Support NeoGAF

[DiscoJer]

If you liked The Shining, you should watch Burnt Offerings, which is almost the same story done a few years earlier (and a book written much earlier).

 

[JNA]

That entire movie is filled with bad acting.

 

[DeathyBoy]

...

Stephen King sure has some devoted fans.

I mean to say The Shining film is bad? Nonsense. Absolute rubbish. Visually it's stunning, it's full of inventive scenes, the acting is uniformly great, and it's downright chilling at points. One of the few horror films to genuinely unsettle me. And it strikes me that King's just salty because it's a personal story with Jack as an expy (granted an exaggeration) of King, and Kubrick painted Jack as a scumbag alcoholic.

-

 

[Stet]

I'm sorry but Kubrick? No way.

Mallet beats axe every time. For Kubrick who says he wants to stray away from tropes, he really doesn't since he want for the sharpest fucking tool in the shed. I mean if you really think getting chopped up quickly by an axe is scarier than getting smashed to bits slowly with a overly huge mallet is scary, you must be terrified of April Fools Day or anything with a knife on the cover art.

And to the OP, yes. Her performance was terrible, but that blame is solely on Kubrick. Much like we all know many actors like Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Ian McDiarmid, Natalie Portman and many others can actually act. You blame Lucas, not them. Same goes for this movie. It's not untouchable like a few in here seem to think just because it popped up on some pop culture top 50 list.

I'm so confused right now.

 

[Nakho]

He's just bitter that Kubrick turned a mediocre pulp horror novel into one of the best horror movies of its time.

Salt much? The Shining is a great novel. The movie is a classic despite its script, not because of it.

And The Shining is probably my favorite movie of all time, along with Clockwork Orange.

Kubrick has never fatefully adapted a work. He makes it his own. If he wanted to he could, but he chose not to.

Clockwork Orange was pretty faithful, except for the last chapter.

 

[bob_arctor]

If you liked The Shining, you should watch Burnt Offerings, which is almost the same story done a few years earlier (and a book written much earlier).

Listen to this man, for he is wise.

 

[Stet]

Salt much? The Shining is a great novel. The movie is a classic despite its script, not because of it.

Why would I be salty? The film is widely accepted as amazing.

 

[Nakho]

Why would I be salty? The film is widely accepted as amazing.

Salt against the novel, obviously. SK may be an obnoxious SOB for putting down the movie as garbage, but that doesn't make it okay to bash the novel as a "pulp mediocre horror novel".

 

[gerudoman]

The only bad thing about Wendy's role was her awful Spanish dubbing. Kubrick himself casted Verónica Forqué, a Spanish actress with really limited skills for voice over. Kubrick didn't know much Spanish and only chose her because her voice tone was very similar to Duvall's one.

It stands as one of the worst Spanish dubbings ever done here.

 

[Acorn]

Kubrick was a crazy genius. He drove her to the edge ad filmed it, damn good performance.

 

[FUBAR McDangles]

Yeah, The Shining an awful movie, just awful. I mean other than being an influential modern classic, with a 92% RT rating, and being ranked in the 50s on IMDB's best films of all time, as well as spawning entire documentaries dedicated to interpreting its meaning, it's basically a piece of shit.

Guardians of the Galaxy, though? We'll definitely be talking about that movie for generations to come.

I don't know about you, but I tend to watch movies with my own eyes rather than listening to the opinions of others. I could not care less if there is some rotten tomatoes rating making it the best movie of all time. My opinion is not your opinion and vice versa.

Unlike the book, the movie showed no story arc for Torrence or the hotel at all. Those two were the most important characters in the book and really made the entire story interesting. The movie makes it seem like Torrence is just a crazy guy who loses it in isolation in the mountains. What was the point of the ghost twins? Why were they even there? It was never explained. It was never elaborated on.

His wife was a terrible actress. I don't care if that was Kubrick's point, or if that is what he wanted out of her. I was annoyed every time she was on screen. The book portrayed her to be a woman who might have been a bit out of touch with her surroundings and a bit ignorant to what was going on, but she was still somebody who was competent. Somebody who did what she could for her son and herself. She was not the best character I have ever read but she was a solid one for sure.

