I watched the whole movie for the first time last night.
It was kind of disconcerting that one of the movie's plot devices was that the family was snowed in due to this horrific, days-long snowstorm, yet when the were outside chasing/running from each other, they didn'e even get any snow on their shoes. It's not like Jack Nicholson had been out there snowplowing that maze for days. The kid should have been up to his waist in snow when he stepped outside.
That's how I want my snowstorms from now on. I want the ones where it snows for days, but there's basically no snow on the ground.
I apologize for the typos. I really need to carefully edit my iPhone posts.
This is my favorite movie. I can't say why exactly, but it is.
There's something oddly relaxing about it, for a horror film.
LOVE the Overlook Hotel. I would enjoy being snowbound there for a few months.
The snow was actually salt. A beautiful but terribly overrated film.
[quote]The Shining was shot on soundstages at EMI Elstree Studios in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, Britain. The set for the Overlook Hotel was then the largest ever built, including a full re-creation of the exterior of the hotel.
This video is really interesting...
Saw it opening day. Zero tension, no scares but one truly camp moment with the "Herrrrrre's Johnny" line that no one under twenty would get today.
Well now I won't be afraid of it ever again.
Every film Kurbick made, with the exceptions of Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove, were considered follies or misfires when they debuted. With the exception of some critics and many filmmakers who revere him as a god or appreciate his idiosyncrasies. And, in each case so far (jury is out on Eyes Wide Shut), their reputations grew year by year.
I love the Shining, as R2 said, for reasons I can almost state but can't fully explain. The surreal first meeting between Jack and the hotel manager. The editing is off beat and subtly puts the audience on edge.
Other moments that stand out: the cut from Shelley Duvall's long monologue about how Jack broke Danny's arm to the child psychologist's barely contained look of horror. And that fucking cigarette ash that grows and grows. The way the hotel bathroom is at first mostly white, then mostly red the second time. The woman in the tub. The single zoom shot of Jack in a black turtle neck staring wickedly out the window, which smash cuts to "Tuesday". The exceptional cruelty of Jack towards Wendy that the audience can tell is coming from the first scene but still shocks with its hatred and venom.
Finally, the casting and performance of Shelley Duvall. I am convinced that he cast her and made her look bedraggled in order for the audience to identify with Jack, who was arguably the biggest movie star at the time. Especially with males, I think, he urges them to sympathize with Jack and see that Wendy could be an annoyance and, well, drive a man to drink.
Its a cliche, but I truly find something new and intriguing every time I see the movie. Over the years its moved up as my second favorite Kubrick film after Barry Lyndon.
The first couple times (when I was a kid), it scared the hell out of me--the twins, the wave of blood, the gross lady in the bathtub. Now it's just campy good fun due to the actors' scenery chewing (Jack and Shelly are OTT) but I also love to see how Kubrick builds the creepiness and ominousness. It's gorgeous to look at, too.
Thanks for jogging my memory, OP. I was wondering who my annoying new co-worker reminded me of, now I remember: Mrs. Torrence. I never realized that about the snow either. It must be similar to the annoyance Southerners feel when actors do terrible accents and don't even try to get it right. Perhaps Honey Boo-Boo will help change all that?
I remember babysitting and the commercial for this movie would come on with that creepy score. I lived in Ohio where it was snowy, so that scene of being chased in the snow resonated and I was SCARED every time it came on!
I think that while they did make the Shelly Duval character kind of annoying, Jack Nicholson did a good job of showing a man completely losing his shit.
So many scary scenes in this movie, those twin girls, Danny being chased by Jack in the maze, the tennis ball appearing out of nowhere when Danny is playing in the hall and just the whole isolated, snowy, windblown atmosphere. It still creeps me out to watch this after all these years.
How claustrophobic the giant SILENT hotel is. The silence and space is oppressive.
I don't know, that video at R6 is a little overblown in my opinion. Some of it is interesting, but its barking up the wrong tree, mistaking choices made due to a desire to shoot entirely on a sound stage, shot angle and lighting needs, for some deep mysterious psych game on Kubrick's part. For instance, if they lived in a corner apartment to match the placement of windows in the interior set, then you couldn't get the great shot of Wendy trying to get out the window, totally surrounded by the huge hotel wall and that great snow drift. I have no doubt that Kubrick, who started out as a photographer, placed shot design over spacial continuity. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I've seen the movie probably 20 times, due to a course I took on Kubrick and final paper on the film. If you're looking for Kubrick's hidden gestures, try the use of mirrors when Jack interacts with a ghost, sound design, unsubtle editing choices, and Native American symbols that are scattered throughout the film.
