Ebert on "The Shining"
 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...WS08/606180302

An interesting take on the film and a good read.

Outside of Nicholson's role (which is great and everyone remembers), this movie is far from Kubrick's best and far from a good horror movie.

Far from a <I>good</I> horror movie?!?!

Er, there is MUCH more to Kubrick's The Shining than Jack Nicholson.

A TON more.

My take (which I've gone over in the worst adaptation of a novel thread):
Fair to good horror movie.
So-so Kubrick movie.
Bad adaptation of a fantastic novel.

My 2 cents

May I say it was a horrible adaptation? :D

My hatred of the movie has diminished over the years, though I was so angry as I walked out of the theater because I was so looking forward to this movie.

There ARE some memorable scenes but the casting was all wrong, especially Jack Torrance. Going by the premise of the story, Nicholson was probably the WORST choice Kubrick could've made.

I too never cared for this movie. It has great great atmosphere, but I never found it scary. Maybe that was the point as it was meant to be more psychological? I don't know. I just never cared for it. It could also be that I saw the movie first on television during the weekly "Saturday Afternoon Horror Movie!!!" that used to come on one of the local station here in Baltimore - so it was edited. I have since rented it and my opinion hasn't much changed.

Well, I agree but I wasn't looking to throw gas on the fire, them Kubrick folk can get a might testy.

I agree about casting, Jack's a great actor but all wrong for the part. Shelly Duvall had her moments as Wendy but also wrong.

Like I said, it was a decent horror movie, and beautifully filmed. I have to wonder about some of Kubrick's choices though. I understand he decided to throw out the entire theme of the story, maybe to "tighten it up" and make it a more traditional horror movie, but why make certain changes for the worse? the whole "talking finger" was silly and pulled me out of whatever tension he may have built. I always wondered why he decided that was a better approach over the way the book described it. I doubt it would have taken any more screen time over the Sesame Street voice finger wiggle.

I liked Kubrick's version, but compared to the book it wasn't great. Now the TV version was closer to the book, but I hated it with a passion. Liking The Shining all depends on how you look at.

Now The Shinning was great...

I agree, I didn't like the mini-series much at all. They got the story and theme right but that's about it. I can only wonder how good Kubrick's would have been with some casting and screenplay tweaks. I am fairly convinced that Stephen King's horror novels simply can not be translated properly onto film. Now his straight fiction and suspense (Stand By Me, Shawshank Redemtion, Misery, Green Mile...) do very well in capable hands

The Shining (Kubrick) is ten times better than the book, and 100 times better than the mini series. Give me a break people...

The camera /steadicam work in Kubrick's version is about the best I've seen. I love the score. I love Nicholson's performance. I even love the kids performance. Any of you see the kid in the mini series do anything remotely close to acting?

You are absolutely high! I agree it was better than the P.O.S. mini series, but the book is so much better the film.

Camera work does not make a film better than a book, when the telling of the "story" in the film is inferior to the novel.

I certainly didn't think the mini-series was any good, but I will argue to my grave that the movie would have been beter if it had stuck to the book's themes.

Did you even read the book? Where was that great topiary scene? Why did a major character die in the movie? Where was that fantastic finish that was in the book? Ooooo Jack freezes.... okay....

Again, did you read the book? It's about Jack Torrance's slow decent into madness. The reason I found Nicholson wrong for the role is that he looks crazy from the get-go. Why care that he's going mad.... when he already looks like he's there? I'm not saying he's a bad actor but he was a bad choice for the role.

I like Kubrick's version, a lot. I also liked the book, a lot. The mini-series was decent, but not something I go back to watch very often.

That is the order in which I experienced The Shining. This may have something to do with why I like them how I do.

It is a terrible adaptation of a great book. I also keep the two seperated, which keeps me happy. The mini-series got the story right, but is lacking... something.

The Shining is a classic horror film. Criticism that stems from comparisons to the book is irrelevant. The Shining was never mean't to be a faithful adaptation of the book anyway. Sure you can prefer the book, but criticizing this film because it omits parts of the book or criticing the choice of actors because they don't fit your perception of the characters as you saw them in the book is just silly. If you want to criticize the film, criticize it on it's own merits. As it stands, you're not criticizing the film for what it is, but because it's not what you wanted it to be.

Agreed. The book is very good. The mini-series is pretty good and faithful to the book but lacking style. Kubrick's film is a terrible adaptation, perhaps not even an adaptation at all, and it is a masterpiece.

das

I agree with some of that but I feel Kubrick made some major changes for the worse. I understand that a movie can never faithfully follow the book, and shouldn't. But when the writer/director make that greatly weaken the movie, I will have to voice my opinion.

I've never read the book and I've always loved the movie. I guess if I read the book then I'd understand all the criticism of the movie I keep seeing over the years, but to me it always seems unjustified. I think the movie tells a fine story the way it is. I tried watching the mini-series but I think I stopped before the final episode.

