Penny (10 out of 10 ) i loved it more than my mom!
phil (10 out of 10 ) amazing, a great film, alot becuase of the script.
Ashley (10 out of 10 ) This movie is so scary. RED RUM!
amanda (10 out of 10 ) This movie was just absolutely excellent. All I know is that I should stay out of room 237.
carl (2 out of 10 ) This is the worst movie I have ever seen!
anonymous (10 out of 10 ) An amazing horror film.
Steven (10 out of 10 ) Excellent script, excellent movie. And Carl, when everyone says it's a great film and you're the only one that says it's crap, that means you're wrong. So keep your opinion to yourself.
Elese (10 out of 10 ) OMG I am never checking in to room 237. RED RUM RED RUM!
iieuvy (10 out of 10 ) This was the movie that got me positively HOOKED on ALL THINGS HORROR!
lynndie (4 out of 10 ) It was an amazingly beautiful movie, but does not portray the characters or histories as the book by stephen king does, and it was a let down honestly. Without the book as a guideline though, it would be perfect. Jack's character was supposed to be sorry for his actions, always trying to work it out, always trying. The Overlook was supposed to explode near the end, because of the boiler over heating, and the hedge animals were not even in the movie and they were a VERY LARGE part of the book's theme, the end up blocking the family from leaving, and they attack Dick Halloraan on his way to the overlook in the snowcat. The boiler room/scrap-book was left out, which the overlook hotel centered around, without the scrap book jack did not fall under the Overlook's wrath almost. Jack also almost finished a screen play, and did not repeat one sentence over and over maddeningly for eighty pages of paper. They portrayed the child's "friend" in an irritating way that does not follow the books description at all. The book describes Tony as Danny's future conscience, and not his finger moving, he is a separate almost hallucination, and does not (in the book) really almost posses Danny and make it look like the Exorcist. The book aside, the movie was an amazing piece of work, the music was brilliant, the scenes with the ghosts and supernatural were superb and very nicely made. I am sorry for my criticism, it's just that not many people read the book and they are left out of SO many juicy tid bits and even WHOLE things that add so much life to the story theme, those people miss out on a beautiful piece of fiction.
Alan (10 out of 10 ) I haven't read the novel, but with regard to most of the aspects that Lynndie mentions as having been left out or changed, it seems like Kubrick made the right decisions. Rampaging hedge animals would simply have wound up looking corny, while blowing up the hotel would have ended the film on completely the wrong note. For me the movie's great strength is the way Kubrick keeps most of the overtly supernatural horror elements low key, deploying them sparingly. Instead he concentrates on imbuing the ostensibly mundane with a palpable air of menace. This is a film about three little people, rattling around inside a gigantic empty hotel, which is in turn dwarfed by the vast mountainous wilderness that surrounds it. It is an agoraphobic's nightmare, with psychological undertones of human isolation and insignificance. As the steadicam floats along endless corridors and cavernous hallways, the disjoint in scale between the building and its three troubled residents, especially the little boy Danny, is eerily conveyed. And the scene where Wendy discovers Jack's demented manuscript consisting of the endlessly repeated phrase "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", has to be one of the all time classic movie moments. In fact even if you stripped out all the supernatural elements, The Shining would still be an exceptionally unsettling film about one man's descent into madness. Not that I have any wish to tamper with such a terrific movie. It's damn near perfect as it is.
Earl (10 out of 10 ) I'm actually a kid in middle school and I was absolutely mesmerized by the movie. It's actually my favorite movie in the world so you all may or may not agree. The overlook hotel is just more than a home away from home for the torrence family. It's a place where past horrors come to life. And those gifted with the shining do battles with the dark evils. Stephen king's classic thriller is one of the most powerfully imagined novels of our time. As a matter of fact I first watched this movie when I was 4 years old. And I'm actually in the middle of reading the novel right now.
Marquise (10 out of 10 ) THIS is how you make a movie! This is amazing. Jack Nicholson is the greatest actor ever, and he definitely does not disappoint in his role as Jack Torrance. Sure, he's crazy from the get-go, but WHO CARES? He is Jack Nicholson for goodness sakes, he can be as crazy as he wants! Shelley Duvall is a little bit too whiny and a little bit too annoying, but I can overlook that. Stanley, god rest your soul, you made this movie better than Stephen King could EVER make the book. The greatest movie ever, quite possibly.
Emma (9 out of 10 ) This film was very scary- one of the scariest I have ever seen. And, although it doesn't completely follow the book, it isn't scary because of the gore or even the fact the hotel is accommodated by poltergeists. It is because of the psychology of the film. If you also consider Saw and the Silence of the Lambs, these films are very scary because you are being drawn into their world; you feel a part of what is going on. And living something is different to viewing it. That is the secret behind the success of a horror/thriller. It isn't about the amount of gore. It is about conflict.
