work.

Next, the script. Awful. They took the premise of the book and placed it in their vision of a scary hotel. They didn't even try to make sense of it, they just scrambled a bunch of scenes from the book with a couple of scary scenes, that heavily rely on Kubrick's director skills, and we are left with this mess.

This is actually the first Kubrick movie I've seen. And, he is a good director. Cinematography and soundtrack are really exceptional and iconic. But, he lacks talent to make a good story (and believable characters) and connect it with visual masterpiece he envisioned.

I'm rating it 3/10 for the cinematography and soundtrack, that really deliver the horror. But, everything else in this movie is simply bad and needed a lot of work. If it was made by someone who is aware of their strengths (visuals) and weaknesses (story and characters), this would probably be one of my favourite films. This way, I'm left with a few beautiful images and disappointment for the potential they wasted.

I'm firmly under the impression that people judge films purely on single scenes and iconic imagery rather than actual depth and storytelling. Case and point: this film. The imagery is breathtaking. So many iconic scenes and images that leave a lasting impression on your mind. And this is what people remember. But then, you start to think about the actual story. Jack Torrence's slow decent into madness was neither slow, surprising or influenced by his environment. And that's what really kills this movie. I can honestly say, if the Overlook was not haunted, this movie, as presented, would have had the exact same ending. It is really a look into an imbittered drunk who goes mad from cabin fever. Everything that goes on around him is irrelevant. Is that the point? If so, it is truely a wasted opportunity as now any adaptation that is made in the future will be judged against this and be panned for telling an actual story. There is a reason Stephen King hates this movie, because it has no soul.

How do you pretend that a movie about a guy freaking out and trying to kill his family is somehow deep and a meaningful piece of art? Just draw out every scene as long as possible and play some weird modernist art-music. Also add a bunch of nonsense that is "open to interpretation" but doesn't actually mean anything. This movie isn't scary, there's almost no plot, there aren't any interesting characters and there aren't any good dialogues. It is an empty movie trying to pretend it is "art". Which it is not.

I know it's probably supposed to be a slow burn, but I just could not get past how boring it was. People love this movie and it took me years to get down to watching it, and when I finally did it disappointed me. Nothing really happens and when things do actually happen it's so little and so far between nothing that it did nothing for me. I know it's considered a classic horror movie but I do not get the appeal, and I will not watch it again.

It's boring not scary and disrespectful to Stephen king.

Brilliant direction from Kubrick and superb acting from all involved can't save a lame script. Nicholson is indeed amazing in this role. But really, that is the best thing going in the film. Kubrick gives us an eery palate and innovative camera angles and pans to create a strong feeling of disconnected isolation. He squeezes everything he can from the material but the screenplay is ponderous, at times sleep inducing. Everything in this film is predictable as every plot element is telegraphed from beginning to end. Little tension, no suspense. The characters have no depth and no spark as they leadenly plod through their preordained roles. By the end, you just go "that was it?" Why anyone thinks this is a great film is beyond me.

I first watched THE SHINING shortly after it came out, in 1980. By then, I was already a firm Kubrick fan, after watching THE KILLING, PATHS OF GLORY, DR STRANGELOVE, CLOCKWORK ORANGE, BARRY LYNDON and, above all, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

Unfortunately, I found THE SHINING well below the quality of its predecessors and, in truth, Kubrick entered a downward path from then on, even if his movies were always interesting and imaginative in a variety of ways.

THE SHINING opens with an unusual piece of sloppiness, provided by the overhead tracking shot up to the hotel, and you see the overflying helicopter's shadow on surrounding hills and ground for a few seconds. It sets the tone for a recurrent mixture of careless shots with masterly sequences, all ultimately undermined by a script riddled with credibility holes, an unconvincing supernatural presence, and a mansion/hotel that is not as haunting as Kubrick would like it to be, among other goofs and structural shortcomings.

