Movie News

Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! Darling! Light. Of. My. Life. I said I’m not gonna hurt ya’. I’m just gonna bash your brains in!

Published at: April 18, 2011, 8:38 p.m. CST

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes Pic!

I had an argument recently while making an appearance on the Film School Rejects podcast (called Reject Radio, click here to listen) where I was shocked to find myself on the defending end regarding Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. The usually sane Cole Abaius and Rob Hunter were trying to tell me that the mini-series was a far better film than Kubrick’s.

Note, they didn’t say adaptation, but film. I tried to clarify adaptation, because sure… the TV mini-series is closer to the book than Kubrick’s film, but saying it’s a better made movie is lunacy! Why can’t Kubrick’s film be both a poor adaptation and a great film?

You’ll be hard pressed to find a bigger Stephen King fanatic than I and I don’t begrudge Kubrick’s movie one bit. It’s a masterpiece of sound design, pacing, tone, shot selection and set decoration. He somehow makes Shelly Duvall’s annoying acting work for her character. He layers Jack Nicholson’s insanity, getting the best out of Nicholson at every moment. The Shining is one of my favorite movies and one of my favorite of King’s books. They’re both brilliant in different ways.

So, with all that fresh on my mind I figured I’d dig into the archives and find a Shining shot. This one ain’t the best Shining shot I’ve run (this shot and this shot are my favorites), but it’s still a great moment of movie history as Kubrick and Nicholson, ax in hand, sit together! Enjoy!

 

 

Tomorrow’s Behind the Scenes Pic will be… good...

-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 18, 2011, 8:41 p.m. CST

    First

    by HighPointBleed

    My first... Read that book during a blizzard on the U.P.... Bad timing.

  • April 18, 2011, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Apollo

    by TresEquis

    I love those theories that this movie was one long apology for faking the moon landings

  • April 18, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST

    um yeah, Kubrick's film is a masterpiece

    by RZA

    Anybody that says different obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. Next question...

  • April 18, 2011, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Love both the film and the novel

    by Lucky_Day

    This movie is probably the only adaptation that I can think of that doesn't bother me at all for straying from the source material.

  • April 18, 2011, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Lucky

    by Quint

    Jaws, too. Benchley's book is okay, the movie is a hundred times better.

  • April 18, 2011, 8:59 p.m. CST

    The Shining (book) vs. The Shining (movie)

    by slone13

    King's book is about a troubled man who goes crazy. Kubrick's film is about a crazy man who goes bat shit insane. An extremely important difference that ultimately cheapens both the Nicholson's character and the film. The fact that the scariest scene in the book, and possibly one of the best in all of literary horror, is not even in the movie is also a huge blow to Kubrick's "vision". Of course, I am talking about the topiary bushes coming to life. Also, Kubrick's killing of Dick Halloran and his reduction of that great character into nothing more than a means to deliver the snowcat to Danny and his mother is a fucking crime.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Jack doesn't redeem himself in the book, just the mini

    by tangcameo

    When Jack/Hotel realizes the hotel is about to [censored due to spoilers] he's still Jack/Hotel all the way down to the basement when the hotel [censored]. In the miniseries, King rewrote the ending, and Jack is free of the hotel's grip before it [censored].

  • April 18, 2011, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Completely on your side, Quint.

    by thepentaveret

    I don't love all Kubrick, but his THE SHINING is a masterpiece. The mini-series was what it was: another entry in a long tradition of watering down the pages of a Stephen King novel, even though it was a closer adaptation of the original work. In my house, Kubrick's film is broken out every Halloween ... any more than that, I run risk of too many sleepless nights throughout the year.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    A Great Adaptation doesn't have to be EXACT, dudes

    by Proman1984

    Shinning is a great adaptation precisily because it's fit for film.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    redrum my ass, this movie sucks. shamless over acting and slow pacing. overrated horseshit

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    Kubrick is a genius, who normally turns in great work but this aint one of those. movie pissed me off after hearing how good it was for years only to witness yet another over rated, over hyped jack fest

  • April 18, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Cuckoo's nest is amazing. Deserves every accolade

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    unlike the shining which king and kubrick apologists feel they must defend no matter the evidence to the contrary that the movie does not work

  • April 18, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Did anyone else laugh and cringe when jack had the axe?

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    was it supposed to be that funny and silly at same time?

  • April 18, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Slone13, I agree about killing off Halloran being a mistake.

    by frank

    That was something that always bothered me about the movie. I just read the book for the first time recently, and I liked the was Halloran was used much better than in the film. Kubrick’s brushing aside of Halloran goes along with his minimizing of the importance of the Shining itself. In the book, the fact that the kid has these psychic powers is integral to everything else supernatural that occurs, but in the movie, his powers are almost just an irrelevant curiosity. That said, I still love the movie and would probably choose it over the book if I had to choose only one. Kubrick’s directing and Nicholson’s acting make seeing the film a more powerful experience overall than reading the book. I was surprised to find that the famous “all work and no play” scene was not actually in the book also.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Kubrick's Jack is crazy from the start because...

    by Nem_Wan

    In Kubrick's own appraisal of the novel, "It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy. This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing." Kubrick then, is not concerned as much with Jack's state of mind as the audience's. The hotel really is haunted, but Kubrick wants to tempt the audience to rationalize otherwise for as long as possible. The click of Grady unlocking the pantry is how the truth is revealed.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    They're watching a football game

    by MooseMalloy

    FFFFFFFF-FFFFFAAAAAAAAAAA-AAAAA-CT!

  • April 18, 2011, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Best Nicholson Roles?

    by Aquatarkusman

    Jack isn't bad, but given how nuanced his other 70s performances were (The Passenger, Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown), I have a feeling this was the movie that sent him down the path to self-parody. For Al Pacino, that movie was ...And Justice for All, and for Robert DeNiro, I'm guessing The Untouchables.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST

    HERE'S JOHNNY!!!

    by F-18

  • April 18, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    aquatarkusman

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    totally agree

  • April 18, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Dr Strangelove = Masterpeice. 2001 = Masterpiece. The Shining = mediocre fanboi over rated horseshit.

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    deal with it

  • April 18, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Jack did come to his senses near the end of the book.

    by frank

    He tells Danny to run, knowing that he (Jack) is going to be overtaken by the power of the Hotel again very soon.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    As For Stephen King's Perennial Bitching...

    by Aquatarkusman

    Hey, they can't all be Hearts in Atlantis, can they?

  • April 18, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives: helicopter shadow only on video

    by Nem_Wan

    The helicopter shadow was not visible in the theatrical presentation of the film. The 35mm negative was matted for widescreen presentation and the helicopter does not enter the matted frame. The video transfer of the film used the full exposed frame rather than letterbox or crop and this revealed the helicopter shadow.

  • April 18, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Hey_Kobe

    by Aquatarkusman

    I was always partial to Barry Lyndon, which is a towering achievement despite the complete miscasting of its two main characters. However, I always side with Kubrick over King, just because King is a coked-up hack whose repetitive stylistic quirks (repetition of goofy phrases, italicized crazy internal dialogue) wore thin sometime during the first Reagan Administration.

