The Shining

[SnoBorderZero]

Hey evryone, this weekend I plan on seeing this movie for the 1st time. My parents said it's damn scary, and I'm actually very excited. I hear it's great and I'd like to hear some responses. I hope it's scary like ppl say it is. Last time, my friends were all telling me about how scary Signs was, I see the movie and saw it as more of a dramatic story of a family trying to get back on track (which is actually the REAL point of all of Shymalayan's movies, especially Sixth Sense which is why I like him so much since he truly has a different motive behind the movie instead of dead ppl or aliens) than a horror movie, it didn't make me jump even once. So anyways, repsonses would be great.

[Inferno]

It's not about trying to make you "jump". Instead it creates suspense and an atmosphere of fear, dread and general creepiness. IMO it's an amazing film. Certainly it's been copied a thousand times since (and in that sense don't be surprised if you've seen some of the ideas in more recent movies).

[Soulless]

The television version is better then Stanely Cubricks version, which doesn't allow for much character developement. Either way I found neither scary, but I don't scare during horror films anyway.

[jhuddy]

i think its boring
everyone says how scary and great it is but i think its garb

[Tenafly Viper]

Originally posted by Inferno
It's not about trying to make you "jump". Instead it creates suspense and an atmosphere of fear, dread and general creepiness. IMO it's an amazing film. Certainly it's been copied a thousand times since (and in that sense don't be surprised if you've seen some of the ideas in more recent movies). I agree with Inferno take, The Shining is one of the greatest dramatic horror films ever made. Kubrick taps into the primal fear of isolation and the uneasyness in silence, this film is about pacing and building tension, and Kubrick acomplishes something truly amazing in this film, he turns a building, a hotel into a living breathing character, without visual effect (cgi), he's a master in the art of using the camera to create mood, without impeding any of the performances with a heavy handed approach to shots.

This is going to be a good film for you to watch as a genre fan. Because it's going to help you define what type of Horror fan you are (or maybe you know already). You see, there are some who feel gore is paramount to any good Horror film, and while I myself do enjoy gore, it's not everything. And I liken that mindset to being a poor mans George Lucas, having eyes, but not being able to see past the visual. Imo it is stagnating to the genre to feel there isn't enough room for different forms and tones of Horror. It plays right into the hands of the Genre's most adamant critics that see Horror as nothing more then exploitation, which I also enjoy, but don't require all the time. An analogy would be "even if you like Pizza, who wants to eat it everyday." What I'm ultimately trying to say is splatterpunk self-hating degrades the genre as a whole. It lowers it to the point of the adolescent porn mindset of the required "money shot". Once you've watch The Shining you'll have a better grasp of what you like and dislike in a horror film. If you can get into atmosphere then you can explore the different facets of this vast genre, if you don't then you can focus on the aspects you do find entertaining. I only ask that you treat the genre and yourself with maturity and respect. I'd also like to apologize if it sounds like I've made assumption about you, believe me when I say I haven't. In truth, this really isn’t something directed at any one person as it is at fellow genre fans in general.

If you like The Shining (or even if you don’t) and haven’t seen Suspiria check it out, it is another imo must see Horror film that I feel helps fans gauge their likes and dislikes within the genre. It isn’t as atmospheric, but is surrealistic at times and fuses a form of beauty to its most violent sequences.

Alright I'll end my soapbox tangent here, :D enjoy.

[carnage4u]

I find the book to be one of stephen kings best.. Many times that book made me just stop reading and set it down cause i was freaked out.

the TV version captures some good moments and i think the film version also does it.


are you watching the movie version or tv version?

I love the Hedges in the tv version. done very well.. they scarred me in the book

of course in the movie version the blood going down the hallway is hella creepy


I dont think movies are really scarry anymore,, or were ever. But you can get a nice vibe off of one, or at least good atmosphere, which is what i look foward too.

[SQueek]

hey i just woke up its

FRIDAY


hehe, anyways this is one of the greatest movies ever, the TV version was good, very close to the book, but for just a movie, Kubrick rules.

