CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › The Shining (1980)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Shining (1980) - Page 2

post #51 of 163
Thread Starter 

The American cut versus the European cut is another interesting debate.  People tend to prefer the version they grew up with, and I'm no different - I cannot watch the UK version without missing the lost footage.  Kubrick made the cuts in response to the soft North American box office, so I also have a hard time seeing it as artistically motivated.

 

My main complaint about the shorter cut is that Kubrick uses runtime in this movie as a tool for building dread, and the shorter version blunts that effect.  Critic Jack Kroll called THE SHINING "the first epic horror film," and the two hour version just doesn't live up to that moniker.  Among other things, losing the scene that sets up Jack's history of child abuse and Wendy's rationalization of it seems unthinkable, but I'll admit it's impossible to surmount my bias.

 

One arguably positive thing about the European version is that it cuts out the bit where Wendy sees the William Castle skeletons covered in cobwebs.  I actually don't dislike the scene, but it feels like the one time Kubrick resorts to a horror cliche in a movie that otherwise makes a point of resisting them.  Apparently there were a lot of conventional horror movie images that didn't make it to the screen, like the severed head prop you can see in Vivian Kubrick's documentary.

 

It's an interesting case where both versions qualify as "director's cuts" since Kubrick did the re-editing himself.

post #52 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

One arguably positive thing about the European version is that it cuts out the bit where Wendy sees the William Castle skeletons covered in cobwebs.  
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I prefer the European cut. The whole finale plays better without that bit.
post #53 of 163
The severed head was the wasp lady, right?

And you can see Jack with the newspaper/photo album at the writing table. I always wondered if there was a scene where he found it, or was that just Kubrick's idea of keeping the novel as background.
post #54 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

The severed head was the wasp lady, right?

And you can see Jack with the newspaper/photo album at the writing table. I always wondered if there was a scene where he found it, or was that just Kubrick's idea of keeping the novel as background.
There was a scene with the scrapbook, but it was cut after they started shooting.
post #55 of 163
Thread Starter 

The scene where Torrance discovers the scrapbook was scripted and shot, per Diane Johnson (see first post for her comments).  I believe the Lee Unkrich site has the script pages.

 

Jack telling Grady that "I saw your picture in the newspapers" is residue of this.

post #56 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

It's an interesting case where both versions qualify as "director's cuts" since Kubrick did the re-editing himself.
IMDB states that Kubrick thought the European version was the superior cut. I don't know whether that's true or not.
post #57 of 163
Thread Starter 

Yeah, I can find no source on that.  In fact, the Climent interview with Kubrick is the only one I'm aware of where he talks THE SHINING specifically, although I'm sure there are various quotes in print-only publications to be found.


Kubrick's producer Jan Harlan discussed the motivation behind cutting the film here:

 

Quote:

The American version of The Shining is longer than the one that came out in the UK. Do you remember why Kubrick decided to cut some sequences?

 

Because it was not very well received. Warner Brothers thought it was very ambiguous. And maybe it was a bit long. Kubrick said, “OK that’s fine, we’ll make it a bit shorter!” He was not that stubborn. So we made it a bit shorter for the rest of the world. In America, it was the first release and it was then cut a bit.


Edited by FatherDude - 10/27/16 at 8:10am
post #58 of 163
Thread Starter 

Couple of artifacts worth touching on...

 

Pauline Kael's unfavorable review of THE SHINING is a worthwhile read.  The full text is scanned here, and some excerpts in copy/paste friendly format can be found yonder.  She makes an insightful stab at the film's agenda:

 

Quote:
Do the tensions between father, mother, and son create the ghosts, or do the ghosts serve as catalysts to make those tensions erupt? It appears to be an intertwined process. Kubrick seems to be saying that rage, uncontrollable violence, and ghosts spawn each other -- that they are really the same thing. He's using Stephen King's hokum to make a metaphysical statement about immortality. The Torrences are his archetypes; they are the sources and victims of monsters that live on.

 

And I was wrong about the Climent interview being the only one.  I had forgotten about an equally in-depth interview with Kubrick about the movie here.  I won't be obnoxious and quote it all, but here's the first bit where he talks about King:

 

Quote:

What did you especially like in Stephen King’s The Shining?


Well, the novel was sent to me by John Calley, an executive with Warner Bros., and it is the only thing which was ever sent to me that I found good, or that I liked. Most things I read with the feeling that after about [a certain number] pages I’m going to put it down and think that I’m not going to waste my time. The Shining I found very compulsive reading, and I thought the plot, ideas, and structure were much more imaginative than anything I’ve ever read in the genre. It seemed to me one could make a wonderful movie out of it.

