Kubrick's film is a bona fide masterpiece. I've seen it at least 30 or 40 times and it still scares me. I tried reading King's novel and found it to be a chore. I gave up about 4/5ths through because it was so mind-numbingly dull.

Interestingly, everyone cites Kubrick's radical departure from the book as the reason they don't like his film version, yet when they get a version that is faithful to the book (and with King's stamp of approval no less), they unanimously agree that it's a clinker. Perhaps Kubrick was a bit smarter than you folks give him credit for.

I agree.

Or, how about screenplay only goes so far. The tv version had the perfect screenplay-was true to the source. It fell short in casting and direction. Come on, a horror movie with no gore?

The novel can only dream of being as good as the film.

I disagree with you disagreement. Jack was not psycho from the start of the film. Watch it again. The first visit, he's as normal as can be. The drive up, he's as normal as can be. It takes quite awhile for him to flip out on Wendy, and even then, it's only the very beginning of his downward spiral. If you watch closely, Jack is shown doing many monotonous activities, like bouncing the ball down the long corridor, staring out the window, sleeping late (an aspect that shows he isn't writing nearly enough, or at all). It's these little glimpses into his psyche that allows us to leap to the conclusion that he's slowly deteriorating. Because in the film medium, it is slow. In fact, the pace of The Shining is among the slowest in modern history.

In book form, you have chapters upon chapters to lay on the nuances. When dealing with a screenplay, you have to take the most important parts and slice the remaining 80% out. A good example of this is American Psycho. Read the book, then watch the film-it's amazing how much they were able to keep for a 90 minute film.

I don't agree that the TV version had the perfect screenplay because it was true to the source. I'm pretty sure that the credits in Kubrick's version read: "Based Upon A Novel by Stephen King", not "An Exact Duplication of a Novel by Stephen King". I think a director, especially one as revered as Kubrick, should be allowed any latitude with the source material that he wishes. I also found it very unfair and short-sighted for King to come out against the movie for the same reasons being cited here: that it wasn't faithful to his book. My take is, you sell the rights, the rights are sold.

I just rewatched this after it premiered on HDNet. This movie still frustrates me, since for the first 3/4s its nearly perfect. Oddly, it loses me at the point where the horror geek in me should be getting most into -- when Jack goes off the deep end. Jack's descent into madness (and how the hotel helps him along) is interesting and scary, as is the building tension with Danny and Wendy as things start going wrong (along with the growing isolation). This aspect of the screenplay, along with the masterful look and sound of the movie, gives me no disagreement with the lovers of this movie. But the turning point for me was when Jack confronts Wendy after she read his "writing" (and her discovery there was well done). Jack is now a one-liner cracking, joking, funny face making, over-the-top psycho -- and he stays that way for the rest of the movie. In that sense, I like the book's portrayal better -- "crazy" Jack was a twisted variation of the normal man, with his faults amplified. It was scarier because you (and the characters Wendy and Danny) could still see bits of the original man there. Wendy's blubbering run through the house while seeing "visions" from the hotel didn't work for me since it descended into silliness (what was with that guy in the bear/dog suit, anyway?) -- and by that time the character's non-stop crying and screaming was getting really annoying. And while the final "chase" sequence was exciting and scary at first, I found the resolution of that extremely unsatisfying.

I never liked how King backtracked on his opinion of Kubrick's "Shining". He raved about it in "Danse Macabre". But when he gets the chance to write a miniseries helmed by his boy Mick Garris, he now comes up with reasons to dump on it. I don't think its a coincidence that the best King adaptations are the ones King has nothing to do with after the rights are sold.

Hey! Everyone 'Shining geek' I know says that scene freaks them out. And I agree with them. You get the pulsing music along with a tight snap zoom, and I'm like 'wtf?' It's just freaky.

However, I do appreciate your reasoning as to why the Shining loses you at a certain point. It's refreshing to hear someone with a better point then 'It's not faithful to the book!'. I don't agree with you, but hey, different strokes.