  • April 18, 2011, 10 p.m. CST

    aquatarkusman

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    Alan Bates and Susannah York would have been perfect. yeah you are right again about king, he is a prolific hack who occasionally has a good idea that he drowns in the kings speech

  • April 18, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST

    aquatarkusman, there were two Reagan administrations?

    by frank

    I’ll be damned.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Dr. Dream is coming soon. Should be good.

    by Michael_Jacksons_Ghost

  • April 18, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    WOWWWWWWWWW

    by Traumnovelle

    Well, you've singlehandedly ruined any interest I may have had in checking out the Film School Rejects website. That's motherfucking SACRILEGE. Not only does the mini-series not even come close to holding a candle to genera vicinity of Kubrick's The Shining, it's one of the worst mini-series ever, period. Forget Kubrick even made The Shining. It STILL is atrocious. There is no subtlety, and no subtext. EVERYTHING is spelled out and spoon-fed to the audience. It is as bad as it gets. Seriously, fuck those guys. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but in this case, you just simply are NOT.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    No wonder why most horror films suck nowadays!

    by Cureguy

    These jokers would get an F in my class. That TV version sucked!

  • April 18, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Great film

    by caruso-stalker217

    And it's funnier than fuck.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Yeah, King does suck...

    by Ronald Raygun

    But his book On Writing should be read by everyone who has even a passing interest in writing.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Yes Frank and Tall, there is THAT scene in both

    by tangcameo

    And it's a wonderful goodbye scene of sorts. Where Jack comes to his senses one last time for his son's sake before the hotel finally overwhelms him. It's one of my favourite scenes in the book and in the miniseries. That should have been the last sight of a sane Jack in the miniseries but they had that extra scene that changed the hotel ending so they could fill time so Danny and Hal and Wendy could grab jackets and boots instead of just running out before the you-know-what went Rocky Mountain high like in the book (the FX for that would have been more expensive I guess). I read the book once a year around autumn. I see a lot of me (writer), my Dad (teacher) and a favourite cousin of mine (drunk) in Jack. It resonates with me.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    so is there a reason...

    by maxwell's hammer

    ...that everytime I try to go to Massawyrm's "Atlas Shrugged" review, my computer freezes? Its happened now on two different computers.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST

    I think Ryan O'Neal was PERFECT casting in Barry Lyndon

    by SK229

    Just like Tom Cruise was perfect for EWS. He cast them because of the archetype you'd think of the moment you lay eyes on them for the first time. There's even an acting program I've heard of that does this... it starts where you basically stand in front of a class and everyone writes down their assumptions about you. Inevitably, everyone's assumptions criss-cross in a few key areas and interpreting this information correctly will tell you the kind of parts where you pretty much just have to show up and barely have to act because most of the audience will fill in the blanks just based on your archetype. O'Neal was playing a shallow, slightly dim yet highly opportunistic young man who is constantly on the look-out for how he can use the people around him to his advantage. There's quite a few scenes of him just looking at his surroundings and anyone slightly more intelligent looking, slightly less good looking, or slightly more animated would ruin the character. He literally has to do nothing but stand there and play the archetype he was born to play, which is why Kubrick cast him, aside from the fact that he was a star. Re: Aquatarkusman - your other assessment, however, regarding Nicholson, Pacino and Deniro is pretty much spot on, imho, especially regarding Pacino and Deniro, although I still think Scarface is kind of a crazy masterpiece of a performance (not the film, though). I've never seen Cruisin', so I can't say on that one, and I think he did that right after Justice. I feel like Deniro's last truly great performance was Midnight Run. I'll probably be crucified for not mentioning Goodfellas and a few others, but I as much as I love 'Sunshine of Your Love' playing over the slo-mo of Deniro smoking a cigarette and deciding to kill Morrie, I still think it's a bit of caricature. Oh... how could I forget - I think Pacino was pretty fucking awesome in You Don't Know Jack and Deniro wasn't bad in 'What Just Happened?', especially the scene where he has to have that contained/conflicted rage that he won't fully let out while waiting for Bruce Willis to exit his trailer. By the way, FUCK FILM SCHOOL REJECTS. It's just like that No Film School site, populated by writers that I consider to often go to contrarian extremes and THEY BELIEVE THEIR OPINIONS ARE FACTS AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS BENEATH THEM. Fuck 'em. And it's pretty much an objective fact that THE FILM of Kubrick's The Shining should never be mentioned in the same sentence as the mini-series except to show how awful of a movie can result from the same story. That mini-series is fucking terrible... it's cheese, pure and simple. As far as that site, it's indicative of the entire indie scene right now, contrarian to a fault (knee-jerk, in other words), totally clueless as to how to tell a story that keeps an audience's interest without twee 'indie' music and endless shots of people doing things like making themselves breakfast, picking their kids up from school, looking out of windows... they mistake the daily rhythms of life for being interesting in and of themselves instead of, ya know, interesting CHARACTERS going through the daily rhythms of life while moving through a compelling story. Who would you rather watch, some mumblecore douche eating a bowl of cereal or Travis Bickle?

  • April 18, 2011, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Kingofmilwaukee

    by Quint

    Where do I promise enlightenment with this article? I'm pretty sure I only promise a behind the scenes picture every day. If enlightenment is what you're looking for, check out some Buddhist temples.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:47 p.m. CST

    As others have said, "more faithful" DOES NOT always mean "better"

    by Kammich

    I love Mick Garris as an interview, as a horror geek, and as a general champion of the genre... but, with all due respect to the man... he's a shit filmmaker. And I don't use disrespectful terms like that often, but I mean it in his case. He's a guy I'd love to sit and have a beer with(hell, smoke a bowl too, if thats his thing), but I'm not a fan of ANYTHING he's ever committed to celluloid. The Shining was one of the first real novels I ever read. I'm 22 now, so I wanna say I was... maybe 10, when I read it? And it was right before the ABC adaptation came out. I appreciated the ABC adaptation for how close it stuck to some of the smaller details, and I was honestly also a fan of Steven Weber's performance(doesn't approach Nicholson's, but its damn good). But even at AGE FUCKING 10, I could see that Kubrick's version was a better MOVIE. Such a key part of the book, to me, was the sheer isolation and what that can do to people... I grew up in Pocono, PA. I spent days, sometimes weeks, snowbound indoors. It can make you a little kooky, especially if you've got a shitload of inner demons like Jack did going into the situation. I honestly feel like Kubrick's version NAILS this aspect, to chilling degree. And Kubrick strikes a razor-fine balance between the supernatural and the even-more-haunting notion that Jack was a man already teetering on the edge, a man who just needed a little... push.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:50 p.m. CST

    In common rap terms, I'd say sk229 just "dropped the mic."

    by Kammich

    Damn dude, great post. Next time you need a beer, its on me. "Who would you rather watch, some mumblecore douche eating a bowl of cereal or Travis Bickle?" tou-fucking-che.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Scatman's painting over his bed made me LOL!

    by Tacom

    I thought Kubrick was so great to twist things that might have been effective in King's book but cliched like the "Magical Negro" Halloran and make them more iconic.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Even after Batman, Nicholson still is a great actor

    by successor

    <p>Tallboy6t6, I don't see how you could say he just plays angry, grumbling versions of himself. Look at "A Few Good Men." He only has about ten minutes of screen time and in the courtroom scene he blows Tom Cruise right out of the water. Nicholson's acting is so fantastic and so convincing that he makes Cruise look like a kid acting in a grade school play.</p> <p>And what about As Good as it Gets, About Schmidt, The Pledge, etc? He's doing a lot more in those films than playing angry, grumbling versions of himself. To say he did his best work before Batman is really doing him a disservice.</p>

  • April 18, 2011, 10:56 p.m. CST

    Classic Movie...

    by Lucky13

    Just picked this up on BD a month or so ago. I love it more every time I watch it. Everything is so nuanced and layered, it's just a joy to watch unfold. And being married with two kids help me relate to the character of Jack. ; -) That scene where Jack tells Wendy to basically get the fuck away from him, after she has interrupted his 'writing'.... Man, I always chuckle and cheer for a moment, then you see poor Wendy's reaction (as goofy looking and annoying as she is)... and you feel so sorry for her, or I do anyway. She's like a hurt little (goofy looking) puppy. Love this movie... Can't believe it had to be defended at all, let alone to 'film school rejects'.