Naturally, in light of the above, direction is disappointing: Kubrick is unusually sloppy and unobservant of detail. Cinematography is uneven, with some brilliantly executed sequences, and some pedestrian ones. Finally, the acting: Jack Nicholson is supposed to play the paranoid and schizophrenic Torrance, but he plays Jack Nicholson, trotting out all his usual mannerisms; Shelley Duvall shrieks far more than she acts; Danny LLoyd, her son, seems a bit spaced out, but perhaps that is part of the powers that eventually cause him to neutralize the family«s nemesis; Scatman Crothers I remember for massively bandy legs and the pictures of beautiful topless black women on the wall, rather than for the quality of his acting; and Philip Stone is the exception, with a short but well performed part.

Nothing memorable about this Kubrick effort, least of all the rather pat ending.

Some good directing and creepy scenes, but overall this movie was a bunch of madness that makes no sense. i read a bunch of theories and interpretations of this movie and none of them are satisfying. another example of a director confusing ambiguous with nonsense, ie 2001 space odyssey (1 viewing)

My first time watching that movie is June 2020.

I see the good steadycam uses, and the amazing coloured bathrooms. The acting is so theatrical to feel real and the story pacing incredibly slow.

Maybe in 1980 I was impressed but in 2020 I am bored. Not all the movies age well.

So, Kubrick completely neglected King's novel, to present... this? I've had already read the book before I watched this horror mov- I mean comedy. By not wanting to get to any details I'll just say that whatever happens in the book is very well amplified and justified.

For example you get to see, or read (whatever), about Jack's slow decent into madness. In the film it's obvious he's insane even before he steps into the Overlook. So why use objects and people from the novel that basically were what made Jack lose his mind if they've not a reason to exist in the film? And if, as it is very clear to see, Jack had lost his marbles (a reference from the book), why would Wendy and Danny not object to being isolated for 5 months in the middle of nowhere with him?

I honestly believe that if I hadn't read the book I would be completely lost. Due to the film's inexplicable turn of events and the dullness of it all characters, backstories, more or less everything doesn't stick with you.

Lastly, for such a praised film, the acting is just bad. Making the whole thing humorous, if not of course, ridiculous.

Book.. awesome..movie.. terrible..not one scary scene in the whole movie..if u thought this was a scary horror then I guess SpongeBob freaks u out too...worth a watch but don't expect anything to make u jump or play with your mind..it's really a totally boring movie..should not be classed as a horror ...

I first saw Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" several years ago, and my overall impression was that it was a decent, yet unspectacular horror film with a few creative touches. Following this, I read Stephen King's flawed yet commendable novel and had a chance to view the miniseries, which was a much better interpretation than Kubrick's version (the acting and production values were abnormally strong for a made-for-TV effort). This was back in 1997. After a five-year wait, the much-anticipated (by me, at least) official video release of the miniseries prompted me to put both versions up to scrutiny.

I popped in Kubrick's hailed and derided film, cleared my mind to be as impartial as possible, and wound up disappointed in how much the film had deteriorated in value. While "The Shining" had never been a masterpiece, I was shocked at how little was under its polished surface. Even if you disregard (or are just ignorant to) the merits of King's work, "The Shining" can barely stand on its own as an individualistic, one-of-a-kind horror film. Kubrick's narrative is filled with the cinematic equivalent of foam peanuts en lieu of emotional content and characterization, not to mention general coherence. King's book cleverly explored the parallels between the possessive effects of alcoholism with the possession of a man by ghosts--this film is about endless tracking shots of a kid on a bigwheel, blood cascading out of an elevator, and Jack Nicholson chewing the scenery as he limps around with an ax.

Point by point, here are my problems with this adaptation (my comparisons/contrasts were made after viewing):

1.) The cast. Nicholson (who is completely inappropriate for the role of Jack Torrance)'s pointy eyebrows and trademark grin paint him as a psycho from the get-go, yet I never found myself fully convinced of his possession, and his excessive tongue-waggling and eye-rolling made the performance all the more laughable (to see a charismatic actor leashed, with successful results, check out Robin Williams in "One Hour Photo"). Shelley Duvall's "aw-shucks" personality seems out of place, and she looks absolutely ridiculous running around with a knife (she and Nicholson are one of the most unconvincing couples to grace a movie screen). And, that shrill "redrum" chant aside, Danny Lloyd gives a robotic, lifeless performance. One of the reasons for "The Shining"'s failure is that this group of offbeat performers just doesn't gel, even as a faux family. Which leads me to...