The movie itself? Hard to watch in most respects. The sudden loud bursts of light pitched "music" that were meant to scare the viewer just left me disorientated and with my ears hurting. It never scared me, it just made me turn down the volume, only to miss the next bit of dialogue. Seriously ruined a half dozen scenes for me if not more. I can't remember how much it happened.

I can compare it to the book all day long. They ruined characters and cut others out for seemingly no reason. Sure, time constraints and I cannot expect them to have a 100% faithful adaptation to the book, whatever. But I could not help but compare it to the book the entire time and it simply ruined the movie for me.

The movie is overrated beyond belief. Was hardly enjoyable at all. If I saw that before I read the book, maybe my viewpoint would be different but nope. I did not like it.

Guardians, by the way, was a ton of fun to watch. That's what I care about. Fun while watching a movie.

 

[Maledict]

Ultra minor nitpick, but they weren't twins. Just sisters.

 

[Gattsu25]

What a strange thing. I wish it were longer.

wut?

I seriously have never heard the word 'what' uttered so many times. I don't know what show/movie that's from but the writing doesn't't inspire confidence.

 

[bob_arctor]

I don't know about you, but I tend to watch movies with my own eyes rather than listening to the opinions of others. I could not care less if there is some rotten tomatoes rating making it the best movie of all time. My opinion is not your opinion and vice versa.

Unlike the book, the movie showed no story arc for Torrence or the hotel at all. Those two were the most important characters in the book and really made the entire story interesting. The movie makes it seem like Torrence is just a crazy guy who loses it in isolation in the mountains. What was the point of the ghost twins? Why were they even there? It was never explained. It was never elaborated on.

His wife was a terrible actress. I don't care if that was Kubrick's point, or if that is what he wanted out of her. I was annoyed every time she was on screen. The book portrayed her to be a woman who might have been a bit out of touch with her surroundings and a bit ignorant to what was going on, but she was still somebody who was competent. Somebody who did what she could for her son and herself. She was not the best character I have ever read but she was a solid one for sure.

The movie itself? Hard to watch in most respects. The sudden loud bursts of light pitched "music" that were meant to scare the viewer just left me disorientated and with my ears hurting. It never scared me, it just made me turn down the volume, only to miss the next bit of dialogue. Seriously ruined a half dozen scenes for me if not more. I can't remember how much it happened.

I can compare it to the book all day long. They ruined characters and cut others out for seemingly no reason. Sure, time constraints and I cannot expect them to have a 100% faithful adaptation to the book, whatever. But I could not help but compare it to the book the entire time and it simply ruined the movie for me.

The movie is overrated beyond belief. Was hardly enjoyable at all. If I saw that before I read the book, maybe my viewpoint would be different but nope. I did not like it.

Guardians, by the way, was a ton of fun to watch. That's what I care about. Fun while watching a movie.

 

[IAmRandom31]

I don't know about you, but I tend to watch movies with my own eyes rather than listening to the opinions of others. I could not care less if there is some rotten tomatoes rating making it the best movie of all time. My opinion is not your opinion and vice versa.

Unlike the book, the movie showed no story arc for Torrence or the hotel at all. Those two were the most important characters in the book and really made the entire story interesting. The movie makes it seem like Torrence is just a crazy guy who loses it in isolation in the mountains. What was the point of the ghost twins? Why were they even there? It was never explained. It was never elaborated on.

His wife was a terrible actress. I don't care if that was Kubrick's point, or if that is what he wanted out of her. I was annoyed every time she was on screen. The book portrayed her to be a woman who might have been a bit out of touch with her surroundings and a bit ignorant to what was going on, but she was still somebody who was competent. Somebody who did what she could for her son and herself. She was not the best character I have ever read but she was a solid one for sure.

The movie itself? Hard to watch in most respects. The sudden loud bursts of light pitched "music" that were meant to scare the viewer just left me disorientated and with my ears hurting. It never scared me, it just made me turn down the volume, only to miss the next bit of dialogue. Seriously ruined a half dozen scenes for me if not more. I can't remember how much it happened.

I can compare it to the book all day long. They ruined characters and cut others out for seemingly no reason. Sure, time constraints and I cannot expect them to have a 100% faithful adaptation to the book, whatever. But I could not help but compare it to the book the entire time and it simply ruined the movie for me.