  • April 18, 2011, 10:56 p.m. CST

    never watched the mini because the movie left me with no further interest in kings world

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    said it before Kubrick is a genius, but this movie leaves me cold. just shameless over acting, jack was not reigned in at all. i saw no subtlety in the performance

  • April 18, 2011, 11:01 p.m. CST

    sk229...originally Kubrick wanted Steve Martin to play Cruise's role in EWS

    by Billy_D_Williams

  • April 18, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Overheard on a public bus (Spoiler)

    by Seven_of_Borgnine

    Stoner Dude Kid #1. "Did you stay up and finish the rest of The Shining last night? What happened?" Stoner Dude Kid #2. "Yeah. The kid and the lady got away, Jack Nicholson killed the black guy, and Jack Nicholson froze to death." SDK1 - "Woah. Cool." SDK2 - "I don't think The Shining was a very good name for it though. They should have called it 'Ghost Cabin'." SDK1 - "'Ghost Cabin'... yeah, that would have been better."

  • Mick Garris thinks he makes good movies because his camera moves around a lot.

  • April 18, 2011, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Mick Garris has ONE redeeming film on his resume

    by Kammich

    anyone to care to guess? thats right. FUZZBUCKET, bitches!

  • April 18, 2011, 11:36 p.m. CST

    we need a BTS picture of FUZZBUCKET

    by Kammich

  • April 18, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Re: Billy D

    by SK229

    Yeah, except I could have sworn it would have been called 'Blue Movie' or something at the time. He also wanted Harrison Ford at one point too, didn't he? Ultimately, Tom Cruise really was perfect for the part. Also, thanks kammich. When I get on an indie film rant, my blood boils... it's rather unhealthy. Like brandy on your corn flakes ;)

  • April 18, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST

    hey_ kobe you should see Spielberg talk about Kubrick

    by Tacom

    It's on YouTube. Spielberg once had a convo about the Shining and he had the same complaint about Jack's performance. Kubrick asks him to list without thinking his favorite actors of all time. Spielberg names Spencer Tracy, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart and a bunch of others. Kubrick says "Stop. Where was James Cagney on that list?" Spielberg says he's up there and Kubrick goes "But he's not in the top five. You don't consider James Cagney one of the five best actors around, but I do."

  • April 18, 2011, 11:44 p.m. CST

    NO BEER AND NO TV MAKE HOMER SOMETHING SOMETHING

    by Meadowe

    Go crazy? Don't mind if I do!!

  • April 18, 2011, 11:48 p.m. CST

    I think EWS is about a guy too short for his wife

    by Tacom

    Seriously. I have never been more aware of how fucking short Tom Cruise is than that movie and I think Kubrick deliberately shot it that way!

  • April 18, 2011, 11:50 p.m. CST

    Seven Of Borgnine

    by The Bear

    Sir, you and those stoners gave me the best laugh of the day. Thank you! Ah...."Ghost Cabin"....If only King had thought of it...

  • April 18, 2011, 11:50 p.m. CST

    Quint you hit the nail on the head...

    by Ruester

    Shelly Duvall’s character was so naive and stupid that by the end, even I wanted to bash her brains in. And I only had to deal with her for a little over 2 hours. I challenge anyone to live with someone who acts that credulous and not look for a way (one of Dr. Dale Gribble's 44 caliber pain pills! Yeah! King of the Hill reference!) to put them out of their misery.

  • April 18, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    Dick Halloran and the Topiary Bushes

    by Green

    Killing Dick Halloran was not Kubrick's choice, but the studio's (at least that's what I heard). As for the topiary bushes coming to life, they didn't have the technology to do that scene in a manner that wasn't ridiculous within the context of the realistic nature of the film.

  • April 18, 2011, 11:55 p.m. CST

    kingofmilwaukee

    by BadMrWonka

    first off, a pic of Kubrick sitting with Nicholson, while he leans on his iconic axe IS an interesting pic to a lot of us. second, in case you haven't noticed (which clearly you haven't), these articles are occasionally about the photo in an in-depth way, but much more often it is just an excuse for film geeks to talk about a particular film. I mean, look at the talkback above...we're discussing the two adaptations, interesting trivia about the film, the director, etc. some are hating, some are gushing...THAT IS WHAT THIS SITE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT. remember, this site, and Quint along with it, predate the ME! ME! ME! version of the internet that exists now. the community of people who also enjoy obsessing over films was the genesis of this site, and the behind the scenes pic series is a perfect extension of that. if it doesn't work for you, feel free to skip it. because if you don't, you're just the guy barging into an Italian restaurant and demanding sushi.

  • April 18, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST

    I will be getting the Kubrick blu collection

    by strykebr

  • April 19, 2011, 12:42 a.m. CST

    King

    by Quint

    I absolutely love posting the kind of shots that make people go "Oh, so that's how they did it!" but not every pic I have is a revelation. Some of them are like today's, interesting to fans of the movie because it's a moment in time behind the camera. I linked to two other Shining pics I posted, both are better images... hence why they were posted first. I have more that are either too low-res (I need at least a good 500 pixels wide or it just looks like a thumbnail on the page) or badly scanned. Wonka above is right in that the main thrust of this column is to celebrate filmmaking and open up a forum to discuss movies of yesteryear. I haven't been keeping count, but we've got to be close to 300 pictures by now, if not over... there's not an endless supply of mind-blowing images out there. Some of them will just be "cool." Also, I gotta disagree with you if you thought yesterday's Rio Bravo pic was boring. I think it's a piece of art, with a perfectly balanced foreground, mid-ground and background. One of my favorites I've posted.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    I'm in complete agreement

    by Juggernaut125

    with the posters above who claim that Nicholson, Pacino and DeNiro have all basically rehashed the same character portrayal since the late 70's early 80's. Although, my personal favourite Nicholson character will always be Hoffa because it is a huge departure from the rest of his work.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Hey Quint, little question

    by white_vader

    I realise that the BTS list is too long now to post the links the way you used to, but is it possible to have a single link to a page of the the complete list? I miss not having access to it. Thanks mate.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Oh Jeez. Sloan's outrage, and the redundant "subtlety" thing...

    by white_vader

    Sloan, it's a movie, NOT a book. Kubrick knew exactly what the fuck he was doing. In the book, you're having a first-person experience - the idea of topiary animals moving in your peripheral vision but not when you see them straight-on is brilliant and makes maximum use of the abstract act of reading. How do you do it in a film? Fucking bush not moving. Cut to actor whipping their head around and screaming. Cut to bush - not moving. It's idiotic. One (book) is about the idea, the other (film) more the visceral/visual actuality. Kubrick going for the related but different visual metaphor of the labyrinth which wasn't so hackneyed back then was an elegant solution. And I guess anyone who craps on the movie for lack of subtlety missed how it wholeheartedly embraced ever horror standby from leering axe-murderers to "mickey-moused"/Steiner-esque scoring with relish and used all those tools to ratchet things up even more - the film has its cake and eats it too. Maybe that point was uh, too subtle for some.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    There are still some who rate the TV mini more highly??????????

    by GINGE_MUPPET

    Fuck!!!! ........ No point trying to reason with delusion like that! .... Just got to pity them I guess.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:52 a.m. CST

    Never been a fan of Kubrick's Shining

    by tomimt

    I didn't like mini series either. On the other hand I have never been a huge fan of King's writing style, with the exception of his Dark Tower series, despite it does sway from amazing to mediocre.

