Also, the TV version proves it. I've said this before but Kubrick's maze metaphor is entirely appropriate (not being so clichéd at the time) and works for FILM infinitely better than the topiary stuff, which in the book works brilliantly. It's laughable in a visual medium though precisely BECAUSE King utilises the strengths of literature in having an instantly subjective viewpoint through the act of reading where you see through the characters eyes. Also, the idea of playing on peripheral vision ("Did I just see it move?") and the abstraction of knowing it's happening rather than seeing it makes it incredibly effective. FOR A BOOK. In a film, we vaccilate between 1st and 3rd person points of view. How do you show the same thing? Person looks creeped out. Whirls around. Cut to subjective p.o.v. of tree just standing there, shaped like an animal. Ooooh. That's SCARY! See what I mean? It's ridiculous.

I understand your beef about the baggage Nicolson brought with him, but that's not what you were initially saying. My personal view of it was that I thought it used that pretty well for the film as you could believe he'd succumb as he looked vulnerable to that sort of thing in the first place. Therefore you were tense the whole time waiting for him to snap. Anyway that's just MHO on the Nicolson thing.

Getting back to the Kubrick vs. King thing, my opinion is that they were both right for their own mediums. Kubrick sure could have been a bit more diplomatic about it though.

Hopefully this movie scares the living crap out of people and Kings name can reclaim some of his past glory.

Im just wondering though at any point during this film do any penises get cut off? Because thats true horror.

I hope it does well, though. Big SK fan from about fifth grade until now.

Frijole I must admit I got about the boiler, and I guess I'd say that given the tonal choice and things like colour palate where the film symbolically gets colder except for the delusions and warning colours, I guess Kubrick decided it was appropriate to go that way. I also think the "all work and no play" and the ball was a cinematically efficient and scary alternative to the clippings (great the way that's used effectively at the end) and diaries and so-on. Yes absolutely you've got a point about brilliant adaptations but that's in the literal (geddit? ha ha!) sense and it's a brilliant MOVIE which is my point. Fair enough?

Lionbiu - thanks for the info, and right on with the descent. I fucking hated the movie, but loved that one scene near the start with the claustrophobia. People are insane though when they say it's well written. Those are some of the worst-written unintentionally misogynistic female characters in decades with the same old typically conceited plot points. What a dissapointment! And people are blaming CG (the filmmaking TOOL) for what's happened to horror? Whatever.

Girl in the closet - Rick Baker just fucking rules. Or at least that Japanese guy (can't remember his name) that I'm pretty sure sculpted that stuff. Did anyone see the sculpture (it's about thrice life-size) he did of Dick Smith? Incredible. Aparently Smith cried he liked it so much.

There are pictures in the Giger's alien and ARh+ books of he himself working on the actual costume, not a maquette.

I will be seeing this this weekend though. Looks great. And The Ring did freak me out in some parts - Cousin It coming thru the tv - but I was really stoned so maybe that had something to do with it.

Is it wrong to be aroused during that scene? Not that I was...

King, great writer. Shitty reveiwer.

Unless, I've missed a story about a different marathon...