Fleur Delacour's Man (10 out of 10 ) It was really good. I only saw it once and it was on TV (so a lot of the scenes were taken out) but it was really good. I am in the middle of reading the book now and it is just a tiny bit better than the movie, but overall, I'll give the movie a ten. Great job Jack!
Stephen Michael Ballif (10 out of 10 ) The Shining is an amazing film written by Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson. The film was very well written and is the best adaptation of a Stephen King novel I have seen. It is also one of the best horror films I have ever seen. The scenes were carefully placed and organized to sucessfully tell the story and engage the audience in this horrifying film.
The writers did a good job at being true to the story, but where also able to be very cinematic. They used very good expressionistic ways to flash thoughts and psychological anguish into the picture, giving the audience a glimpse inside the characters' minds. These "flash" scenes were well placed throughout the script to help the audience feel as the characters did.
Another strength of the screenplay was the dialogue. I have not read the novel, and so I'm not sure how much came out of it, but the dialogue was realistic and made the interactions between characters very real. Words and phrases were also carefully chosen to create the eerie mood. Stories shared amongst the characters of death and horror, such as of the Donner Party, were also important to the film itself.
The screenplay had a very nice story arc. The setting was good and the tension was steadily increased until the dramatic climax. The characters were well developed, and the changes in the story's situation were easily reflected in their personalities as they tried to adapt, some in more successful ways than others.
The Shining is a horrorific masterpiece. The story is driven in a very realistic and audience capturing way. The story was told in a way that was perfectly fit for the screen, as such a visual medium.
AMR HANIF (9 out of 10 ) Film making as we know it; when it's done correctly, a genuine art form of illusions. When attention to detail matters. The development of thrilling suspense and the shocking horror is delivered right on cue. This is an impressive production of story telling. One must never underestimate this art form. What seems to work in a book doesn't always work on screen.
Simplicity works in creating a legendary film. Where one would never seem to forget in such a hurry. Thanks Stanley Kubrick for telling your story!
Eduardo M (10 out of 10 ) I have been a Stephen King fan for many years. I have read The Shining multiple times. The movie, although it is a wonderful piece of work with amazing actors, does not follow the book as much as I want it to. But, at the same time, it is good that it does not always follow the book. As it was pointed out, giant hedge animals, with the special effects of the time, would have made the movie look corny and not very serious. And blowing up the hotel was out of the question with the tone they were setting, as well as the budget of the movie. The way the movie works, is to take the horror, suspense, and all of that, and fold it into the actions of the characters, and their reactions to the hotel itself. The hotel itself is trying to kill them, but it is doing so in a very passive-aggressive type of fashion, by slowly driving the father (Jack Torrence) to madness and then murder. Showing them images, and horrors, but not physically laying a hand on them. Thus making less of a slasher, gore-fest, and more of a psychological thriller. While the book was good, the movie was also good. Personally, I also enjoyed the remake of the Shining, which more closely followed the book, and even used a model of the hotel that the Overlook was originally based on, the Stanley Hotel, in which Stephen King spent several days in the late '70s.
natasha (4 out of 10 ) I agree with most of the comments listed on this site, the film was indeed a carefully planned masterful creation to portray horrors endured for a small family in a haunted hotel. However, when comparing the novel's quality to the film's, I must absolutely choose Stephen King over Stanley Kubrick's adaptation. The entire story was dramatically altered in the film, completely changing the dynamics, without the ingenious thought-processes King described so fully. The novel flipped back and forth between each character's perspective, allowing the reader to grasp a larger sense of the tension and turmoil racing through each of their minds, and the reader's ability to use characters' motives as a basis for FEELING the anguish of miscommunication. This was a great advantage in the novel; every chapter adds more and more variables, in a complex and intricate way of understanding exactly where each character stands, either outwardly to their family or keeping thoughts to themselves. This knowledge by the reader created even more horrific anticipation by being completely absorbed in each scene and setting, morphing a personal sense of heaviness and discomfort for the characters-- the dramatic effect of readers standing by without any power to intervene becomes delightfully tormenting in a way as the reader gains such depth from each chapter's progression, waiting to see what happens, knowing what's really going on in each of the character's heads, that it's almost painful to (watch) endure. But of course the need for conclusion and the desire to be satisfied guarantee the reader continuing. The power of the novel 100% engaging its readers is obviously a difficult, but aspired, aspect of film adaptations. The script used alternative tactics to create a congruent sense of unsettling anticipation such as that of the film by bouncing to the next scenes in choppy cuts. Unfortunately, the limitations for the film prevent the same personal-burdening of an engaged audience because the movie succeeded in keeping an audience moving with the characters and scenes, knowing just what they know- and in turn, being as clueless and vulnerable as the characters. Though a successful tactic for the film, it was a bit of a