  • April 19, 2011, 3:20 a.m. CST

    The 'cool news'...

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    is getting less and less and instead things like the easy to find 'behind the scenes' are now filling the site. This site's gone downhill I visit but it's rare i find anything that actually interests me. I don't spend the time here I used to. Cool News, like everything on the web, you had your time. :(

  • April 19, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    There's roomfor both adaptations

    by JIMBOCOP

    But the movie has the Carlos soundtrack. Nuff said. For the record, the novel has the best opening line of any King book.

  • April 19, 2011, 5:28 a.m. CST

    The Shining: Kubrick vs. King

    by Joe Huber

    First let me agree with Quint about the movie Jaws being much better than the novel. The novel had a mafia subplot for God's sake! The movie would have bombed had it been true to the book form. As for The Shining. I read or heard somewhere recently from a writer or director about the writer having to give up control to the director. His novel will always be his. The movie will always be the director's. Fans will prefer whatever they want, the novel, the tv miniseries or Kubrick's film. Anyone calling the latter silly must be watching in the safety of their own home with the volume way down. Try watching it with the volume up as it was intended to be watched. Yes, Jack overacts but it is part of the charm of the movie. The man is supposed to be deranged and who plays that better than Jack? Certainly not Steven Webber.

  • April 19, 2011, 5:41 a.m. CST

    aquatarkusman

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Too bad Kubrick isn't still alive so you could point out to him where he went wrong casting Barry Lyndon.

  • April 19, 2011, 5:44 a.m. CST

    Film School Rejects

    by kwisatzhaderach

    What a pair of fucking idiots. The worst thing about the internet is giving a platform to people who don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. I can only assume that people who think the TV mini-series version of The Shining is superior to Kubrick's are the same people that think Abrams and Giacchino are on the same level as Spielberg and Williams.

  • April 19, 2011, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Those topiary bushes...

    by Sicuv Uyall

    "As for the topiary bushes coming to life, they didn't have the technology to do that scene in a manner that wasn't ridiculous within the context of the realistic nature of the film." Apparently the makers of the mini-series didn't either and tried anyway. It looked lame. That was the scene that told me maybe Kubrick was right in not adapting every scene from the novel.

  • April 19, 2011, 5:57 a.m. CST

    "Officious little prick.."

    by ClayG

    It is a good opening line, yes. But for opening lines, especially in a King novel, I'll take this one instead: "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." Didn't have to dig out my copies of either book to quote them--that's how memorable both are. :)

  • April 19, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST

    On Halloran...

    by Hipshot

    You can guess my thoughts: Kubrick is a total genius, who made my favorite film (2001). "The Shining" is probably a masterpiece--some of my favorite, smartest friends adore it. But Kubrick turned Halloran into a typical, sacrificial Magical Negro. King has bunches of them in his work: solitary black characters with odd powers who exist to support, oppose or define the white characters (The Shining, Cell, The Green Mile, The Stand) but King's genius gives most of these characters a tad of inwardness, as Shakespeare could pander to the prejudices and preconceptions of his time (Othello, Merchant of Venice) but still, unavoidably, create great, three-dimensional characters despite bending to stereotypes. Kubrick fell into the same morass, with solitary black characters who are defined by their blackness (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket ["soul brother too big!]) sacrifice themselve for white people (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Spartacus) and basically just aren't very bright (Shining is just horrible in this regard. Halloran is on Vacation, gets a psychic message powerful enough to make him return to the Outlook, take a snow-cycle across miles of desolate country, and then just walks in without the smallest precaution and takes an axe in the chest. Good Lord. Now THAT is contempt for a character's intellect). Love Kubrick, but he was definitely a man of his time.

  • April 19, 2011, 6:56 a.m. CST

    Topiary

    by Hipshot

    It's been decades since I read The Shining, so excuse me if I'm wrong...but didn't the topiaries move when you WEREN'T looking at them? Which means it would have been simplicity itself to execute the effect, and Kubricks choice was not due to technology, but rather a different artistic vision. Technology was the excuse offered to fans.

  • April 19, 2011, 7:33 a.m. CST

    Kwaisatz

    by Aquatarkusman

    "Hey, adding a few gray streaks to Marisa Berenson's hair doesn't detract from the impression that she's Leon Vitali's slightly older sister, not his mother." "Notice how you almost forget Ryan O'Neal is even there when an experienced character actor like Hardy Kruger or Patrick Magee is on the screen with him?"

  • April 19, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST

    It's not a "poor" adaptation

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Just because every detail isn't slavishly ported over doesn't mean they did a bad job. Different things work in different mediums

  • April 19, 2011, 7:38 a.m. CST

    King, as much a i utterly love and respect him and his work

    by Smack_Teddy

    he will always be a total Mug for not seeing the brilliance of Kubricks Shinning, as a film adaptation in its own right. How he doesn't grasp that the sensibilities of cinema and literature stand separately when it comes down to their form, their body of language or text... AUDIO and VISUALS Stephen, CONSTANTLY IN MOTION THROUGH TIME Stephen, not the written form. as so it's pointless to just slavishly try to recreate what makes the book so good against what makes Kubricks movie absolutely incredibly awesome, and something else above and beyond in its own right entirely, is just beyond me... why King you Twit, why? And While I'm stabbing the Guy who I absolutely adore and pledge my allegiance to in the Back, let me say Sir that Kingdom Hospital? Well, THATS how you fuck an adaptation so bad it would probably make the origional artist/author weep or rather vocally get his moan on, and with good reason.

  • April 19, 2011, 7:39 a.m. CST

    let me try again...

    by Smack_Teddy

  • April 19, 2011, 8 a.m. CST

    I Remember Seeing Shining As A Kid

    by Autodidact

    And thinking "This isn't scary. This is how my dad acts around the dinner table half the time."

  • April 19, 2011, 8:27 a.m. CST

    i have a feeling that jack was the ONE GUY stanley didnt fuck with

    by Six Demon Bag

  • The Andromeda Strain. Once character was changed from a man to woman, but other than that, it's the novel up on the screen.

  • ...is either on crazy pills or seriously needs to re-evaluate their life.

  • April 19, 2011, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Supposedly, King's next book is a sequel of sorts to Shining

    by darthderp

    I say "of sorts" because it has Danny all grown up, but I haven't heard about a plot or anything, or how deep the references to Shining will be.