The movie is overrated beyond belief. Was hardly enjoyable at all. If I saw that before I read the book, maybe my viewpoint would be different but nope. I did not like it.

Guardians, by the way, was a ton of fun to watch. That's what I care about. Fun while watching a movie.

Man .... this post makes me wonder if you even watched the film.

The twin girls were the kids of the butler / waiter dude ( Grady was it? ) who takes Torrance into the bathroom and whom Torrance recognizes as the previous caretaker. He says right there that he butchered his wife and 2 daughters.

The only part that didn't make complete sense to me was the " you were always the caretaker here " along with him being in the photo at the end.

I thought Wendy's performance was spot on for this role. A beaten down, fragile housewife of this era who is having to handle a myriad a different problems from the very start. Her son going catatonic for one to start the movie off. Her husband obviously being, if not abusive than extremely hard to live with. Him hurting her son before the start of all this. Being in isolation and taking care of the hotel on her own. Etc. Etc. Then the pure terror of discovering her husband to be completely insane when she finds the hundreds of pages of

Showing just how long he has been going nuts.

 

[BertramCooper]

The movie was terrible. The book was good. Not great, but good.

If you genuinely think The Shining is a bad movie you probably have really shitty taste in film. It's almost unanimously considered one of the best horror films ever made.

And King is quite obviously bitter about the success of Kubrick's adaptation. He's trashed it ever since it came out.

 

[FUBAR McDangles]

If you genuinely think The Shining is a bad movie you probably have really shitty taste in film. It's almost unanimously considered one of the best horror films ever made.

And King is quite obviously bitter about the success of Kubrick's adaptation. He's trashed it ever since it came out.

Ah yes, the old "you have a different opinion that me so your opinion is wrong". Classic.

The movie was not anything special. At best it was something to watch for two hours but I never want to watch it again. Boring all around.

 

[BertramCooper]

Ah yes, the old "you have a different opinion that me so your opinion is wrong". Classic.

Almost as classic as shitting on a cinematic masterpiece to be a provocative contrarian.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Not as bad as Nicholson's performance

then again, Kubrick actively tries to get bad performances out of people for a certain effect, like the bland leads of 2001 making HAL more human than the actual humans, or Barry Lyndon's main dude in NO WAY WHATSOEVER imbodying the character that's on the page.

 

[inm8num2]

Kubrick was a crazy genius. He drove her to the edge ad filmed it, damn good performance.

Exactly. Her performance may not be pleasant to watch because of how hysterical she is, but that's the point. It's an excellent portrayal of someone losing her mind as a result of fearing for her life.

 

[CharminUltra]

lol wut she was great

WTF

 

[Stet]

Not as bad as Nicholson's performance

then again, Kubrick actively tries to get bad performances out of people for a certain effect, like the bland leads of 2001 making HAL more human than the actual humans, or Barry Lyndon's main dude in NO WAY WHATSOEVER imbodying the character that's on the page.

"In no way whatsoever embodying the character that's on the page" is Kubrick's thing. And that's why his films are so important--and so interesting. Adapting a book into an identical movie is the kind of nonsense that gives us three movies to span a single book in a series, and it's lazy and pointless.

 

[Aurongel]

Ah yes, the old "you have a different opinion that me so your opinion is wrong". Classic.

...So what you're doing right now essentially?

You like to make grand claims about the quality of the film yet provide no objective reasons why the film is "nothing special". I could understand you not enjoying it for various reasons, but the concept of "boring" and "fun" means different things for different people. I'm sorry, you might not have enjoyed the film or found it boring but don't act like your level of engagement in it is a flaw with the film because it's simply not. If I judged movies based on your naive logic, then I could just as easily find someone who thinks all of your favorite films are "boring" as well. But would that really mean anything about the quality of the film at that point?

No.

 

[FUBAR McDangles]

Almost as classic as shitting on a cinematic masterpiece to be a provocative contrarian.

Alright guy. Go ahead and think it is some type of amazing piece of art, go ahead and watch it every week if you think it is so good. I do not care.

I am not posting here to be some provocative contrarian, whatever that is. My browser is telling me the second word is not even an actual word. So keep on keeping on.

I'm shitting on Kubrick's Shining because I did not think it was enjoyable. The book was good, the movie was not. I have read better books and I have seen better movies.