The myth of Kubrick as some all-seeing control freak are overblown, mostly due to the small number of interviews he granted and lack of easy lessons or resolutions in his work. It is a myth he wisely encouraged.
Kubrick really wanted The Shining to be financially successful after Barry Lyndon (IMO his best work) bombed. It wasn't a life-long passion project for him, as Eyes Wide Shut and the never-filmed Napoleon epic he planned. With that in mind I think that guy narrating the video is creating something out of nothing.
It's just not that good. The Kubrick groupies may work overtime to come up with all sorts of convoluted arguments for its greatness, but...
Thanks R9 Danny is super sexy now.
I'm old enough to remember seeing the trailer for this in the cinema which was just a shot of the elevator doors which opened to reveal a torrent of blood gushing out. I was 13 then and never have forgotten it.
The scary twins were nowhere nearly as scary as Nicole Kidman's performance as Diane Arbus in "Fur" (the twins in "The Shining" always make me think of Arbus' twins).
TS is one of those movies that has gained reputation. It was not well received by audiences or critics initially. I saw it the first week at the Chinese (I think it was Mann's at the time) and the audiences hungry for something along the lines of "Halloween" booed. And yes, I'm one of the few to see Kubrick's original ending.
R23, the ending with Duvall in the hospital and she's told Jack's body was not found?
The movie hypnotizes me every time.
[quote]It's just not that good.
Agreed. Even King eventually grew a pair and went on record about it being less than acceptable.
I read the novel while I was in junior high, and other than the WTF ending, thought it was terrific. I was a teen when I saw the movie, and knew that it was an absolute stinker. Poorly adapted, poorly written, poorly cast, poorly acted -- and that includes Nicholson. His scenery-chewing performance is one of the most overrated in the history of cinema.
Shelley Duvall gave the performance of a lifetime. She is anxiety personified in this film, and a great foil to Nicholson.
If I got a buck every time I heard about King's WTF endings.
I saw this when it was released. I was 13 years olds. It didn't scare me. It's gorgeous, it's epic but it's totally hollow and overblown. Kubrick didn't know how to make a horror film. The film's most important scene, when Duvall faces one of the ghost for the first time, you know the one who lifts a glass to her, well this scene should have blown audiences away because by then her character had never seen a ghost, only Jack and the kid. She sorta represented the audience and for her to face a ghost should have been a WOW moment but that scene just falls flat with a whimper. I love looking at it and all but aside from the few spooky scenes (the twins, the old lady, the bear blow job bit...) it's too drawn out to be filled with tension.
I think King has always said he wasn't satisfied with it. Kubrick wasn't the best choice to make the movie because he didn't believe in ghosts. He asked King if it was necessary to believe in God to believe in ghosts. King said he didn't think it was, but Kubrick, an atheist, disagreed. So he made the movie ambiguous whether it was about ghosts or insanity. King has called it a pretty package with nothing inside, and that about sums it up. It is a very pretty package though so I don't hate the movie.
I wish it could be remade theatrically today, current CGI could definitely handle everything described in the book. Even on a tv movie budget, a really good faithful version could be made. You'd have to keep King away from it though, since his own tv movie version wasn't so hot.
[quote]I think King has always said he wasn't satisfied with it.
I don't believe so -- at least, not on record. Shortly after the film was released, King wrote an article about the ten (or so, it's been years) best horror movies of all time. THE SHINING was on the list. Intuitively, I thought that he was full of shit and included the film to save face (his own) and because he didn't want to publicly insult Kubrick.
You'd think after what he showed in A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick wouldn't pull his horror punches. I wish the shot of the lobby with cobwebs and skelletons had not been included. The guy in the bear costume blowing the guy in the tux is expanded on in the novel and is pretty twisted. Seems like a missed opportunity to disturb people.
The elevator of blood is a beyond genius idea, totally unique and IMO one of the iconic images in film. Yet it is too gorgeous and perfectly orchestrated to frighten - too evenly and brightly lit.