 

Did you know King’s previous novels?

 

No. I had seen Carrie, the film, but I hadn’t read any of his novels. I would say King’s great ability is in plot construction. He doesn’t seem to take great care in writing, I mean, the writing seems like if he writes it once, reads it, maybe writes it again, and sends it off to the publisher. He seems mostly concerned with invention, which I think he’s very clear about.

 

The article also includes an audio version of Kubrick's interview with Climent (it's a bit different because Kubrick apparently asked to rewrite his answers before it was published) and an early treatment for the film.  I think it made the rounds about a year ago, but it includes some drastically different story ideas (Halloran as a killer!) and a BARRY LYNDON style post-script.  According to Kubrick's biographer an even earlier version included an ending in which the Torrances appear as ghosts in the dining room as the next winter caretakers are given the tour.

 

And here's a provocative tidbit from another interview with Diane Johnson: 

 

Quote:
There are a lot of things in the film that are close to the novel but there are so many crucial things that are different. 
 
Well, we felt at that time that there was a lot in the book that was gratuitous to the central theme. 
 
How about Dick? He survives Jack's assault in the novel but not in the film. 
 
Halloran? Why did he get killed? 
 
Yes, was that your choice? 
 
I made the decision with Kubrick. We decided that somebody obviously had to die because it was a horror film.
 
The sacrifice.
 
Yes, exactly. So we just discussed who it should be. At some point I know that I thought it should be Danny, the child, but Kubrick was much more tender hearted than I and said, "Oh, no, impossible." I thought it would be good. Suddenly it would all be over and then there would be a little body line traced on the floor. But then we would have let him join the girls among the shades in the hotel. I still think that might have been alright. 
 
There's very little talk of the girls in the book, but in the film they're important. And Danny never plays with them; he's only frightened by them.
 
That's right, so in this other ending they could have been rolling a ball, playing, laughing. 

 

Johnson has elsewhere stated that Kubrick "had a soft spot for Wendy and Danny" to explain why he originally had the epilogue which shows them recovering at the hospital.

post #59 of 163
Stellar stuff. I'm a Kubrickphile, but a lot of this I haven't seen before.
post #60 of 163
On the one hand, Kubrick is spot on about King being primarily focused on invention (he's mad prolific, no matter what else you might say of him). On the other, he couldn't be more wrong about plotting being his strong suit (as any of his longer works bear out - Salem's Lot being about the only work that is as long as The Shining and doesn't have end with a wet fart).
post #61 of 163
Kubrick certainly didn't pay King many compliments in these interviews (his takedown of King's strained Poe allusions stings). He's pretty blunt that he liked the narrative's components but didn't think much of it beyond being able to mine it for exciting images and sequences.

That original treatment is a great read. Really gives a sense for how the emotional trajectory Kubrick wanted for the film was right there from the very start.

FWIW, De Palma didn't like THE SHINING and accused Kubrick of not having any affection for the conventions of the genre he was adapting, and that Kubrick viewed himself as being somewhat above the material (Kubrick's comments in the interview shared by FatherDude backs up that impression). De Palma goes on to say the proper way to make a genre is to embrace the genre conventions and personalize them. I can dig up the actual quote when I get home.
post #62 of 163
Thread Starter 

I don't get the impression that Kubrick thought himself above the genre just because he eschewed many of its conventions.  A failure to meet pre-conceived expectations is a theme of many of the disappointed critiques of his latter-day films.  De Palma's take is remarkably similar to the accusations that Kubrick made an erotic thriller with no eroticism with EYES WIDE SHUT because he was out of touch.

post #63 of 163
BDP's comment is more illuminating about the differences between his filmmaking approach and Kubrick's than it is illuminating about Kubrick himself.

Kubrick certainly seemed to view himself as being above King's work. I don't know that he viewed the genre itself with condescension (when he worked in new genres, he routinely brought in people familiar with the genre, and that's true here), but it does seem as though he was drawn to the material for other reasons than a love of the genre.
post #64 of 163
Thread Starter 

I think he was actively looking for a horror novel as a basis for his next movie after BARRY LYNDON, so clearly there was something about the genre he was interested in.  Maybe commercial viability was a factor, but it couldn't have been the only one.

