The Shining

Post by **Dex** » 18 Aug 2006 18:15

I was watching The Shining tonight for the first time in about 2 years.

How great is the Steven King / Stanley Kubrick movie to you?

gulliver · Post by **gulliver** » 18 Aug 2006 20:23

That fucking horrible crusty old bat in the shower scared the fuck outta me when I was a young-un.

When I watched it again recently Jack's manic acting made me laugh in some intances rather than scare me.

gimme the bat! gimme the bat!

Post by **smash** » 18 Aug 2006 20:55

I still firmly believe that Kubrik's version was far inferior.

BDeGenaro, a reviewer on my site and a friend, and I have recently had this discussion. Stephen King's original story was primarily about a person's inner demons and how when left to succumb to their own insecurities/fears/desires/addictions everyone has the potential to become 'evil'. Kubrik's version whitewashes this with a backdrop of an implied 'demonic possession'.

exelis · Post by **exelis** » 18 Aug 2006 20:56

The Shining was an OK and fairly frightening adaptation of one of the scariest fucking books ever written.

I can't find it too scary since I read the book, first (in 3rd grade, actually, but reread it recently and yeah, it's still scary). The reason it's so scary is because it is all psychological and pretty much could happen as a man descended into madness. To a point, I agree with Smash's friend.

efilflah · Post by **efilflah** » 18 Aug 2006 20:56

First time I saw it I was about 7/8 and the "Come play with us Danny" part scared the shit outta me for days on end. I've seen it quite a few times since then, and I still really like it, but I'm not sure whether or not (like a lot of things) I have a biased view because of how effective it was when I was younger.

I think the reason it succeeds is Kubrick's style, he always manages to create a sense of foreboding which generates real atmosphere. Just like when people theorise about what A.I. would have been like if Kubrick had finished it, I wonder what The Shining would've been like with a different director....Michael Bay

*edit of Smash*

smash wrote:I still firmly believe that Kubrik's version was far inferior.

BDeGenaro, a reviewer on my site and a friend, and I have recently had this discussion. Stephen King's original story was primarily about a person's inner demons and how when left to succumb to their own insecurities/fears/desires/addictions everyone has the potential to become 'evil'. Kubrik's version whitewashes this with a backdrop of an implied 'demonic possession'.

I dunno, I don't read good. I haven't read King's book, but that does kinda sound like a big switch-up. That's directors for you, always following their vision. As a standalone film though, I think it's still got the creepiness going on.

Hortnon · Post by **Hortnon** » 18 Aug 2006 21:18

Honestly, I wasn't really impressed with this movie. A lot of the time, I was wondering when it would be over. Though, that happens a lot when I watch a Kubrik movie...

Post by **smash** » 19 Aug 2006 01:09

Hortnon wrote:Honestly, I wasn't really impressed with this movie. A lot of the time, I was wondering when it would be over. Though, that happens a lot when I watch a Kubrik movie...

Sup Eyes Wide Shut.

To this day, I still ponder what the fuck Kubrik was trying to get at.

Titleist · Post by **Titleist** » 20 Aug 2006 05:58

smash wrote:
Hortnon wrote:Honestly, I wasn't really impressed with this movie. A lot of the time, I was wondering when it would be over. Though, that happens a lot when I watch a Kubrik movie...
Sup Eyes Wide Shut.

To this day, I still ponder what the fuck Kubrik was trying to get at.

Nicole Kidman has never looked better.

exelis · Post by **exelis** » 20 Aug 2006 08:32

Titleist wrote: Nicole Kidman has never looked better.

Maybe she thought of it as a personal ad, since Tom clearly didn't give a damn how good she looked.

That movie needed more Leelee Sobieski. I mean, it already had the plot complexities of a full-fledged porno. Why not more nakedness and fucking?

Phife · Post by **Phife** » 20 Aug 2006 14:38

The Shining is the best horror movie I've ever seen. That's not that big of a deal for at least three reasons:

1) You don't give a shit.

2) I have bad taste.

3) Most horror movies suck major dong (see Jeepers Creepers, et al).

Regarding The Shining -- The twins freaked me out. The blood floods freaked me out. The being lost in the garden maze freaked me out. The snowed in during the winter with a lunatic freaked me out. The REDRUM thing still haunts my dreams. And the old lady in the tub made me want to poke out my mind's eye.

And the acting was the best a horror movie has ever seen (which is again not saying much).

Thus and therefore, The Shining is the best horror movie ever.

MSD · Post by **MSD** » 22 Aug 2006 00:13

one of the best horror movies ever made...
voted 4!!!

Steampunk · Post by **Steampunk** » 22 Aug 2006 07:19

It holds a special place in my heart, since the exterior shots of the lodge are where I learned to ski.

eamon angelface · Post by **eamon angelface** » 24 Aug 2006 00:00

Stanley Kubrick never made a bad movie.

Content aside and book aside this thing looked beautiful. Compare it to the shitty TV version from a few years ago and it's a masterpiece.

Post by **Seriously** » 24 Aug 2006 22:09

smash wrote:
Hortnon wrote:Honestly, I wasn't really impressed with this movie. A lot of the time, I was wondering when it would be over. Though, that happens a lot when I watch a Kubrik movie...
Sup Eyes Wide Shut.

To this day, I still ponder what the fuck Kubrik was trying to get at.

Secret societies are bad news.

Pretty obvious, really.

Phife · Post by **Phife** » 28 Aug 2006 16:30

Watched this movie again on Friday.

It is still freaky as hell. The lady in the tub is so gross that it hurts. And Jack Nichalson is the perfect person to play Jack in the movie. Perfect. He is so scary looking in some of the staring scenes that it sent shivers up my spine.

Awesome.

DLT FORUM

The Shining

Rate The Shining

The Shining

Who is online