Kubrick clearly wanted to avoid horror cliches - the film is bright, spacious, lacks an outside threat, and is fairly gore-free. But horror is also the one genre that needs some of the cliches. And it wasn't falsely marketed as horror by the studio as Kubrick had total control over how his work was marketed.
I actually think in the future it may even be reclassified. Dysfunctional family movie?
Interesting r8. I wonder if there will be a re-release in the States. I'd love the chance to see it on a big screen in a dark theater.
Eyes Wide Shut will never gain in reputation, as it stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.
This film was intended as a means for them to show the world they were a real 'item', and is therefore not an organic work of art.
They are both leaden actors to begin with, and the film just stands no chance.
What was Kubrick's original ending?
R3 is exactly right. I have also found this movie very calming - for a horror movie. I love watching it on rainy days.
That's not true, R30.
King often voiced his disappointment with Kubrick's film, and that was the reason he later wrote the screenplay for the TV version with Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMornay.
King publicly said on more than one occasion, "I think I gave Kubrick a live grenade on which he heroically threw his body."
I'm like Scatman Crothers when I watch The Shining. So relaxed...
Still love it and think it's one of the scariest movies I've ever seen - the atmosphere, the score, everything works for me but I'll just be one of the few who thinks it's a great movie.
I'm with R5/R28: the novel is fantastic, the movie is shit.
Especially the "REDRUM" scene; in the novel, it's quietly terrifying, while in the movie, it's utterly ridiculous.
This movie is a classic of pop culture, and it can be hard to separate the actual work with all of the baggage attached to it over the years. The crazy theories do the film a disservice. I agree with R19 that the idea that Kubrick was a crazy perfectionist who controlled every detail is way overblown.
Also, R29 is wrong: "So he made the movie ambiguous whether it was about ghosts or insanity." Like most good ghost stories, you are meant to be unsettled by the possibility and reality of ghosts, but if what you say is true, then who unlocked Jack from the pantry? Although we don't literally see who did it, there is no way either Danny or Wendy would have unlocked it. It's a movie about ghosts and insanity, why would you think it couldn't be about both?
I'll agree that the shot with the skeletons and cobwebs always seems a little goofy, but this is a masterpiece with some brilliant performances. Shelley Duvall clutching that knife and screaming as Jack smashes in the bathroom door is forever imprinted in the cultural consciousness for a reason (beyond "Here's Johnny"). It's an incredibly raw performance.
She and Danny also sport some great outfits. Also, I am a huge fan of Eyes Wide Shut and have seen critical opinion turning on that. I would put Barry Lyndon and 2001 ahead of The Shining.
I think maybe a problem people have with Kubrick is their expectations of his movies. The Shining is supposed to be more unsettling and disturbing than crap-your-pants scary, and Eyes Wide Shut is meant to be a cutting look at the upper class, not a sexy thriller. I don't think it hinges on whether Tom and Nicole have chemistry (which they don't). I enjoy both of their performances, and she's barely in it.
Also, you're deluding yourself if you think the world needs a more "accurate" translation of The Shinning on the screen. The made-for-TV movie is a piece of shit and King is lucky Kubrick made the work a classic (although most of what the film is remembered for are Kubrick's inventions, such as the maze, the girls, the elevator, and "Here's Johnny").
I hate to go on and on, but it's really a great movie. R13's post points out some really great moments. I also love watching Dick's journey back to the hotel, going through the old Stapleton airport and seeing that giant overturned truck on the highway.
Some people may think the movie lacks tension, but I think they're looking for a specific type of horror film that this isn't trying to be. I personally love the sort of anti-climactic way that Danny and Wendy get away. It feels very real, and you get the sense that they have just escaped from a very terrible nightmare. I think people who prefer the book like explosive, action-packed horror and thrills. It rings false to me.
What director today could even come close to what Kubrick did with this movie? You may have your faults with it, but it is a beautifully shot film. There are scenes that are simply breathtaking to watch. CGI simply couldn't replicate the exterior of the overlook covered with snow or the snowy maze. The scene where the camera slowly pans around the wall to Shelley Duvall's back as she reads the typed pages and slowly pans in on her is one of the creepiest shots ever put on film.
CGI can't replicate actual skill and craft.
I saw it as a kid and it scared the shit out of me. There are scenes from that movie that would always be impressive.
Even scarier was a documentary about a family that their story inspired the film. The father went mad in the house they bought and started acting like the previous owner who murdered his family. Anyone remember that?