 

The Soho News interview is insightful because it reveals somewhat surprisingly that Kubrick felt he'd captured the essence of Jack Torrance, and that he simply "clarified" him.  It is plain that Kubrick did not buy the passages in the novel that seek to explain Jack's behavior.  And that leaves Jack's behavior as the only thing to judge the character for.

post #65 of 163
I recall a story, probably apocryphal (I certainly don't have a link), that Kubrick, intent on making a horror film, had his assistant go out and buy all the books Stephen King had written. She brought them to him, and he then spent the afternoon reading them behind closed doors in his office. She knew when he lost interest in Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone and the rest because he would hurl them at the door in frustration, until he got to The Shining.
post #66 of 163

Kubrick could've made a great Dead Zone.  Just sayin'.

post #67 of 163
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

I recall a story, probably apocryphal (I certainly don't have a link), that Kubrick, intent on making a horror film, had his assistant go out and buy all the books Stephen King had written. She brought them to him, and he then spent the afternoon reading them behind closed doors in his office. She knew when he lost interest in Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone and the rest because he would hurl them at the door in frustration, until he got to The Shining.

 

This sounds like a slightly modified version of a story that appears in Kubrick's biography.  Kubrick was throwing horror novels at the wall in rejection before he got to The Shining, but they weren't other King novels.  If we take Kubrick's word for it he didn't read any King before The Shining, and I doubt he pursued King's body of work further in the years afterward.

post #68 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

I recall a story, probably apocryphal (I certainly don't have a link), that Kubrick, intent on making a horror film, had his assistant go out and buy all the books Stephen King had written. She brought them to him, and he then spent the afternoon reading them behind closed doors in his office. She knew when he lost interest in Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone and the rest because he would hurl them at the door in frustration, until he got to The Shining.
That doesn't gel with what Kubrick says in interviews, where he says Calley sent him the novel.

However, we do know that Kubrick could be that obsessive. He had a card catalogue with a card for every day of Napoleon's life.
post #69 of 163
Thread Starter 

The fact that Kubrick took 200 shooting days or more (there are conflicting accounts) to film a stagebound movie with three main characters sums it up nicely.  Then of course he demolished his own record with the 400-day shoot for EYES WIDE SHUT that got the notice of Guinness.

 

One cool thing for King is that he was able to have his mini-series filmed in The Stanley Hotel in Colorado, which was his original inspiration for the Overlook.  Kubrick knew better than to even ask a real hotel if they could shut down for the year he evidently would have spent there.  Obviously, shooting on a stage gave him the complete control over layout and art direction that has played no small part in the film's lauded atmosphere, so it was the right choice for him.

post #70 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

The fact that Kubrick took 200 shooting days or more (there are conflicting accounts) to film a stagebound movie with three main characters sums it up nicely.  Then of course he demolished his own record with the 400-day shoot for EYES WIDE SHUT that got the notice of Guinness.

 

One cool thing for King is that he was able to have his mini-series filmed in The Stanley Hotel in Colorado, which was his original inspiration for the Overlook.  Kubrick knew better than to even ask a real hotel if they could shut down for the year he evidently would have spent there.  Obviously, shooting on a stage gave him the complete control over layout and art direction that has played no small part in the film's lauded atmosphere, so it was the right choice for him.

Absolutely.  The Overlook of Kubrick's film is the result of an amazing confluence of design, cinematography, and sound.  There's no way shooting in a real place would have produced something as intensely isolated and foreboding in its feeling.

 

I'll also say that I'm loving reading through this thread.  There are so many fun layers to THE SHINING - both in the film itself and all the elements surrounding it.  Anybody have any thoughts about the early conception Kubrick had for the finale, which would have seen Hallorann becoming possessed and going totally nuts?

post #71 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

Anybody have any thoughts about the early conception Kubrick had for the finale, which would have seen Hallorann becoming possessed and going totally nuts?
I've been thinking about it all day. It's an interesting, but dramatically misguided, move. The climax needs to stay focused on Jack.

That original ending gave Wendy a strong climactic moment, though, and I suspect that's why Kubrick conceived it.
post #72 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I've been thinking about it all day. It's an interesting, but dramatically misguided, move. The climax needs to stay focused on Jack.

That original ending gave Wendy a strong climactic moment, though, and I suspect that's why Kubrick conceived it.