[Hugh]

The Kubrick movie is a masterful exercise in suspense and haunting imagery. The sounds and sights of the movie are unsurpassed in terms of horror movie iconography. It's more of a slow boil than a series of pop-up scares. But certain aspects of it are really haunting. I never get sick of it. Great flick. Kubrick was the master.

The TV version wasn't bad and, yeah, it was a totally faithful adaptation. They really don't resemble each other at all, and that's a good thing.

[SnoBorderZero]

I'm going to be watching Kubrick's version and I can't wait becuase IMO slasher aren't scary and they never will be, it's the psychological films that always get inside yur head, which makes u start thinking, which makes u scared.

[CoanBread751]

IMO scariest movie ever made................and not in a jumpy way.

[Movie mogul]

I didn't find it scary at all. Kubrik's version is better than the television version.

[SnoBorderZero]

I just watched the movie. I liked it. It wasn't scary at all, though the music gave it an eerie feel. But I don't understand the movie!! At the end, they show a pic of Jack when he's a part of the 1921 gold club. 1921!! Was he a ghost? I was thinking that, but if that was the case, then how is he married, how does he have a son?? And the people at the hotel were murdered. Was Jack really the caretaker, was HE really the guy who slaughtered his family, and if so, did he kill the ppl in the hotel as well??? And who was Tony?? I kno he was an imaginary friend, but for a moment he took over Danny. Tony told him things, showed him things, yet it didn't make sense. Kubrick didn't tell us everything, but I kind of wish somehow it was clearer as to what was going on. And the wife began seeing images as well, was she really a ghost too?? Like I said, it wasn't scary IMO but I am very confused rite now and if someone could clear things up for me it'd be greatly appreciated.:confused: :confused: :confused:

[SQueek]

I think its better if you see the TV version, or read the book and then watch Kubricks you will have a much better understanding of it.

I dont think Jack was a ghost, but he because part of the mansions victums with all the other ghost or whatever. so thats why he was in that picture at the end. Tony is the older Danny, talking to himself in the past. Ya know what I'm not even going to attempt to make sense of any of this, but i love this movie.

[Inferno]

Originally posted by SnoBorderZero
I just watched the movie. I liked it. It wasn't scary at all, though the music gave it an eerie feel. But I don't understand the movie!! At the end, they show a pic of Jack when he's a part of the 1921 gold club. 1921!! Was he a ghost? I was thinking that, but if that was the case, then how is he married, how does he have a son?? And the people at the hotel were murdered. Was Jack really the caretaker, was HE really the guy who slaughtered his family, and if so, did he kill the ppl in the hotel as well??? And who was Tony?? I kno he was an imaginary friend, but for a moment he took over Danny. Tony told him things, showed him things, yet it didn't make sense. Kubrick didn't tell us everything, but I kind of wish somehow it was clearer as to what was going on. And the wife began seeing images as well, was she really a ghost too?? Like I said, it wasn't scary IMO but I am very confused rite now and if someone could clear things up for me it'd be greatly appreciated.:confused: :confused: :confused:


Haha, yep it is confusing. But that's exactly what Kubrick wanted it to be. If you could make sense of it, then it wouldn't nearly be as spooky! There are countless theories abound on the internet, some good some absolutely down right silly. I almost laughed myself to death reading about how some people thought every single piece of furniture was a metaphor for something.

I don't think reading the book would help, as Kubrick never really intended to make the movie version of Kings book. He just wanted to make a scary movie, and Kings book was merely the starting point.

Personally, I take the view that as Jack becomes more and more insane he almost becomes one with the house. Hence "you have always been the caretaker". Maybe that's saying that there has always been something inside Jack, something evil - which showed up years before when he hit Danny.

[SnoBorderZero]

So Tony was the older Danny? Interesting...See I like movies where they don't feed you evrything, but this one didn't feed ya nuthin which made it confusing!! It would make sense that Jack is crazy, but then how is he in the 1921 pic?? If he is a ghost and has been the caretaker all these years and he really slaughtered everyone, then how is he there now with a wife and kid?? Kubrick needs to tell us this and unfortunately he doesn't even in the DVD features. And the wife begins to see thigns at the end as well, it just doesn't make sense!! I can't decidde if i liked the movie or not unless I understand these things, cuz rite now I don't like it cuz of all these things. Plus the fact that it just wasn't scary ;)

[Inferno]

Is this your first Kubrick film? Sometimes it can take a few viewings to appreciate his work. And if you like everything to be tied up neatly in your films, well, Kubrick just might not be for you. But that's what his films are like - you love 'em or you hate 'em.