[quote] King is lucky Kubrick made the work a classic (although most of what the film is remembered for are Kubrick's inventions, such as the maze, the girls, the elevator, and "Here's Johnny").
That's probably why King hates the movie so much!
I remember that the first several times I'd seen the Shining, it was edited for regular TV.
So I was shocked the first time I saw the uncut film and realized that the Afro-wearing woman in the picture Scatman Crothers has on his wall has her glorious tits hanging out.
r44, the snowy maze wasn't even in the book. It was a replacement for the possessed topiary animals that were impossible to render with 1980 effects. CGI can realize much of the novel that wasn't possible for Kubrick, who I'm sure would've been happy to use CGI had it been available at the time, and as advanced as it is now. A remake could stick closer to the novel, which I know the Kubrick cultist will screech he improved on, but that isn't a universal opinion. The Shining is the most acclaimed novel by one of the most successfully horror writers in history. r42 might not have any respect for it, but he can keep watching the Kubrick movie over and over, King's legions of fans would like to see a more faithful remake. And on a feature film budget. Tv movies are low-budget, of course they're not going to compare to theatrical releases.
Yes r18/r46, the idea of setting it of a large deserted hotel wasn't King's idea at all. Everything about the movie that's any good was Kubrick's idea. In fact everything good about every movie was Kubrick's idea. In fact all good ideas were originally conceived by Kubrick. In fact Kubrick is all things to all people. In fact Kubrick is God!!!!
[quote]King often voiced his disappointment with Kubrick's film, and that was the reason he later wrote the screenplay for the TV version with Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMornay.
... which was an immense piece of shit, one of the worst things on television that year. It was laughingly, embarrassingly bad.
I remember the topiary animals as being laughable instead of scary. Kind of like that Simpson's episode where Bob's Big Boy and all those statues came to life.
I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but you are the caretaker.
You've always been the caretaker.
I should know sir. I've always been here.
My girls sir, they didn't care for the Overlook at first. One of them actually stole a pack of matches and tried to burn it down. But I cor-r-rected them sir. And when my wife tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I cor-r-rected her.
If I watch the film as a separate entity and don't even tie it into the book, I think it's a very good Kubrick film.
[quote]I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but you are the caretaker.
Yes, another reason why I love this movie, the sinister caretaker Grady, pure evil.
R45 - don't remember that, but here is the hotel that was the inspiration for the Overlook.
I agree R58, ugh, that song with the pic of Jack looking evil and all those weird looking people in 1921. Creeps me out.
Kubrick used the Ahwahnee Hotel as inspiration for the interiors in his film adaptation while King had been inspired to write the story by his stay at the Stanley.
[quote]the snowy maze wasn't even in the book. It was a replacement for the possessed topiary animals that were impossible to render with 1980 effects.
That's not the reason. Kubrick worked with Diane Johnson on the script. She had written something he liked about family dysfunction or something. He wanted to pare down the ghost and supernatural stuff, not being a believer in that as an atheist, and focus on the deterioration of family and the horror of that.
I think R54 is right. Kubrick took what he liked, discarded the rest and added his own ideas. They are different enough that you can appreciate both, which I do.
That said, when people think of "The Shining" they think of Jack, the blood, the maze, etc. Not the topiary animals and King's other inventions. That probably burns King a little, but his blasting of the movie shows a gigantic ego and a little immaturity.
What is the deal with a sequel and a prequel for the Shining? We had a thread here a few months back, but I can't remember what it said.
I think maybe the news was that King is writing a sequel about Danny as an adult, but someone else is working on a screenplay for a prequel???
Does that sound right???
But that ending is the same ending for Burnt Offerings the film, which was made in1976...Stephen King even admitted that he was "inspired" to write The Shining after Burnt Offerings. The Shining was published in 1977.
The Shining is one of the greatest movies ever made, a complete classic. And I think it's the only movie that justifies the use of Kubrick's rather esoteric style and intricate film making, elsewhere it just isn't my bag.
The hotel is so majestic. The snowed in, winter atmosphere with the wind blowing are great too. Such a bleak movie.
If you didn't see this movie as a kid, then you missed out. I caught it on TV one summer night when I was about 10 and it had a major impact on me. One of the greatest aspects I remember from that initial viewing where the sense of MYSTERY(you don't see that much in movies these days) that permeated every frame, and the creepy, large, and majestic nature of the hotel. Always the feeling of much more going on under the surface than what you can put you finger on.