disappointment for watching the movie after reading the novel because this dual blindness experience contrasts with the aforementioned personal-anguish readers experience, watching Jack fight his drinking temptations and struggle with his conscience, guilty of the past mistakes with alcoholic consequences and events, guilty of the present reversion creeping over him, feeling out of control and helpless with the wasps counteracting logic, determined to make things right and have a job, ambitious to not let his family down, inspired to write his screenplay but refused the permission-- moreover, Jack is virtually tangled up in such conflicting emotions of circumstances seemingly out of his control- and the worst part is that he is aware of his lack of control, and it's his submission to the Hotel's power that dooms him. In the end of the novel, readers on the edge of their seats when Jack (possessed by the Hotel) is holding up his mallet over his son whom he finally caught up with and trapped; Jack's struggle is evident as Danny stands his ground to Jack and looks in his demented eyes, reaching to the father somewhere inside of the terribly mad, bloodthirsty, gruesome being embodying Jack. The novel reveals the wavering strength of will power striking through in this moment as Jack manages to tell Danny to run while Jack can still keep the mallet up in the air against the double force of the hotel possessing him. The novel successfully builds an incredible effect that just could not be felt by the film's screenplay of Jack appearing to have progressively become more irritant with his family, and finally gone mad in his urges for alcohol, the first bar scene was shown in the film as a great point in the Hotel's gain over Jack--- all without the audiences' emotional entanglements or true understanding of what Jack was going through on the inside. He was struggling with so many things because he really truly appreciates his family and despite his eery "hallucinations" he didn't want to leave his one source of payment by scaring his family out, and eventually he consciously sabotages all access to the outside (overtone of the Hotel's evil sinking in to him). But the film can't portray that side of Jack as a believable loving and caring father and husband. In fact, he doesn't appear very connected to his family in the beginning of the film at all, lessening the impact when he splits from being the man with a conscious to the psycho actually embodying the Hotel's evil. The film was masterful. The novel was impeccable. Separately, as a film, as a novel. Together, as the telling of a same story, I feel King's novel was not the tale in the movie. Similarities? Jack's background, and that Jack/Wendy/Danny go to take care of a hotel. There were a lot more differences than similarities! (The twins? Not a huge part of the book, not even twins in the book, so no creepy "lets play" theme). Comparing the quality of the film and the novel are two different ballparks- but this was an attempt of acknowledging the film's failure in successfully portraying the novel's same context and content.
A. Valens (10 out of 10 ) This is an extraordinary piece of cinematography, perfectly directed, perfectly performed, perfectly created. Of course it's not a translation of the novel to the screen, Kubrick added (or changed) enough things to make it a personal work. I read that King was very excited when they informed him about the movie, but when he saw it, he disliked it because of all the changes on the storyline. This shows that each creator had his own vision of it, but in both cases they're great pieces of work.
Christie (7 out of 10 ) Holy Christ! Long- winded commentary or what! Nobody reads 300 word paragraphs- OK?
TristanTre (10 out of 10 ) Kubrick made it very clear that he was making this his own story and not simply portraying Stephen King's version. They had a very famous feud over this very topic and how Kubrick was adamant about sticking to his ideas and not simply placating King's. The film opens with a yellow Volkswagen traveling through the mountains. In the book it is very obviously red. Why would Kubrick change this? Kubrick added the scene where Dick Hallorann is traveling to the hotel and sees an overturned semi with a red Volkswagen underneath it as sort of a middle-finger to King, knowing King would notice and pick up on the reference. This is now Kubrick's story, not King's. He will change whatever he wants to change because he wants to tell the story he wants to tell. Using the setting of The Shining to tell the real story he desired to portray. All the changes in the film from the book are intentional. Stanley Kubrick is famous for being overly meticulous when it comes to detail. He knew exactly what he was doing. The most notable difference probably being the absence of the hedge-animals and the inclusions of a hedge maze instead. Anyone notice the constant Minotaur references and gestures from Jack Nicholson and Minotaur posters littering the hotel? Ever heard of the Minotaur in the maze in Greek mythology? This is Stanley Kubrick we're talking about. These changes aren't by mistake. Open your eyes and think about what these different changes could mean. There is more to most films than meets the eye and you can usually gain much more from them when actually paying attention to the themes and metaphors. Also, why change the room number to 237.?
George Fitz (10 out of 10 ) I don't know why people are trying to compare it to the book. The movie has nothing to do with the book. This is usually true, but especially in this film because Kubrick is saying completely different things than King. King is telling a story, close to his heart, about dealing with addiction. Kubrick is talking about abuse, and beyond that is speaking to a totally different level of consciousness than King. Kubrick did not care about the book. Kubrick was making a piece of art that used the core basis of the book to explore a different side of humanity than King's introspective apology. Regardless, this is not a review of how a film compares to a book it has almost nothing to do with, it is a review of a screenplay.