2.) the screenplay, by Kubrick and Diane Johnson. Even if it hadn't been culled from a previously published story, it still would have fallen flat. But since it was, it seems necessary to bring up some contrasts with the novel that have a huge bearing on the events which conspire. I never criticize a film for not being a word-for-word adaptation (anyone who sets their expectations that high is just asking for a disappointment) as long as the fundamental points are covered. Story elements that would have been easy to incorporate, such as the boiler (a heavy-haned symbol, granted, but it works), Jack's escalating, obsessive commitment to the hotel (here, Nicholson spends most of his time in a hungover state while DUVALL tends to the hotel...sheesh), the 'shining' itself (limited to a few scenes, and are mostly throwaways, used to--in desperation--heighten dramatic intensity), and the sordid details of Jack's unemployment (beating up a student) are just a few details that are either truncated to insignificance or ignored completely. As a result, the characterization is frustratingly one-dimensional (so the blame can't be pinned solely on the cast), and the plot--as it's stretched out for 144 minutes--is appallingly shallow, with motivations and actions that seemingly come out of nowhere.

3.) The previous problems do nothing to help the lethargic pace of "The Shining." Kubrick, who is notorious for his overlong "epics," has made a film where little of interest happens (could that bathroom scene be just a LITTLE longer??), but that doesn't stop him from dragging that nothing out to damn near two-and-a-HALF self-indulgent hours. (Some actually seem to use this as a gauge to measure the quality of the film, though--the more minutes, the more brilliant "art," indeed!) I find it ironic that King's miniseries runs 2 hours longer than this, yet has a far better sense of pacing.

4.) And, a major annoyance I have with "The Shining" is the death of Hallorann, which doesn't get mentioned much (in positive reviews, at least). It's not that Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) is a memorable character here, but the fact that his death took the final straw in the overworked yet lazy script. It was as if Kubrick and Johnson, completely out of ideas, connected the dots to this inevitable conclusion where, in order to justify the "horror" tag, Hallorann travels a couple thousand miles, only to get an ax in the chest AND provide Duvall and Lloyd with a means of escape. Talk about shallow writing--the unsatisfactory conclusion that follows leaves much to be desired.

I did like a few (very few) things about this "Shining," though. I found the opening aerial shots to be absolutely breathtaking, and the occasionally creepy score was effective (even if it set a mood that was never fully realized); the scene in which Nicholson meets with the hotel manager for an interview is very well-handled--observe the self-conscious body language, the hospitable smile, and his use of "please" and "thank you". For a few minutes, Nicholson is an average-Joe applicant with a friendly tone, both authentic and convincing. It's a shame it's the only time in the film where anybody--in front of or behind the camera--exercises any restraint.

In the end, my favor lies with the 1997 miniseries. Kubrick's "Shining" plays out like a pretentious slasher film for those who deem slasher films beneath them.

3/10

I thought this was one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, if only because of its absurdity. Stanley Kubrick showed, as in 2001, that he can take a great story, and basically ruin it. Critics applaud everything he does, only, in my opinion, out of respect for such magnificent efforts as Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket. He added so much pointless stuff to this story, that I had to stop taking it seriously. I'd heard such great things about this movie, and I have applied my Taxi Driver theorem, named after Scorcese's Taxi Driver. If a great director does a movie, and it's extremely odd, and has a lot of stupid, quirky, just plain weird things in it, the critics will applaud it's genius, out of a fear of being called stupid. The critics were probably afraid to admit that they just plain don't understand the movie, so they praised it in a way calling anyone who doesn't understand it stupid. Unfortunately, no one will admit when a great director makes a mistake, so this has gone down as one of the greatest horrors of all time. I, personally, couldn't stop laughing the entire time.