A movie where you didn't know what would happen and would anticipate every new scene and revelation inside the spooky hotel.
R29 hated the movie, but wants another version that follows the book using modern CGI. WOW!
Is the 1997 version any good at all? I may get it from Netflix.
[quote]One of the greatest aspects I remember from that initial viewing where the sense of MYSTERY(you don't see that much in movies these days) that permeated every frame, and the creepy, large, and majestic nature of the hotel. Always the feeling of much more going on under the surface than what you can put you finger on.
Thank you R66 for stating ANOTHER reason why this is a great horror movie regardless of the criticism of it here.
I agree. Great post r66.
You are welcome, R69! Always good to hear from others who tuned into the same creepy wavelength. I suspect I felt like Danny did in the movie when I first watched it.
Another thing that got me about the movie was the sense of history from the hotel, the hints of the glamorous, early 20th century past. The nice bathroom in room 237. The ghosts that may still linger there. You can imagine the hotel being filled with a lot of glamorous people back in it's prime.
The Shining seems to be a pretty singular experience. Any other movies that are remotely similar, especially in atmosphere and/or setting? With a strange supernatural tone underlying everything? The movie is just unsettling and cold, but in a strangely enveloping and comforting way as others in here have said. I like how it feels somewhat domestic.
[quote]I suspect I felt like Danny did in the movie when I first watched it.
Another on target point R66/R71. Maybe if Kubrick and King heard how you view this movie, they'd hate it less and understand it more!
[quote]The movie is just unsettling and cold
It's a Stanley Kubrick film. His films are all "unsettling and cold"
This recut trailer is several years old now but I love how it turns the entire conceit on its head and shows how trailers are so midleading.
There's no supernatural tone, R73, but I find the movie No Country for Old Men has a similar, sinister tone, but is almost comforting at the same time, with touches of humor.
I am not sure why some posters keep asking for a more faithful adaption of the book. As has been pointed out, there is a faithful adaption - the god awful TV miniseries. It sucked, not just because of its poor production values, but because it failed to provide any real scares and utterly lacked the creepiness that Kubrick created with his beautiful photography.
Thanks R77. I'll check it out.
Is this one of those rare cases where the movie is better than the book?
If so, it must KILL Stephen King.
I haven't read the book
I'd say it's FAR better than the book, R80. I knew the book was a completely different entity and was not expecting something similar to the movie, but even then, I thought the book was a big snooze. The book was way overlong, could've been 1/3 shorter, was boring, unscary, corny, way too many flashbacks about Jack's past and his drinking, no eerie feeling.
The book is good, but the movie is a classic. The idea at its base still belongs to King, so its good he finally came around to not hating it.
I always thought King hated the film because the story was very personal for him. Given that Jack Torrance was an alcoholic washed up English teacher (as was King), I think he resented the fact that Kubrick made The Shining into a monster movie, essentially. Jack is the villain of the movie, but he's a hero in the final stage of the novel where his last act is to save his son, the son he abused when he was drinking, from the malevolent forces of the hotel.
I always wondered just how autobiographical that story was. King wrote it as a redemption tale, but Kubrick completely stripped away all redeeming characteristics from Jack Torrance. He took the heart right out of the story.
I suspect that there is a lot of King in the character of Torrance, and that is part of why he's ticked off.
I love both the book and the film, but I enjoy then as two completely separate entities.
[quote]I always thought King hated the film because the story was very personal for him.
Then he shouldn't have sold the rights.
The movie is better than the book, but I think the book is still good. You get some insight as to why Jack lost it. And you learn more about the ghosts in the hotel.
I read somewhere on the web that the movie is almost a mirror of the book, and that many things that are in the book are reversed in the movie. For example, King's Wendy is a confident blonde. In the movie, she is a sniveling brunette. In the book, Jack drives a red VW bug, while in the movie, it's a yellow bug. In the scene where Holloran is driving through a snowstorm to get to Danny, he passes a red bug crushed by a truck. Some think that scene is Kubrick's 'fuck you' to King.
"Is this one of those rare cases where the movie is better than the book?"
No. The book is better. The movie version is Kubrick's vision of the book, and it's interesting but flawed.