  • April 19, 2011, 8:56 a.m. CST

    I have necer seen the shining...am I missing anything?

    by Wookie_1995

  • April 19, 2011, 8:56 a.m. CST

    never*

    by Wookie_1995

  • April 19, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST

    @hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes

    by angranoid

    The definition of a masterpiece is the one single work that is the apex of an artists ouvre. One work. 2001 and Strangelove can't both be masterpieces. Your opinion, such as it is, is null and void. Must try harder. Twat.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Oh and you saw no subtlety in the performance...

    by angranoid

    Because it's not a subtle performance and isn't supposed to be.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    The Best Way to Enjoy Kubrick

    by osufan77

    Is to, (no joking here), watch them in the best quality you can on a nice TV, while either high on marijuana or at least a little buzzed on alcohol. With the lights turned off, theater style. Trust me, this method of watching films allowed me to focus and appreciate the nuances in many of Kubrick's films. 2001 for example is SOOO good on weed that it almost hurts the eyes it's so wonderful and beautiful to watch each frame. When I review a movie, an album, or any other form of media, be it a video game etc. I always do it THREE ways. Twice sober. Twice on alcohol, and twice on weed. Then I make my judgments.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Kubrick Exhibition

    by chavee

    There is Stanley Kubrick exhibition at the Paris Cinémathèque from May through July that I hope to visit this summer. Can't freakin wait. They're supposed to have film props and a section devoted to each of his films.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    King was pissed at Kubrick

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because Kubrick took out all the goofy melodrama of Jack's dilemma and the gangster backstory of the hotel. I like King too, but it seems that he likes to rip or outright disregard the adaptations that actually improved on his books (like Carrie, The Shinning, and The Dead Zone) instead of something like Hearts in Atlantis that was a brilliant book (the best thing King has written since his 80's heyday) turned into a shit film.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:46 a.m. CST

    hipshot

    by white_vader

    … and for the basic reason I gave in my earlier post. Because on film doing that is fucking ridiculous.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:47 a.m. CST

    white_vader and sicuv uyall

    by slone13

    White_vader, you'd make a truly horrible director. "Fucking bush not moving. Cut to actor whipping their head around and screaming. Cut to bush - not moving." Of course it would look idiotic if someone directed it that way. Hell, the entire topiary scene could be filmed without one cut at all. As the camera circles Jack, we would see the "animals" slight movements behind and around Jack as they slowly and silently close in on him while he is frantically looking in other directions. It would be down right terrifying. sicuv uyall, to suggest that the topiary scene shouldn't be tackled because the mini-series did it poorly is foolish. In the hands of a decent director with a decent special effects budget that scene would be legendary.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:50 a.m. CST

    I'm pretty sure I could take the bushes...

    by Billyeveryteen

    Be it lion, tiger, or bear(oh my!). I've dualed with enough twigs and berries to hold my own. Also DeNiro's Jack Walsh is a personal favorite.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:52 a.m. CST

    oh scary topiary animals

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Why not just have them sing and dance with Jack, Wendy, and Danny.

  • April 19, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Maximum Overdrive

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Yeah, totally grounded in reality there Stevie!

  • April 19, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    Edward Scissorhands to the rescue!

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Take that scary topiary animals!

  • April 19, 2011, 10:07 a.m. CST

    white_vader

    by Hipshot

    A tiny modification? Doing it WRONG on film would destroy the entire mood. While I believe it could work and be creepier than hell--look at one, and the other gets closer. That could work very nicely...or look fuckin' ridiculous.

  • April 19, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST

    The book and topiary animals

    by gooseud

    As someone who has read every book of King's (actually not exactly true, I've skipped alot of his recent post-coke post-accident stuff, I think The Cell was the last one I read), I have always thought the book was vastly overrated. There are glaciers that are currently moving at a quicker pace then the first 200 pages of The Shining. Also, heres an idea: maybe Kubrick left out the topiary animals because topiary animals arent scary. The idea of a killer bush simply isnt terrifying, unless its on a hippy chick your about to bang.

  • April 19, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST

    King Goes to the Movies

    by Katet19

    A lot of people seem to give King shit or talk out of turn about what they've heard he likes or dislikes about the movies based on his books. I'd give this book a read. http://tinyurl.com/3swvdzl It doesn't cover everything but it includes the actual short stories and a pretty honest appraisal of the film based on each one by King himself.

  • April 19, 2011, 10:13 a.m. CST

    KING DIDN'T LIKE KUBRICK'S SHINING?

    by BringingSexyBack

    What is he, a film school reject?

  • April 19, 2011, 10:14 a.m. CST

    IMHO The movie is better than the book.

    by grendel69

    A few years ago I started rereading Kings stuff because I hadent read it in so long, and to be completely honest, I was suprised at how much I disliked Kings work. Out of the 7 or 8 books I read, all stuff preMisery, I thought The Shining was easily the best, prob becuase when reading it, I imagined the characters as Kubrick brought them to us.

  • April 19, 2011, 10:19 a.m. CST

    I seem to recall the The Shining got poor reviews when it was released

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Not entirely uncommon for Kubrick (look at 2001). And it was released just as Stephen King mania was getting steam. Carrie was a smash, and helped put DePalma on the map. Salems Lot had been a hit. People thought the combo of Kubrick and King would scare the shit out of them. It turned out to be more stately and cerebral than expected. Now, of course, it's considered a classic. And yes v3d, The Andromeda Strain (one of the first actual novels I read) is a brilliant adaptation. I've never read the novel, but I'd say Spielberg did Jurassic Park amazingly well, also.

  • April 19, 2011, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Quint, do you remember...

    by puto tenax

    The trailer for "The Shining" before it came out? I was in high school at the drive-in theater with some others and it scared the crap out of us. The elevator and the blood pouring out of it still gives me nightmares.

  • April 19, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    shining film, better than the book. book was v.good. film is genius

    by FleshMachine

    i think

  • April 19, 2011, 11 a.m. CST

    The Shinning event...

    by NightArrows

    Years back there was an event where you could stay over in the Overlook, and there would be a big black tie dinner after which everyone would retire to their rooms for a "special" screening of The Shining which probably meant something done to scare the shit out of you while you watched it. I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but it sounded like a cool event!

  • April 19, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST

    angranoid

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    Masterpiece Definition 1 : a work done with extraordinary skill; especially : a supreme intellectual or artistic achievement Noun 1. masterpiece - the most outstanding work of a creative artist or craftsman 2. masterpiece - an outstanding achievement There are two differing definitions. One is singular the other recognizes an outstanding achievement. If you want to quibble about what you think the definitive description is, be my guest. But take it up with someone who gives a damn. Dr. Strangelove and 2001 are works done with extraordinary skill i.e masterpieces twat

  • April 19, 2011, 11:06 a.m. CST

    So, is Peter Jackson related to Kubrick?

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Looking at that picture makes me wonder...

  • April 19, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Anyway, "The Shining" is some kind of brilliant.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    It's the only movie I've ever seen where a title card insert made the audience scream. Also, the "blood elevator" trailer is perhaps my favorite horror movie trailer of all time.