Well, the best thing of the movie The Shining is the actor Jack Nicholson who is an excellent actor. But seriously The Shining may have been scary in the years from 1980 to 1990, but compared whit todays horror movies it is a joke. I did not get scared watching the movie, there is not a scene where you can get goose bumps. Maybe in those days the (80s) people could not imagine what was happening to Jack Torrance. But in todays horror movies there are a lot of situations in which people are possessed by a demon or just strange thing that could be happening. I think that the list of the top 100 horror movies should be refreshed.

The age old question: Is Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's novel a terrifying film experience? The answer: no. Working from the modern classic, this tale of a man's descent into madness during a prolonged stay at a haunted hotel is about as scary as your average episode of Sesame Street. Now don't get me wrong here. Kubrick is a master at his craft. His camera is always right where it should be. The scenes shot with steadicam are divine. The problem is that Kubrick is a cold filmmaker. Do we care about the Torrance's and their plight? Nope. Are any of the shocking scenes of horror really that shocking? Not unless you've never seen any horror movie before, and I mean none. I'm sorry but every scare is telegraphed from a mile away and is just so lame that only a child would find them truly frightening.

Much has been ballyhooed about Nicholson's bravura performance. Hold on. Did anyone actually read the book? It's about a man's descent into madness. Jack looks loco before he even gets to the hotel and his actions are worse. How could anyone possibly believe that he's getting loony? The whole point is that Jack Torrance is an everyman who snaps under the psychological pressures of his surroundings. Give me a break. And Shelley Duvall as Wendy is so horribly miscast that she can only flounder in her role. Kudos to the casting of the twin girls, though, they were uber-creepy. While King's own miniseries is far from a classic of the genre, it is as it stands a far better adaptation of the book than Kubrick's vision. With a better cast and more skilled director the miniseries could have been what this movie is hyped as but never actually attains.

This won't be an in-depth review, as my numerical vote sums up what I am about to type quite handily: The reason for the title of the movie is for the most part missing from the film. Aside from the fact that the ending is completely different from that of the novel, and that the author of the novel wasn't given any input into the making of the film, or that the lead actress was basically tormented by the director to give such a mousy performance which goes against the grain of the book as well...the actual Shining, the purpose of the book being written, is hardly included in the movie. Take a look at the mini-series if you want the author's true intentions seen on film, for that is a most superior version. I know people think of this as a horror classic, but for those of us who know the source material, disappointment ensues.

I'm still confused wether this movie is supposed to be a horror movie...and I don't know wether it's just because it is an slightly older movie With dated cgi, but I really wasn't scared for any of the characters in the movie. It was more of a comedy for me.

Finally got around to seeing "The Shining," and was looking forward to it with great anticipation.

What a disappointment! All the wonderful power of the book thrown away for 2 hours of Jack Nicholson mugging and overacting for the camera. Everything is overlit like a 7-Eleven.The dialogue is wooden, the music intrusive, the direction straight out of a high school play....

The cook makes the whole trip just to be killed in the hallway, instead of being the pivot point of the rescue and the key to the ending in the book. The maze is static and boring, and what happened to the malevolent topiary sculptures? The cellar is bright and clean and perky instead of the home of the heating plant from Hell that eventually destroys Jack and the hotel and releases the bound spirits. The whole history of the hotel is only referred to obliquely, and that was the heart of the story.

Stephen King must have had a near coronary if he saw it, which I sincerely hope he never did.

There is nothing worse than a purported horror movie that winds up boring and annoying. I watched it through to the end more out of disbelief than anything else. This is the same guy who made "2001"?

Anybody for a remake?

This film Is such an uncomfortable watch, For me through boredom more than fear. I suppose i need to take into account the age of this movie. Even considered, the pacing is very slow and the cast I find awkward. Some people love this movie but I don't think there is anything in it particularly which makes it different, special or even worth watching. It doesn't hold up against the true greats of the genre.

I think it's a film which you will love or hate as a lot of the reviews suggest, if you like Jack Nicholson and don't mind an older slow paced horror it might be right up your ally, many would disagree but for me it is very Overrated.