[Tenafly Viper]

The photo at the end of The Shining probably represents Jack being absorbed into the Overlook. Jack wasn't a ghost as much as he was a conduit for the evil that existed in the Hotel. Grady killed his family, Jack tried to kill his, and yet Grady told Jack in the lavatory that he'd always been the caretaker. One explanation would be that once Jack surrendered himself to the Overlook in the bar, obviously symbolic "God, I'd give anything for a drink. I'd give my god-damned soul for just a glass of beer", the sinister (devil like) barkeep Lloyd appears, Jack took the bourbon hesitated (symbolically) but ultimately gave in, he then became the living embodiment of the Hotel's timeless evil. Hell is timeless and the Overlook's version of Hell is no different, Jack became one small part of a much bigger whole of the Overlook. Speculation on the meaning can go on and on it's one of the films endearing qualities, and makes this film continually fresh through multiple viewings.

When the film was initially released it ended with a scene that was later removed by Kubrick. It showed Wendy recovering in a hospital bed, a state trooper informs her that her husband Jack's body was never found.

[Inferno]

Interesting alternate ending. But I guess that makes it seem like he's still alive.

[Tenafly Viper]

Yeah that's what I was thinking also, and I'm guessing Kubrick didn't want to end the film in such a cliché manner. Interestingly enough even though the film was released to theatres with this ending for a very short time, rumor or Hollywood legend says there is no surviving copies of this scene still in existence. Allegedly Kubrick meticulously destroyed them all.

Anyway, cool film and it's good to see it being talked about around here.......Cheers

[Instinct]

The Shining is fantastic. One of the greatest horror films ever made. Jack Nicholson OWNS this movie like Vincent D' Onofrio owned Full Metal Jacket.

Kubrick is without a doubt one of the all time great motion picture directors.

[Inferno]

Originally posted by Tenafly Viper
Yeah that's what I was thinking also, and I'm guessing Kubrick didn't want to end the film in such a cliché manner. Interestingly enough even though the film was released to theatres with this ending for a very short time, rumor or Hollywood legend says there is no surviving copies of this scene still in existence. Allegedly Kubrick meticulously destroyed them all.

Anyway, cool film and it's good to see it being talked about around here.......Cheers

Probably similar to how when 2001 was intially released it had an extra pod scene which Kubrick eventually cut out. Would love this to be on the DVD, but he probably destroyed it too. :(

[SnoBorderZero]

This was my 1st Kubrick film, and he does this to all his movies with these starnge endings, then i prbly wont like him. What is 2001 about?? I heard it was great.

[Inferno]

If you don't like strange endings, you're just gonna lllloovvvveeeee 2001. ;)

[SnoBorderZero]

It's not that i dont really dislike strange endings, i just dislike endings where the message isn't clear and the director leaves us with too much to figure out, and in this case, sometimes not really even making sense. I think I'll check out 2001 tho.

[Inferno]

Originally posted by SnoBorderZero
It's not that i dont really dislike strange endings, i just dislike endings where the message isn't clear and the director leaves us with too much to figure out, and in this case, sometimes not really even making sense. I think I'll check out 2001 tho.

This should be interesting. Post your thoughts here after you've seen it.

[Tenafly Viper]

Once you're done with "2001" watch "A Clockwork Orange", straight forward story in that film, probably the hardest thing to understand would be the Droog's nadsat slang. one other thing try not too get caught up on the visual feel, the 60s mod does date the film, but if you can get past that I think you'll enjoy it.

[Tenafly Viper]

Originally posted by Inferno
Probably similar to how when 2001 was intially released it had an extra pod scene which Kubrick eventually cut out. Would love this to be on the DVD, but he probably destroyed it too. :( I know, it's a double edged sword, his obsessive nature made him a great director, but that same characteristic drove him to eliminate what would've been some really cool DVD extras. :D