When I first heard about it, I was genuinely baffled that it was ever seriously considered.  I think it would have undermined Jack in an extraordinarily ill-conceived way.  It also furthers my belief that, for whatever reason, Kubrick had no real idea what to do with the Hallorann character.  I already think that what happens to him in the movie is almost perversely cruel, but to have turned the character into batshit, raving lunatic would have been even more of a finger in the eye of Stephen King; though he hasn't said it (as far as I know), I suspect he's never been pleased about Hallorann's death in the movie, and certainly wouldn't have appreciated him becoming the "Final Boss" of the story.

post #73 of 163
Thread Starter 

Wendy does still manage to save herself and her son in the final film, though, so I think the film does right by her - certainly, the perception that her character is useless (or a "screaming dishrag", per King) never jived for me.  I find Duvall to be utterly believable and authentic throughout, not to mention cute as hell.

 

For as much as King's DNA may have been extracted in the adaptation process, the King die-hards will notice that Kubrick did still have Jack wearing a Stovington Eagles t-shirt, and of course there's the matter of him praising Lloyd as "the best goddamned bartender from Timbuktu to Portland, Maine."

 

Speaking of Lloyd, here's some anecdotes from actor Joe Turkel:

 

Quote:

I had devised four interpretations of my character, Lloyd the barman, and I wondered which Stanley would like. I showed him the first – the quiet, good-to-see-you one – and he picked that. Things were always either fine or good with him. He didn't do hyperbole.

 

He worked Shelley to death. She called her boyfriend in LA and said, "Get your ass out here and look after me." Her scenes were so difficult, all that screaming – and when you're dealing with Stanley, you can't wing it. You have to hit it.

 

Halfway through shooting one of our takes, Jack leaned over to me, at the bar, and said: "Joe, we've been shooting this thing for three weeks. Here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go crazy – I'm gonna start four feet in the air then go up into the stratosphere." The opening line should have been: "Hi Lloyd, it's good to see you." But he said: "Lloyd, how the hell are you? I haven't seen you in a month of fucking Sundays." I was saying, "Splendid, Mr Torrance", as he was getting wilder and wilder. I could see Stanley getting mad. After we finished, Stanley walked on and said: "Gee Jack, that opens up a whole new can of corn." I cracked up, Jack fell on the floor laughing, and Stanley knew he was being had. And he roared.

 

Another day, Jack said to me: "Let's go to the fight tonight." Stanley asked who was fighting. Jack said Muhammad Ali and Leon Spinks, for the heavyweight title. Stanley was standing there, looking through a camera at an angle, and he said: "Ali's the champ, you're wasting your time." Jack replied: "No, Spinks is the champ." Stanley stood up, summoned his secretary and said: "Call my bookie." Jack and I looked at each other. He put $5,000 on Ali then he said: "Boxing is as crooked as the picture business. There's no way they'll let Spinks win – the fight business won't make a dime. It's a fix."

 

Ali won. Jack and I went. Stanley didn't because he edited footage every night. "Stanley hustled as a kid," I said to Jack, "and he's hustling now." He'd been a chess hustler: he used to beat everybody when he was 12, grown men in the parks of Manhattan. He would go to the movies with his winnings.

post #74 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Wendy does still manage to save herself and her son in the final film, though, so I think the film does right by her - certainly, the perception that her character is useless (or a "screaming dishrag", per King) never jived for me.  I find Duvall to be utterly believable and authentic throughout, not to mention cute as hell.

Duvall's Wendy is interesting.  I do subscribe more to the belief that the character, as written in the script, is tremendously weaker and less interesting than King's version.  BUT... I'll defend the hell out of Duvall's performance any day.  I may not particularly like what Kubrick was going for, but I have no doubt he got exactly what he wanted out of her, and it's a striking portrait of a woman going through an agonizing and horrifying experience.  It's unquestionably her best work.

post #75 of 163
Thread Starter 

Kubrick on Wendy Torrance (from the Ciment interview):

 

Quote:

Did you choose Shelley Duvall after seeing her in Three Women?

 

I had seen all of her films and greatly admired her work. I think she brought an instantly believable characterization to her part. The novel pictures her as a much more self-reliant and attractive woman, but these qualities make you wonder why she has put up with Jack for so long. Shelley seemed to be exactly the kind of woman that would marry Jack and be stuck with him. The wonderful thing about Shelley is her eccentric quality -- the way she talks, the way she moves, the way her nervous system is put together. I think that most interesting actors have physical eccentricities about them which make their performances more interesting and, if they don't, they work hard to find them.

post #76 of 163
Thread Starter 

For the scene where Grady lets Jack out of the pantry, it seems they actually filmed Grady's side of the conversation.  Here's Philip Stone in his tux on the kitchen set.