The book is MUCH different from the movie, especially the main characters. In the book, Jack is a relatively normal guy. He's a recovering alcoholic and he has a tendency to lose his temper and explode into violence, but he's nothing like Nicholson played him, that is, crazy from the get go. In the book Wendy is an attractive blonde, kind of bitchy, but mostly very nice. Shelley Duvall's Wendy is a cadaverous, homely, shrieking, squealing nutjob. In the book Danny has his "shining" and an imaginary friend, but is a very normal boy otherwise. He seems like he has mental issues in the movie, and acts very strange. That's the major difference; in Kubrick's movie the main characters are much weirder, much less sympathetic than the ones in the novel.
I watched a little of the tv version. The boy who played Danny was so awful I couldn't watch it; the kid talked in a weird, affected way and sported a Mo Howard haircut. The actors who played Jack and Wendy (Stephen Weber and Rebecca de Mornay, I think) were more like the novel's Jack and Wendy but the whole production was a big flop.
"on Shelly Duvall, You go to her in delight , saying I'm yours." Pauline Kael
I went to see it on opening night and felt disappointed because I thought it was a film about the fascinating craft of shoe shining
I didn't know, until this thread, that some people think the Shining was Kubrick's veiled confessional that he filmed the fake moon landing. Fascinating.
R90, probably about 5 people in the world believe that.
Jack in this movie reminds me of my dad when he was younger.
I'm embarrassed to admit that "No Country for Old Men" went straight over my head until I read your post R77.
I'm not sure I'd necessarily get into it a lot more if I saw it again, but I think I'd appreciate it more.
Mention of the Coens reminds me I once read that they felt the one genre they wouldn't go near was horror, because Kubrick had set the bar so high. No more could be added.
Interesting (and justified) deference, but it of course implies that they feel most other genres are well within their abilities. (Well, sometimes.)
I'll be visiting the Overlook soon at BFI: can't wait to see that immense interior again on the big screen.
Now I think that's probably the reason King hated the movie R83.
The book has heart the movie doesn't...
I saw this movie when it came out in NYC the audience applauded after Shelly's big scene. I have never seen that before or since...
Did she really give up acting after the movie? Must have been a big difference between Kubrick and Altman...
I think they applauded because she slashed his hand, r98. (If that's the scene you mean, the Here's Johnnie one where she's trapped in the bathroom.)
Jack is so great as the creepy guy half-heartedly trying to play the part of the good dad when all he wants to do is flee his wife and kid and live his life alone in peace.
Thanks, R94. Give "No Country for Old Men" another chance. There is no other movie (besides "The Shining") that has such an impending sense of doom, and pacing that is anxiety-producing-- at least it is for me. The Coens may not want to work in the horror genre, but No Country is very close to it, in my opinion.
Thanks R101, I'll give it another shot at some point.
[quote]The book has heart the movie doesn't...
Why the hell should a horror movie have heart?
Duvall's final scene in the bathroom is one of the few times I've believed a character was truly terrified. Kubrick treated her like shit, but in the long run it was worth it for her performance.
True R104, it's amazing that she gets panned for her performance in the movie by some because I thought she was great and very believable.
Nicholson never would have married Duvall. Never. He would never have even fucked her. There is nothing in their interaction that even vaguely suggests that they would have had anything in common. Duvall might have been a King heroine as Carrie White but her presence in "The Shining" defies storytelling logic.
The bathroom scene is rather amusing since Danny gets out through the window yet Duvall is obviously scrawnier than he is and she should have been able to slip out easily.
R107, I can believe that those two are together, if you factor in the addiction issues. Many an attractive alcoholic has married a helper/enabler, regardless of looks, and many a helper/enabler has married someone who "needs me".
I mean, he could have gotten someone hotter, but would a hottie stick around when he injured the kid while drunk? No, only the most dedicated enabler would do that.
Jack fucked her a few times,she got pregnant,they had to get married. That would explain their relationship and Jack's seething resentment.
Jack used to be good looking, but then he indulged in booze and food too much.
If Jack was once good looking, how did he ever wind up with Wendy? No good looking man would ever hook up with someone as inherently homely and weird looking as her.
There are plenty of hot enablers but this is movieland. There's irony that the old lady Jack kisses in Room 237 doesn't look a whole lot worse than Duvall in her tragic movie nude scenes.