Shelley Duvall's performance was bad and her character as a whole was even worse. That was what I originally came in here to say and that is how I am ending my appearance in this thread.

 

[lustrate]

Alright guy. Go ahead and think it is some type of amazing piece of art, go ahead and watch it every week if you think it is so good. I do not care.

I am not posting here to be some provocative contrarian, whatever that is. My browser is telling me the second word is not even an actual word. So keep on keeping on.

I'm shitting on Kubrick's Shining because I did not think it was enjoyable. The book was good, the movie was not. I have read better books and I have seen better movies.

Shelley Duvall's performance was bad and her character as a whole was even worse. That was what I originally came in here to say and that is how I am ending my appearance in this thread.

His point was that someone pops up to give a contrary opinion regarding every great movie. A lot of the time, like your post, these people shit on a movie without listing any valid reasons as to why it's bad.

con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(&#601rēən,kän-/
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.

 

[adamsappel]

Ah yes, the old "you have a different opinion that me so your opinion is wrong". Classic.

The movie was not anything special. At best it was something to watch for two hours but I never want to watch it again. Boring all around.

But, your opinion is such a small minority. Why do you insist that your opinion is the only correct one? You're an outlier on this, maybe there's a reason for that. I don't understand why you don't say, "I guess it wasn't for me," rather than, "The movie sucks and you're all wrong." This is usually where people ask what your Best Movies are so we can find out where you're coming from.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

"She's basically just there to scream and be stupid."

That's pretty much it.

You can argue whether it was a "good performance" or not, but I just really hated that character.

 

[bob_arctor]

All troll
and nothing substantial to say
make Fubar a dull boy.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

It's tangentially related but I thought this was interesting

Are you mystified by the cult that's grown around Kubrick's Shining?

I don't get it. But there are a lot of things that I don't get. But obviously people absolutely love it, and they don't understand why I don't. The book is hot, and the movie is cold; the book ends in fire, and the movie in ice. In the book, there's an actual arc where you see this guy, Jack Torrance, trying to be good, and little by little he moves over to this place where he's crazy. And as far as I was concerned, when I saw the movie, Jack was crazy from the first scene. I had to keep my mouth shut at the time. It was a screening, and Nicholson was there. But I'm thinking to myself the minute he's on the screen, "Oh, I know this guy. I've seen him in five motorcycle movies, where Jack Nicholson played the same part." And it's so misogynistic. I mean, Wendy Torrance is just presented as this sort of screaming dishrag. But that's just me, that's the way I am.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/stephen-king-the-rolling-stone-interview-20141031

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

It's tangentially related but I thought this was interesting

rofl at "screaming dishrag". Dude gets paid the big bucks for bein good with words for a reason.

I saw this earlier from someone that linked a huge interpretation-a-thon for The Shining, and thought this one in regards to Wendy sounded both hilarious and mean (on the part of Kubrick):

One of the most prominent conceptual uses of these cartoon symbols is that when the psychiatrist is questioning Danny on his bed, Wendy is wearing clothes that are virtually identical to those of the Goofy figure beneath the window – yellow boots, a red sweater and blue overalls (a blue dress for Wendy).

Shelley Duvall has big eyes and buck teeth, much like Goofy, and her sobbing in later scenes has a snorting quality similar to Goofy’s chuckle in the Disney cartoons. It’s possible that Kubrick merely noticed these aesthetic similarities to Shelley and played a prank on her in retaliation for their conflicts on the set, as witnessed in the behind-the-scenes documentary. Yet it’s also possible that he chose Shelley for the role with these Goofy-like similarities in mind. He may have even directed her to sob in a similar way to Goofy’s chuckling.

http://www.collativelearning.com/the%20shining%20-%20chap%203.html

I doubt this was Kubrick's intent but still, kinda funny.

Imo her physical form in general, that long face with the big eyes and pale complexion added to the surrealism and horror of the movie. Granted I first watched this movie when I was about 12 and it scared the ever loving shit out of me, but after many repeat viewings I still think of her casting as smart. She appears weak, frail, and battered, and that's exactly how her performance comes off. I think she was damn good.

 

[RadioHeadAche]

Speaking of the series, the barking "wolf man" scared me so much when I saw it.