 

 

 

A glimpse of him in the pantry from the Vivian Kubrick doc:

 


Edited by FatherDude - 10/27/16 at 6:36pm
post #77 of 163
It was much more effective to not show him. Smart move.
post #78 of 163
Thread Starter 

More rarities from the Lee Unkrich site:

 

 

Quote:

These continuity Polaroids offer a glimpse into an unused scene from ‘The Shining.’ In the finished film, the scene of Wendy and Danny exploring the hedge maze is intercut with shots of Jack wandering the hotel, bored and suffering from writer’s block. As originally filmed, however, Jack then wanders to the balcony overlooking the Colorado Lounge, and glances down to his writing table to see something that hadn’t been there previously — a large scrapbook. Jack’s typewriter, paper, cigarettes, pens, etc. have been mysteriously arranged in a quasi-Native American design on the floor leading to the table and the scrapbook.

 

Jack then goes down to investigate and finds that the scrapbook is full of newspaper clippings from the Overlook Hotel’s lurid past. He becomes entranced with it. The scrapbook figured in several other deleted scenes, and provided the original inspiration for Jack to finally begin writing. Most of the scenes with the scrapbook have been omitted in the final film, though there are still some lingering shots where the scrapbook lies on Jack’s writing table, unexplained.

 

In earlier drafts of the screenplay, the final shot of the movie is a long slow camera move towards the open scrapbook sitting upon the table. The camera continues to track forward until it finds the vintage ballroom party photo with Jack smiling out from it. When Kubrick decided to excise the scrapbook element from the story, he presumably repurposed that same idea by tracking across the lobby and finding the same framed photo on the wall.

post #79 of 163

Would love to see that scene. 

post #80 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Kubrick on Wendy Torrance (from the Ciment interview):

 

I think a lot of people permanently view Duvall based on her role here, and that's a shame. She's incredible in 3 Women, far from mousy and terrified (er, save for a few moments).

post #81 of 163
I knew her from nothing but Fairy Tale Theater and Popeye before this. It was quite the revelation. It was like seeing The Exorcist and finding out Paul Reubens played Father Karras.
post #82 of 163
Thread Starter 

I inevitably associate Duvall with THE SHINING first, and TIME BANDITS second.

post #83 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

I think a lot of people permanently view Duvall based on her role here, and that's a shame. She's incredible in 3 Women, far from mousy and terrified (er, save for a few moments).
3 WOMEN is fucking great.

I'd love to see a Robert Altman version of THE SHINING.
post #84 of 163
I had a reverse effect on Shelly. I caught Popeye way after The Shining and was flabberghasted.
post #85 of 163
Thread Starter 

With regard to the treatment, the zanier elements don't surprise me at all.  Kubrick seemed to view the screenplay itself as little more than a springboard, so any document that preceded that could only have been spitballing in paper form.  Per Johnson, THE SHINING never actually had a screenplay that would be recognized as industry standard, and Kubrick in effect kept writing in the editing room.

 

While I don't get the impression that he was quite as extreme in this regard as, say, Terrence Malick, it's probably fair to say that Kubrick's films underwent more "cutting room rewrites" than the average picture.

post #86 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

While I don't get the impression that he was quite as extreme in this regard as, say, Terrence Malick, it's probably fair to say that Kubrick's films underwent more "cutting room rewrites" than the average picture.
Absolutely. Which is hilarious, given the popular conception of Kubrick as some mastermind encoding hidden meanings in his movies.

When making a film, Kubrick generally knew where he wanted to end up thematically/emotionally. Even the original treatment for THE SHINING, weird though it may be, feels like it lays the foundation for the finished film in a number of key ways. Nevertheless, his creative process involved a lot of experimentation and trial-and-error.
post #87 of 163
Thread Starter 

I think THE SHINING attracts obsession even more than Kubrick's other films because of how dissatisfied it leaves the audience in terms of confidence about what went down.  As viewers we have an instinct to "solve" movies as if they are riddles, and THE SHINING denies us the satisfaction of that, which makes it even more of a gauntlet thrown.  And when you combine that with the Kubrick mystique you get, well, that Room 237 documentary.

 

Some of these theories are supported by the text.  The imperialism and Native American references are obviously not there by accident, and the movie seems to have some thoughts on the fragility of the American middle class family in the 70s.  But I'd rather swallow a drafting compass than hear about how the moon is roughly 237,000 miles from Earth and that's where the room number came from.

post #88 of 163
Spoilsport. The dude who watches it split screen backwards and forwards simultaneously is a hoot.
post #89 of 163

Oh man, I had fun with the forward/backward idea!

