I'm new.

[sibyl vane.]

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

Always safe to hide behind the classics I suppose.

What would you say The Shining lacks to keep it from being perfect...

Shelley Duvall's performance was boring. She is constantly helpless and shrieking and two-dimensional, and therefore evokes no sympathy. Jack Nicholson's performance was decent, but at times predictable, and his flailing and axe-wielding went on for far too long, creating an anti-climax. The movie is not without its moments -- I enjoyed the "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" scene and some of the visuals -- but it is far from perfect.

[Angelic Dissonance]

I don't know why, but when I talk about Hellraiser alot of people say it sucked. I thought it was awesome. That may be due to watching every movie in the series during a late-night marathon, all sleep-deprived and sneaking into my living room to watch TV when I was supposed to be in bed. *Childhood Horror* Nothing better.

[JethroAranas]

For me, the only thing that sucked about Hellraiser was the light effects. I mean those lights that are supposed to be some kind of powers or something; it's so not real.

Hellraiser was one of the movies that made me cry when I was a kid. Right now, I still find it creepy. Especially Pinhead

[blindNsect]

Let's hear more ab yer diddy piddlin' yer diddler.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by JethroAranas

Nice. I'm just curious if how do you know all these stuffs? (Just asking)

I've just done a lot of reading, viewing and living.

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

The King novel isn't anything really that special to me. I don't judge the film based on my feelings for the book. Especially since my feelings and opinions of the book are lukewarm at best. It's a great film. It's an ok book. Judging a piece of art in one media based on what it's derived from in another media type is foolish.

Not at all. It's a perfectly valid form of analysis. In fact, I submit that Kubric discarded so much of what King put on the page that it should not have been named "The Shining". Allow me to quote this review from Variety:

With everything to work with, director Stanley Kubrick has teamed with jumpy Jack Nicholson to destroy all that was so terrifying about Stephen King's bestseller.

In his book, King took a fundamental horror formula - an innocent family marooned in an evil dwelling with a grim history - and built layers of ingenious terror upon it. The father is gradually possessed by the demonic, desolate hotel.

With dad going mad, the only protection mother and child have is the boy's clairvoyance - his 'shining' - which allows him an innocent understanding and some ability to outmaneuver the devils. But Kubrick sees things his own way, throwing 90% of King's creation out.

The crazier Nicholson gets, the more idiotic he looks. Shelley Duvall transforms the warm sympathetic wife of the book into a simpering, semi-retarded hysteric.

There's no point in adapting a piece of literature and then using only 10% of the story. You didn't like the book and I did, so that's a large contributor to our difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

I don't think I agree with any of this other than the Duval observation. She's supposed to be frail. That's the movie's character. It makes Jack that much more of a monster. Jack's descent into madness is what some people refer to as "boring." It's not though as they aren't intellegent enough to grasp the concept of overall atmosphere or true pacing.

The movie's (Duval's) character is not frail in the book, so if Kubric wanted to use completely different characters, he should have just written an original screenplay and not lifted Kings title to paste over his schlock. And as far as Jack's descent int madness in the movie is concerned, it's not a descent ... it's a screaming plunge. No building of suspense. No pacing at all.

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

It's not a pissing contest. These films being totally awesome doesn't detract from the perfection of The Shining.

Wrong. You either misunderstood me or are trying to change the meaning of what I said. What I said was that "The Shining" is far from the perfect horror film, and that it is my opinion that each of the films I listed there were superior ... vastly superior. Not even in the same class. They are as you put it, "totally awesome"; I would never describe "The Shining" as being so.

You're entitled to you opinion. But others can, do and will disagree with you.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by sibyl vane.

Shelley Duvall's performance was boring. She is constantly helpless and shrieking and two-dimensional, and therefore evokes no sympathy. Jack Nicholson's performance was decent, but at times predictable, and his flailing and axe-wielding went on for far too long, creating an anti-climax. The movie is not without its moments -- I enjoyed the "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" scene and some of the visuals -- but it is far from perfect.

So a stronger Shelley Duvall would have enhanced the film? Nah. The tough broad roles always stinks the place up. Because it never happens IRL.

Predictable? I don't know about that either. It's too odd of story to really have anything to bet on. Well, maybe the maze death I suppose.

[Ophelia's Snorkel]

The mini-series version of The Shining wasn't beautifully conceived and crafted like Kubrick's, but at least it showed a decent man becoming consumed by evil to the point of madness. Jack Nicholson looks mad and slightly evil even in his most innocent roles. Plus, the mini-series got the bathroom scene right - I love that scene in the book and wish that Kubrick had not changed it so much.

Also - Jethro, I would have Pinhead's nail-headed babies. Okay, by Cesarean, but still...

[sibyl vane.]

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

So a stronger Shelley Duvall would have enhanced the film? Nah. The tough broad roles always stinks the place up. Because it never happens IRL.

Predictable? I don't know about that either. It's too odd of story to really have anything to bet on. Well, maybe the maze death I suppose.

I'm not saying she should be strong. I'm saying her character should have more depth, because she's boring.

And yes, I think he was predictable. He just parades around being Jack Nicholson, which, sure, is effective -- mostly. You can keep arguing, darling, but I'm not ever going to believe this movie is perfect.