Yes I read the book. But what you fail to realize is you think Jack looks crazy from the beginning because you already knew he was going to be crazy. I read the book after I saw the movie, and I like the movie a lot more. I don't want to be misinterpreted. This is what I'm saying-I like the book, but I love the movie. I consider them separate entities. Obviously if you're married to the book, and expect the story to be told in the same manner, you would be highly disappointed. I had no such problem however.

Also to say Jack goes crazy too quickly is kind of short sighted-it's a film version of a novel which I'm guessing off hand is over 400 pages. A screenplay consists of perhaps 30% of that, at most. You try and chop 70% out of a novel and see what happens. You can't fit every nuance of the book into a film-it just isn't going to happen. As it stands now, the film is already pretty long. To create the character arc Jack has in the book would make this movie 6 hours. Had Kubrick waited until 3 quarters of the way through the film, then unleashed Jack's unstable side, it would be out of the blue. There's just not enough time with the film format to jam everything in.

There can be no good film adaptation of a Steven King novel because King's greatest strength is his writing of the internal monoloug of someone going insane.

MISERY was a good movie because it was one book where King gave us NO VIEW into the insane characters mind...only the victim.

I think "The Shining" is one of the most overrated horror movies of all-time. Now, I still think it's a good movie -- I just see it listed so often as one of the best (if not THE BEST) horror movie of all-time, which I don't buy.

What was great: the direction, cinematography, music, and atmosphere. This movie just makes you feel cold no matter what the room temperature is. What was bad: parts of the script, the performances, and a horrible ending. Even though fans of the movie love this, I hated how they had Jack cracking 1-liners. Just destroyed the mood and tension for me. In addition to Jack's inapropriately over-the-top psycho, Shelley Duvall was just annoying (a waste of her talent as well). And the less said about the kid the better. And the ending: I know Kubrick had to change plans for it based on technical limitations (originally was supposed to be something closer to the book). But there had to be something better than that.

So for me, overall good but not great (and certainly not greatest of all-time). It was interesting to see the remake, which overall was much weaker IMO. Even though it was much more faithful to the book (in casting and script) and had King's involvement (who seems to have flip-flopped on his opinion of the Kubrick movie over the years). The problems with that: Like most of King's written tv-adaptations, his dialog sounds bad when written (the corniness seems amplified from when it's just on a page). Kubrick's "let-down" ending didn't seem so bad with the goofy, sappy, "feel-good" crappy way they ended this one. And most importantly, Kubrick >>>>>>>>>>>>> (not enough >s in the world to really express this) Mick Garris.

People complain that Jack Nicholson is already crazy from the start -- so?

If you read the book (and I've only read part of the beginning), it appears he was headed down that road anyhow. Stanley probably didn't wanna bother with that detail and simply made him a man on the edge (which is what Weber's version of the character was essentially, which proved less interesting).

People also claim that this is an incomplete adaptation of his work -- so?

If you take everything from a book and put it to film or tv, not all of it will work. I understand that the tree monsters that weren't in the original were supposed to be frightening and all that, but they came off as silly monsters made for a kids show.

I also felt that after the beating Rebecca De Mornay took from Weber in the new version, that him scarficing himself to save his family was stupid. The man allowed himself to get sucked in back into his own darkside and the hotel merely helped me achieve it, he deserved death -- that is why I prefer the Krubrick version. A part of me in the original wanted him to survive, but it did feel too late for Jack Torrance to make up.

I disagree. The strongest theme of the book was how isolation can drive a person insane. Jack was a psycho from the get go in the movie. You don't need an epic movie to get that across.

Kubrick turned a great character driven horror novel(atypical for King, that is why it is revered like it is) into a typical hollywood horror film retaining nothing but names and the title for the movie.

I think I enjoyed Ebert's write up more than the film itself. Certainly makes it seem more interesting than it actually is.

As for the mini, they got it mostly right, the themes, the story, etc. The problem was the format. Network TV? HBO would have been a better outlet to allow for some gore.

I liked the book and the movie, though I agree, it wasn't a great 'adaptation'. Maybe this is hindsight, since now we have decades of Nicholson playing insane characters, but yes, casting him to play Jack is sort of a gimme [I remember when the first Batman movie came out, someone said 'casting Nicholson to play the Joker is like asking Picasso to paint a fence']. It might have been better if there were a more 'normal' actor who could portray the descent accurately.
But again, it might be hindsight. I know Nicholson plays a lot of at least 'bent' characters; I know roughly what happens to Torrance. Maybe if I went in totally blind, to both the story and to Nicholson, it would be a little more realistic. Maybe a larger portion of the original audience *did* go in blind-er than we do.

That said, as a stand-alone movie, I do like the movie, though there were some bits that didn't make sense on their own [the bear in the bedroom as a 'message', other than just as a 'spirit'.]. The talking finger does, lots of kids have imaginary friends; combine it with some latent psychic power, and it fits.

I didn't see the tv-movie remake.

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.