  • April 19, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    as for having to 'understand' the filmmakers intent in order to enjoy it - that is bullshit

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    i should not need an advanced degree in film making in order to appreciate the movie i am watching. i either like it or not despite the ingenuity put into it's making. i did not as far as the shining was concerned and as for jack having no subtlety, yeah i get he was supposed to be nuts just about the entire movie. but there is starting at 3 nuts and there is starting at 7 nuts, and jack started at 8 and finished at 12

  • my guess is that 90% of the SR lovers are also shining lovers

  • April 19, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Difference

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Kubrick does not sympathize with the abusive alcoholic father, King does.

  • April 19, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Or maybe because

    by Samuel Fulmer

    most people that like The Shinning, weren't old enough to actually see it in theaters when it initially came out in 1980. There are a ton of great films that were panned when they first came out.

  • April 19, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    or maybe it is the lemming effect

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    way too many on this site are swayed by one or two individuals - the geek effect. you must not be a true geek unless you slurp at the altar of ...(insert movie to get your geek cred card which is useless everywhere)

  • April 19, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Or maybe it's the idiosyncratic hipster effect

    by Samuel Fulmer

    You know, saying you don't like something just because many people seem to.

  • April 19, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    maybe it is not being afraid to be honest about certain geek sacred cows

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    bet you love shawshank

  • April 19, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Shawshank

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Three out of four stars. Nice little fairy tale with really good cinematography, but not something that I hold very near and dear like many others seem to. Kind of represents the sappy/melodramatic side of King that I don't really care for, the sappy/melodramatic side that Kubrick kept out of his Shinning that is n the book.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:08 p.m. CST

    SHAWSHANK HITS THE G-SPOT OF FILMMAKING

    by BringingSexyBack

    That's all's I gots to say.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Sequel to The Shining

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    it will be happening, i'll bet he's halfway through it by now, the synopsis he gave seemed pretty in-depth.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    I'd rather see King write a Salems' Lot sequel

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • April 19, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    THE SHINING 2: BLOOD FLOODALOO

    by BringingSexyBack

  • April 19, 2011, 12:15 p.m. CST

    NEVER READ THE BOOK

    by BringingSexyBack

    My understanding is that there was some gangster-related massacre on the premises back in the 20s or 30s, and the place is haunted, and Jack was possessed by the ghost of an old gangster. Is this right?

  • April 19, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    he's returned to Salem's Lot a couple of times

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    One For The Road was more scary than Salem's Lot. The idea of taking the wrong road in a blizzard and driving toward a dead town is pretty creepy..

  • April 19, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Yeah but I mean a novel

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Not saying it would be good, but I find a Salems' Lot sequel a whole lot more interesting than a Shinning one.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Yep bringingsexyback

    by Samuel Fulmer

    So it's like finding out Anakin made C-3PO, basically adds nothing and only makes things dumber.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    he wasn't possessed by any one character

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    It's been a while since I read it, though. More the hotel using alcohol to get to him, before the hotel itself gets in his mind.<P> I loved the book (campbell scott reads the audiobook and he is great) and the film. Entirely different things, but both still great. Love how Halloran shows up in 'It', as well, so those two at least are in the same universe.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    "but not something that I hold very near and dear like many others seem to"

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    so maybe it is the hipster effect You know, saying you don't love something just because many people seem to. yes i changed the word like to love that is why i did not quote you just paraphrasing

  • April 19, 2011, 12:26 p.m. CST

    OH I SEE - THANKS

    by BringingSexyBack

    That makes sense. Then perhaps there's an evil presence at the hotel that causes already unstable people to go well over the edge. In the first place the gangsters, and now Jack (who's already at level 8 nuts).

  • April 19, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Perhaps

    by Samuel Fulmer

    So then just admit it Kobe, you love Kubrick's film, because you can't give one legit reason it doesn't work other than oh lord there is overacting, my heavens, perish the thought. Maybe we should have every film character portrayed as if we are watching survelliance footage or they're chugging down anti-dppressants.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:32 p.m. CST

    um, nope try again

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    i said i did not like the pacing, or the story. see i think Kubrick is a genius, but not on this one. this movie reminded me of poltergeist - and not in a good way, it seemed cheesy and just plain boring

  • April 19, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Examples please

    by Samuel Fulmer

    You throw out blanket statements, but you don't give any examples. And other than some bits at the end, I don't really see any connection to Poltergeist, other than they are both ghost stories.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    And both deal with families

    by Samuel Fulmer

    But totally different situations (one happy and stable, the other falling apart).

  • April 19, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    LOOK. I'VE *SEEN* PEOPLE BEING POSSESSED BY UNIMAGINABLE EVIL, AND BELIEVE ME

    by BringingSexyBack

    The Shining was spot on.

  • April 19, 2011, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Was brilliant when I saw it in 1981 on cable... and still is.

    by ufoclub1977

    this is simply my favorite horror movie to put on. So epic, original, and intense. I saw it as a sixth grader, and it set a very very high standard for what a horror movie could achieve. There are so few horror movies that are so successfully psychological, surreal, and hypnotic... all in an original way. It's like a favorite painting for me, I just put it on and do stuff now. I'm happy that it's on blu-ray!

  • April 19, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Forget possessed people

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I think it did an accurate job of portraying a manic depressive who is no longer able to mask his illness with alcohol. Jack's moments of silence mixed with outbursts of rage seemed preaty spot on to me. I guess some people want to see someone who is likeable that becomes this way instead seeing someone unlikeable become even more so.

  • April 19, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    "I'm gonna bash 'em right the fuck in."

    by Jaster

    How is it I'm the first person to finish this quote? And behind the scenes pic of the day is 10X more worthless than script girl ever was. At least she had highly suckable tits.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:12 p.m. CST

    THE KID IN THE MINI SERIES=MOST ANNOYING KID EVER TO GRACE FILM.

    by uberman

    The mini-series isnt a knat on the ass of Kubricks masterpiece. Wanna make a good King movie? Don't let King be involved.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST

    I love most of Kubricks work

    by david starling

    And the Shining just tops it, just beats off 2001 and A Clockwork Orange!! I love most of early King's writing (in fact right up to The Dark Half and Gerald's Game, which I both thought were utter shite), and I muse: why didn't anyone make a movie of Jerusalem's lot? Probably the best King (short) story I ever read!!

  • April 19, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    did not realize i needed to explain point by point why i dont like it

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    it has been years since i last watched it, so you will have to forgive me for not providing you with the frame by frame analysis you seek i did not like it, because of the pacing and story and acting. if that does not satisfy you then tough, just because you do not like my answer will not make the answer any different do you analyze every movie that you DO like for the reasons why? or do you simply enjoy it?

  • April 19, 2011, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Nope sure don't but

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I can at least give some solid examples of why I like or dislike something other than statements that could be thrown out having not even seen the film. Maybe you should rewatch it, and you might find that your opinion may have changed, either you might think it's better, or maybe even worse.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:33 p.m. CST

    watched it twice. once as a child the other as an adult - opinion did not change

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    did not like it third time will not be the charm i dont care if you or anyone else likes it, so dont get worked up because i dont like it people trash 2001 on here all the time, so no biggie about me not liking the shining

  • April 19, 2011, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Regardless of Our Overall Disagreements...

    by Aquatarkusman

    ... at least we can all agree that the late Philip Stone (the only person to appear in three Kubrick movies?) as Delbert Grady, is chilling. "No sir, YOU are the caretaker. You've always been the caretaker. I ought to know: I've always been here."