 

I love that documentary!

post #90 of 163
Here's that De Palma quote I mentioned. It's from an interview in 1980 conducted by Ralph Appelbaum.
Quote:
"In THE SHINING you're dealing with a director who is working for the first time in this genre and who seems to have a bit of contempt for it. He is obviously not interested in the conventions of the genre he's chosen; in fact he seems to feel there would be something cheapening or demeaning in drawing from the wellspring of the normal genre conventions. Instead you sense that he wants to revolutionize it and make it something profound or significant. But the result is inevitably heavy-handed because what he has actually done is failed to realize the intrinsic beauty of the form per se.

The real trick is not to ignore the conventions but to take them and then personalize them."
post #91 of 163
Thread Starter 

It's amazing how elitist De Palma sounds in trying to paint Kubrick as an elitist.  He should have just gone ahead and called it "uppity."

post #92 of 163
De Palma talks about one of the best horror films ever.
LOL!
 
Let me get this straight... he's criticizing a film to step out of its boundaries... a film genre that, at the time, was only 80 or so years old.  Should filmmakers shackle themselves to a nostalgic rock to the end of filmmaking time?
post #93 of 163
Just a heads up since its been mentioned recently, The Shining miniseries is airing on IFC tomorrow at 9 AM. I remember watching it back when it originally aired. Well most of it anyways. The bad cgi topiaries is what sticks out in my mind when I think about. That and a really cheesy ending with ghost Steven Weber.

Set your DVRs.
post #94 of 163

I watched the whole thing when it initially aired and I'm probably good on never seeing it again. I do find it telling that the only thing it really got right was making Jack sympathetic and having his descent into insanity happen at a much slower and more organic pace. Steven Weber deserves credit for a good performance but otherwise yeah, I just remember bad CG and long stretches where nothing interesting happens. 

post #95 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by HypnoToad View Post

Just a heads up since its been mentioned recently, The Shining miniseries is airing on IFC tomorrow at 9 AM. I remember watching it back when it originally aired. Well most of it anyways. The bad cgi topiaries is what sticks out in my mind when I think about. That and a really cheesy ending with ghost Steven Weber.

Set your DVRs.

You'll perhaps be surprised to hear that I own the movie on both VCD and DVD.
post #96 of 163

I appreciate the miniseries as an ultra-faithful adaptation of the book, and it features "better" versions of Jack and Wendy as written on the page... but it's not scary.  Save for a few brief visions Danny has, there's nothing particularly frightening on display, and that's a problem for a horror yarn.  It's certainly a watchable endeavor if one has the time, though.

post #97 of 163
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HypnoToad View Post

Just a heads up since its been mentioned recently, The Shining miniseries is airing on IFC tomorrow at 9 AM. I remember watching it back when it originally aired. Well most of it anyways. The bad cgi topiaries is what sticks out in my mind when I think about. That and a really cheesy ending with ghost Steven Weber.

Set your DVRs.

-sweet baby jesus, that ending almost made me throw a brick through my tv. I will defend almost anything Stephen King does.(I like dreamcatchers for god's sake) but this was SO BAD. Happy Ghost Steven Weber saying, "Kisses, kisses, that's what I've been missing." Hate on Kubrick all you want, Mr King, but everything about the ending with Nicholson chasing after Danny screaming to take his medicine is still burned in my head. Just mentioning the ending to the miniseries brought up some bile in the back of my throat

post #98 of 163
It truly is the most flat out idiot ending you could have for The Shining. But it really is a dreadful, overlong adaptation through and through. I like Weber, but takes by on that role after Jack, in a deeply subpar production, no less...it's like trying to outrun a car.
post #99 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

De Palma talks about one of the best horror films ever.
LOL!
Well, De Palma's no slouch. As far as Stephen King movies go, CARRIE is every bit as accomplished as THE SHINING.

If you think De Palma sounds dismissive and snobby, I should dig up Orson Welles' comments about Alfred Hitchcock. They're astonishing. (In general, filmmakers aren't the best critics.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Let me get this straight... he's criticizing a film to step out of its boundaries... a film genre that, at the time, was only 80 or so years old. Should filmmakers shackle themselves to a nostalgic rock to the end of filmmaking time?
De Palma goes on to argue that DRESSED TO KILL preserves its genre framework but still finds a fresh angle on it.

I wonder if De Palma still dislikes THE SHINING. Spielberg didn't like THE SHINING in 1980, either, though he's since come around on it.
post #100 of 163
"Just look at my film! I did what you couldn't!"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › The Shining (1980)