Wish I didn't have to repeat myself.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Blah

As the book is the obvious inspiration for the film, I'd say the film name is just fine. The bare bones are still there and very obvious. The details left out are expendable. I think the topiary terror and furry play aren't all that needed. The idea that only 10% of the story is all that is used is nonsense. Vanity Fair can talk shit all they'd like. They're right about Wendy. But that's the films Wendy. It's what you get and it's a million times better than the straight off the page remake. Jack's supposed screaming plunge into madness occurs about an how and a half into things... I don't know how your timetables work but with the film clocking in at slightly over 2 hours, I'd say the trip to Madnessville is a tad less speedy that you seem to think it is. The adaptation is typical of Kubrick's work. And I'm ok with it.

Sad truth is that if you don't seem to find The Shining to be perfect, you won't because of me or anything else. Ever. And that's ok too.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by sibyl vane.

I'm not saying she should be strong. I'm saying her character should have more depth, because she's boring.

Whaa.

Originally Posted by sibyl vane.

And yes, I think he was predictable. He just parades around being Jack Nicholson, which, sure, is effective -- mostly. You can keep arguing, darling, but I'm not ever going to believe this movie is perfect.

Now he seems like Jack being Jack but it's because of this film that you think that way. The face in the door scene is one of the most recognizable in pop culture. It wasn't always that way.

Originally Posted by sibyl vane.

Wish I didn't have to repeat myself.

So don't. Ever.

[Man In Room 5]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

When I heard Kubrick was going to make The Shining, I was so excited with anticipation.

If I may ask Ben, just how old are you because this line kinda dates you.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

As the book is the obvious inspiration for the film, I'd say the film name is just fine. The bare bones are still there and very obvious.

I disagree completely.

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

The details left out are expendable. I think the topiary terror and furry play aren't all that needed. The idea that only 10% of the story is all that is used is nonsense. Vanity Fair can talk shit all they'd like.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between Vanity Fair and Variety (and perhaps even what their respective raison d'être is) hurts the credibility of your opinion immensely.

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

They're right about Wendy. But that's the films Wendy. It's what you get and it's a million times better than the straight off the page remake. Jack's supposed screaming plunge into madness occurs about an how and a half into things... I don't know how your timetables work but with the film clocking in at slightly over 2 hours, I'd say the trip to Madnessville is a tad less speedy that you seem to think it is. The adaptation is typical of Kubrick's work. And I'm ok with it.

From wikipedia: The novel presents us with a Jack who is initially well-intentioned but is struggling with alcohol and has issues with resentment of authority. In spite of good intentions, he becomes gradually overwhelmed by the evil forces in the hotel, though near the end of the book he has a moment of recovered benevolence, helping Wendy and Danny escape during a moment of recovered sanity.

The film’s Jack is established as a bit sinister (and irritated with his family) much earlier in the story and his final redemption never occurs. Furthermore, Jack actually kills Dick Hallorann in the film, but kills no one in the novel.

Tony Magistrale writes: Kubrick's version of (Jack) Torrance is much closer to the tyrannical Hal (from Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey) and Alex (from Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange) than he is to King's more conflicted, more sympathetically human characterization.

Even though I am a fan of most of Kubric's work and looked forward to him producing this movie, it was only with hindsight that I could see that his particular kind of disaffected pessimism did not work for this story. The type of emotionally repressed, alienated humans that successfully populate his other films kept me from caring about the characters in this one. King called Kubrick "a man who thinks too much and feels too little." It is my belief that people who find this to be a great film are fans of imagery over substance.

Also, this (from wikipedia again) is what made the novel so very memorable for me: In the novel, Danny is much more bonded to his father than in the film, which is in keeping with the novel's conclusion in which Danny virtually saves the soul of his father.

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

Sad truth is that if you don't seem to find The Shining to be perfect, you won't because of me or anything else. Ever. And that's ok too.

I still believe the other films I listed are much closer to perfect than The Shining. However, our conversation has convinced me I should take another look at the film. I will screen it again in the near future.

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

If I may ask Ben, just how old are you because this line kinda dates you.

I've talked about my age before. Let's just say I was born after Stephen King was born but before he was first published.

[opie]

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

Name a better horror film.

The Omen, The Excorcist, The Ring.........

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by opie

The Omen, The Excorcist, The Ring.........

Well the first two could be argued. The Ring? Come on.

[blindNsect]

Originally Posted by opie

The Omen, The Excorcist, The Ring.........

Can't wait to hear Bleed's assessment of this shit list.

[blindNsect]

Argh I was too late to post.

So let's hear more about yer diddy n yer diddler.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I disagree completely.

I couldn't tell.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

The fact that you can't tell the difference between Vanity Fair and Variety (and perhaps even what their respective raison d'être is) hurts the credibility of your opinion immensely.

Only to you. I guess the joke didn't come across as well as I'd hoped. Shit.




I read the Wiki stuff too. Don't mean much.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by blindNsect

Argh I was too late to post.

So let's hear more about yer diddy n yer diddler.

I made it up to seem more goth. Fuck.

Slow motherfucker.

[opie]

Originally Posted by Bleed Eternal

Well the first two could be argued. The Ring? Come on.

What. Its kind a creepy!

[blindNsect]

Oh yer Goth don't worry.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by opie

What. Its kind a creepy!

VHS is just too dated to be that spooky. Blu-Ray would be a great asset to the remake.

[CarrionCorpse]

I like The Shining...

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by CarrionCorpse

I like The Shining...

I also like The Shining.

[blindNsect]

BT WAI IT SUKZ?!1?

You said fan of Deathrock......name like 8 good deathrock bands.

[Bleed Eternal]

Originally Posted by blindNsect

BT WAI IT SUKZ?!1?

You said fan of Deathrock......name like 8 good deathrock bands.

I made it up to seem more goth. Fuck.