The movie audience roared after Jack is awakened from his nightmare and looks over at Wendy and goes "ugh." We all knew what he meant.
Straight men will fuck anything.
Shelley Duvall looked fine, when her character wasn't screaming in terror.
The idea that Jack was some model adonis and out of her league is ridiculous.
Honey, Herve Villechaize would have been out of Duvall's league.
She sort of looks like Quilty's weird girlfriend from "Lolita". It seemed like an inside joke. Sort of Morticia Addams on quaaludes.
What was up with that scene of a poor man's Fozzie Bear sucking off that guy wearing a tuxedo on the bed? Randomness.
The new episode of South Park is largely based on The Shining. Did anyone see it? As with much of South Park lately, it's not very funny so I can't recommend it. But they do have a parody of that Fozzie Bear scene. It's Randy (as Jack Torrence) staring at the scene from Ted with Mark Wahlberg and the teddy bear sitting on their couch. Kind of amusing.
The bear scene is interesting for what it leaves out. There's no sex/nudity. Just a man in a tux sitting down and a guy in a bear suit kneeling on the floor. The way they look at the camera though, as if they've been 'caught'. conveys shame, and people immediately think: gay/blowjob.
115, 116 - a form of that scene is in the book. it's actually one of the few things Kubrick lifted literally from the text without changing much aside from abbreviating it.
So, tell us, R117, what exactly is going on there in the book?
Take a closer look. Fozzie bear has his constume back door opened. They've just fucked and the bear is now reciprocating by giving the top a blow job. No subtext at all.
r116, someone has to jump to a conclusion that it's a man wearing the Fozzie Bear suit before they can assume that there was a gay sex act occurring.
The viewer comes away with both of those assumptions, but they are in fact just perception.
The bear suit scene is terrifying partly because the face of the bear is a bizarre toothed creature like a warthog. It's like a big teddy bear with the face of a feral monster.
I believe the shot shows the bear with his face in the lap of the other guy. I'd have to see it again to explain, but there is more than just their positioning to suggest blow job.
Here is the scene uncut. It's clear what's going on.
[quote] r29 hated the movie, but wants another version that follows the book using modern CGI. WOW!
You have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension, dear. In the review you link, r29 clearly states that he does not hate the movie. I guess anything less that a rave review is "hate" in a Kubrick disciple's mind. And yes "WOW!" r29 would like to a remake that uses modern CGI to realize the book's original vision. How outrageous, doesn't r29 know that CGI, no matter how perfected and advanced, is artistically inferior to the absence of specials effects? Wow, what a contrarian, wow, I mean just wow.
My favorite thing Kubrick did to improve on the stupid book was to make Jack crazy from the outset. Some idiots said perhaps Kubrick should told Nicholson, save the insanity for later in the movie, this story is about man who gradually goes insane. But Kubrick knew better, and had Nicholson acting creepy from the earliest scene. Smart move, it would've been far less interesting to watch someone slowly descend into madness.
It would have been cheesier too, and the movie wouldn't have endured like it has.
Love the trailer. Morons prefer quick editing, telegraphed jokes, coercive cheesy voiceover "In a world when...", and giving the movie away. The Shining is brilliant. Or should I say shining.
Previews don't feature voice overs anymore either unless it's done in a tongue in cheek way. That is considered cheesy now.
Coming off of 2001, Kubrick had wanted Jack Nicholson to star in his aborted Napoleon biopic - with Audrey Hepburn as Josephine.
If you watch Jack's more serious films from the 1970s, especially Easy Pieces and Marshall Gardens, you can see Bonaparte there.
Has anyone seen the documentary where people expound on various theories as to what The shining is really about?
Bump because there is another, inferior Shining thread circulating.
Is this film about sexual abuse? Saw it on tv when I was about 10, and not since. It scared me a lot. I feel anxiety when I think viewing it again. But am fascinated by it.
I meant to post my question on a different shining thread. Sorry, have several windows of dl open.
BORING movie. I didn't get scared even once. It did nothing for me.
[quote]The guy in the bear costume blowing the guy in the tux is expanded on in the novel and is pretty twisted. Seems like a missed opportunity to disturb people.
I'm glad it was toned down in the movie--I can always do with less of King's homophobia. He eventually changed his thinking, but his earlier work clearly posited homosexuality as innately disturbing and frightening, and I can't say I find that acceptable.