  • April 19, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    And I think we can all agree that Mick Garris

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Is a terrible director. Goes to show just because you're a fan of the genre doesn't mean you should become a film director.

  • April 19, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST

    aquatarkusman, Joe Turkel as well

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    thank you, CalPoly SLO, 'The Films of Stanley Kubrick' course finally came in useful

  • April 19, 2011, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Joe Turkel

    by Aquatarkusman

    While Philip Stone was in three straight films (from 1971-1980); Turkel may have gone the longest between films, from Paths of GLory to The Shining.

  • April 19, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes ...

    by ufoclub1977

    How did these names on here become okay? lol. When I see a good movie, I do simply get into it the first time, but then later I try to dissect it to figure out how it works and works so well on me. But admittedly, I do go into movies already dissecting their creative choices from the opening, but if the movie is really good, I forget about it and just enjoy it.

  • Amen to that .... A stunning movie made by a master.

  • April 19, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    "Nicholson is grinning like a goon..."

    by Billyeveryteen

    Yep. Witness how batshit he is in the family car on the way to the Overlook, discussing the Donner party and television. He was gonna' take an ax to 'em eventually.

  • http://collativelearning.com/the%20shining.html <p> I always felt detached from what was happening, and regardless of whether I was supposed to be, I couldn't ever really connect with the film. After reading Roger Ager's analysis of THE SHINING, a lot of it makes sense now, and as a result I can appreciate it a lot more. <p> And there is perfect sense to the "man in bear suit giving head" scene (spoiler) <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> There are implications that Jack is not just physically abusing Danny but sexually as well... in this particular case, there are scenes of a similar stuffed teddy bear with similar colored fur, along with other visual ques. The idea is that Wendy is also an abused/battered wife and refused to see the lengths of Jack's abuse of the family/Danny went to, and the "Bear and Man" scene is essentially her seeing Danny giving his dad/her husband a blowjob. <p> Check out his analysis (as well as his other Kubrick film critiques).. some really interesting stuff...

  • Kubrick would have done it if it would have been possible. Did you see the CG hedge monstes in the miniseries? they looked AWFUL and that shit came out like 25 years later. There was no way to do that in the 70's...so stop bitching about it. Also, The miniseries was dreadful, no doubt. Kubrick's version is better. Better than the book, too. I just love the idea of evil for the sake of being evil...not some bullshit where there's redemption at the end.

  • April 19, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Terrible movie

    by SmokingRobot

    Just awful. Artsy fartsy version of horror made by someone who doesn't understand horror movies. Vanity project. Missed the whole fucking point of the book.

  • April 19, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    E.T. Tomorrow for BTSPOTD

    by monorail77

    That's my guess. Recording it here for posterity. Oh and The Shining, good flick.

  • April 19, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    Halloran's death was perfect.

    by Felix Buckman

    This notion that the character of Halloran was squandered in the movie just point-blank ignores the impact of the scene. The casual moviegoer knew who Scatman Crothers was, and he comes riding in to save the day, but barely makes it in the door, which was a big shock... a prelude to Drew Barrymore's death in Scream. The audience thought it couldn't happen. Kubrick did it first. And anyone who thinks an "ABC Special Mini-Series" starring the guy from freaking "Wings" is better than even the B-roll and outtakes from a Stanley freaking Kubrick film is, let's just say, of questionable judgment. Or a troll.

  • April 19, 2011, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Goose - "here's an idea", and Rimshot/Hipshot

    by white_vader

    Erm, exactly what I said Goose dude. A fucking BUSH is not scary. Especially in the shape of a fuzzy elephant. Hipshot, nope sorry. Seeing the animals move (even the one moves idea) is idiotic - visually. Because on film it's a third-person thing. Did you actually READ what I wrote initially about why the book works - the peripheral vision thing? Which you can NOT duplicate (and what you did doesn't) in film language. Kubrick took the smart option and avoided the killer leafy bunny rabbits completely. And didn't make an anticlimax to the elevator either. He changed tack. The only way you can do that sort of thing on film/TV is as in Dr Who's "Blink". Which was sensible enough to know that scary Gothic statues with gargoyle-esque frozen faces are a shit load more terrifying than fucking horsey greenery, and had the sense to build the movement conceit into their core.

  • April 19, 2011, 11:11 p.m. CST

    I'm a pretty big horror fan

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    And I don't like the Shining. I can appreciate that it is exceptionally crafted. But it's not scary. Even after slogging through the set-up there's no payoff, not even the scenes that are intended to be exciting are interesting. I feel no connection to the film. It moves too slowly. It's overrated.

  • April 20, 2011, 2:16 a.m. CST

    hold on, Shawshank Redemption is on the chopping block now?

    by BadMrWonka

    you all can argue about Shining adaptations til the geeks come home, but I will have harsh words with ANYONE who says that Shawshank is anything other than a classic movie. it's flawless. period.

  • That's why the TV show is inferior, because it stuck too close to the book... even though it does some deviations of it's own. More then the Anti-Kubrick's Shinning party care to admit.

  • Just ebcause a story as a redemption of a character it's automatically better? It's fucking cliché, that's what it is! I thank Kubrick and all the Gods Of Cinema that inspired him to leave that redemption shit on the sidewalk and made the movie as it is. That's why the movie fucking rules. No amount of redemption bullshit can ever match the total awesomeness that is the movie's ending. So Jackie boy doesn0't get redemption in the end! BOOO FUCKING HOOO!! I'll take a shit in homage to the lost redemption crap. Here's to you, King boy!

  • April 20, 2011, 2:53 a.m. CST

    Uberman you are 100% correct

    by Joe Huber

    that kid in the mini-series was fucking annoying. I was rooting for Steven Webber to bash his head right the fuck in. And again you're right if you want to make a good King movie don't let King get involved. King involved - Maximum Overdrive (director), The Shining Mini-series, Desperation, Riding The Bullet, Kingdom Hospital, Golden Years King NOT involved - Carrie, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, The Dead Zone, Stand By Me, Pet Semetary (though he did the screenplay), Misery, Shawshank Redemption, Dolores Claiborne, The Green Mile, 1408, The Mist.

  • April 20, 2011, 2:56 a.m. CST

    tallboy6t6

    by AsimovLives

    Last time i saw Jack Nicholson act was in ABOUT SCHMIDT. That was like 10 years after he had just clowning and fucking around. And after About Schmidt, he never bothered to act again too. I found his acting in ABOUT SCHMIDT amazing, and his last scene when he reads the african kid letter is pure heartbreaking. For a moment, watching that movie, i was reminded of what a fantastic actor Nicholson used to be. Becasue he was a fantastic actor. One of the top best. His fame and accolades didn't come for nothing. But today, he just doesn't give a fuck anymore. Nicholson is now too busy playing up the charicature persona he became. A pity.

  • April 20, 2011, 3:01 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives

    by AsimovLives

    To make things clear, Kubrick was not in the helicopter when that shot was shot because he was affraid to fly (even though he had a flying license) and it was shot in the Rocky Mountains while he never left the British Islands since after he made LOLITA. You couls say that he could had chosen another take or another shot to put in the movie, but there were no second takes on the aerial shots, and frankly, he must had though, and righly so, that it was worth sacrificing some detail pedantry for the sake of an amazing cinematic shot for the opening of the film, which it is. Filming perfectionalism is not just having all the details right in a particular scene, it«'s also knowing what's the best for each scene, evne if that means including a shot with some mistake in it, when the trade off ends up helping make a better movie.

  • April 20, 2011, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Fun trivia about the Hotel:

    by AsimovLives

    If you notice carefully, there's parts of the geography of the hotel that doesn't add up. It starts right at the begnjing, when we see Jack going to the mannager's office. That office has windows, but by all logic and fromthe display of the hotel as seen in that one take shot, it's impossible for that officie to have a window to thye exterior. It was a deliberate decision, so to create a subtle sense of uneasiness on the audience. We don't notice it consciously, we don't notice it at first, we migth even never notice it unless it's pointed out. But it's there, and in our unconscious minds we do pick up on it, and it unease us. The movie is filled with this type of nonsensical but subtle geographies which do help create a cumulative sense of uneasiness. I also heard that there is also another trick that Kubrick and his production team used in the building of the sets, that hey used a scale and proportions ratio to the big halls to cause subtle uneasiness to the viewer. Architecture buld deliberatly to cause a psychological effect is a very common thing in history, many monuments were designed deliberatly for that. Kubruick seems to have incorporated that in the building of the movie's sets.

  • All of the movie works to cause that sense of distress. That sens eof unweariness. And for many, they don't welcome that feeling, or react to it as a dislike for the movie. What they don't know is that they are in fact reacting exactly to these sense of uneasiness that was deliberatly designed for the movie. THE SHINING is not an easy ready to consume McHorror movie for the holw family. No, THE SHINING is true horror. It makes everythign to make you feel scared and uneasy. It's not a confy chair horror. It's to shake your soul, to shake your complacency. THE SHINING is no McHorror bullshit, it's the real deal. And the best thing is, it's the only horror movie Kubrick ever mad,e and yet he just made one of the very top best. It is for Horror what 2001 is for SF. And for all those unconvinced of THE SHINING's excelency, well, you can go watch some Michael Bay produced remakes of horror original movies. Maybe that kind of bullshit is closer to your liking or whatever. I rather stick to the real deal like Kubrick's THE SHINING, thank you very much.

  • April 20, 2011, 3:19 a.m. CST

    winona_ryders_pussy_juice

    by AsimovLives

    Maybe you find THE SHINING not scare. Until you ubnderstand the full implications of what you have seen in the movie. It's not for nothing that movies like THE SHINING are called adult horror. It0's not a movie made to be easy scare for the teen dumb crowd that has no life experience whatsoever. It's also not a movie that is for people with lack of imagination or a complancent/passive attitude toward movie watching. But if you are pacient, if you have imagination, if you let yourself immerse with the story, and if you are either a young kid who has known some family problems or an adult with some life experience on you, this movie is pure nightmare fuel. I have always said that THE SHINING is the presentation of the worst nightmare that can ever befall either a young kid or a parent. The ghosts and the supernatural are not the point or the focus of the horror, but the family itself. Kubrick was a very devoted family man, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he made the movie as it is. He understood the nightmare presented in the story even better then Stephen King did.

  • The american cut clocks at 144 minute,s while the internation cut is 114 minutes long. The inernational cut is a de facto directro's cut, since Kubrick was still editing the movie when it got it's american release, which was the first. It was only in the eve of the international release that Kubrick finally made his final cut of the movie which really satisfied him. I have only known the international cut. Only a few years back did i got the oportunity to watch the american longer version. And i have to say, i believe the international shorter cut is a better movie. There's lots of gerat things in the american longer version. Individually, all the added scenes are really good and some seem to evne show some psychological insight. But the thing is, the international version without them work as wel. If not better. The added scenes found in the american cut reads more like curios. But the international version is more lean, more to the point, and also adds some subtlery which just makes the movie feel even creppier and more mysterious. Sinc ei saw the american cut, I have always favourd the shorter cut. Not because it's the one that i have always knowns (i'm flaxible enough to change my mind about a movie's versionif a see a new one, like what happened with BLADE RUNNER), but the international cut is the superior version of the movie. Those americans who complain about being bored with the movie, maybe they should check out the international 114 minutes long version. You migth come out of the movie feeling differently about it, thinking better of it.

  • I mean, is this even up for debate? The novel is okay. That's it. Kubrick's film, on the other hand, is an EPIC. It's THE best horror film ever made.

  • April 20, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    The Hotel was Mt. Hood's Timberline Lodge

    by v3d

    Which looks absolutely nothing like the hotel in the movie. It does make for a remote foreboding location though. Also, the Ghost Hunters have been to the Stanley Hotel a couple of times.

  • These have all be continually removed/banned from being posted: "Sorry Asimov, Smack_Teddy has been banned and had all his posts removed for spelling out how much of a arrogant hack idiot Ambush Bug is being You'll notice the post you read is gone, and one i posted afterwards pointing out exactly why him acting like a stupid simpleton cunt to provoke people into a debate otherwise they obviously weren't worthy to engage in one was just lame-brained wank amateur hack rhetoric of no merit or sensible reasoning, following accordingly from his juvenile hackish stunt of a 'review'... as a result all Smack_Teddys posts making clear reasonable points on Ambush's utter failings and stupidity and treat naysayers of his hack-method accordingly have since been removed, and curiously so is one detailing who BRAINDRAIN is exactly, and why he is wanking off like a monkey kissing Edgar Wrights arse over his dislike for Blade Runner, and the new motherlover handle he has joined with him so they can both wank each other off on the subject/ scheme. Smack_Teddy is henceforth no longer allowed to post, as punishment for all these things Either China is stirring some shit up to try and cause misunderstanding and split up the ranks... or Democracy is dead here on AICN, and Ambush Bug etc can't handle having it made abundently crystal cler why he is being a hack and moron in his assesment of Holy Muntain, and further his dismissal of those who don't wont to engage in debate or discourse with such a moron asshole who has made his moron point of view on said film clear, and so therefore feel its not worth wasting the time or effort with him to do so, compared to other non-moronic-hack writers and film lovers/critics out there online. so yeah... Smack_Teddy is waiting for those posts to return, and he will apologise for having left it to Darko here to further push upon Ambush and making them feel like all his time spent here is pointless or meaningless... or otherwise he is just presuming some form of AICN Hitlerism has taken effect over him having the nerve to make his feelings clear to Ambush, god forbid to think Braindrain also, and point out their bullshit rhetoric and schemes in dealing with people... we will see if Darkocity is just very paranoid...we will see" That got removed too several times subsequently, as did a furthur post i didnt bash out and save in word, as did this one "You are Hitler Ambush Bug, and goading people with stupidity into the expectation of them doing your job for you properly is just pathetic, as pathetic as censoring someone for confronting you on this. I have all evening while house hunting on line to repost this, you fascist fuckwit" So there you go Asimov, i await the banning/removal of this post too... Sorry for the off topic folks, but the kind of hackish reasoning and behavior Ambush has displayed in his recent 'horror' article and subsequently manged to lobby to have all Smack_Teddy posts removed has pushed my buttons that much.

  • April 20, 2011, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Yes! A non ban! On a thread no ones reading anymore!

    by Darkocity

    This will be reposted at an appropriate time, you hear me Ambush!?... F@#& you!