@LastLion said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@LastLion said:

Imo Nicholson has always been over rated. His over inflated ego has bled into his perfomances. Easy rider being an early example.

Have you seen The Crossing Guard?

I have. Nicholson is a one trick pony. SAME CHARACTER. EVERY. SINGLE. MOVIE.

No offense but that is complete nonsense

@NorthernLad said:

Watching this right now...and I have to amend my previous post here, I think that's exactly how the director wanted Jack to be...already troubled by his demon (s)...mainly the alcoholism. He already had a few screws loose. I also think the director didn't really want to show any warmth between Jack and Wendy, that is to say there relationship was already on the rocks long before they ever entered the Overlook Hotel. This explains why there is so little romantic chemistry between the two of them.

Most definitely. Remember when he recalls the story of accidentally breaking Danny's arm? You have to have some issues to "accidentally" break a kid's arm. Sheesh.

@Phasmophobia said:

The biggest issue I have with The Shining is how Nicholson plays it crazy from the start. The movie is 2 and a half hours long, so there was more than enough time to develop his character properly and show him start out as a good guy and slowly descend into madness. But to me, Jack seemed kind of unhinged before they even got to the hotel.

He also hams it up quite a bit in some scenes and comes off as comical.

That is part of the reason why I prefer the miniseries over the movie: Steven Weber’s performance of Jack showed us a man who seemed to be in control of things who slowly starts to go over the cliff that is his life. Nicholson’s Jack is already at about 8 on the insane meter, not much difference when he hits 10.

One thing about Kubrick that took me a while to realize (after half a dozen movies) is that he's not a fan of the traditional character arc. He seems to enjoy establishing character types in the beginning , and rather than showing them change or evolve he shows how their fixed personalities lead to conflicts.

The most obvious example might be 2001: A Space Odyssey where Bowman and Poole (and even Floyd & the Russians) are totally robotic. Whether they're repressed or just devoid of humanity we don't know because we never get any deeper insights into what makes them tick. This strategy confused a lot of critics at the time (Roger Ebert criticized that it "failed on a human level" only to go back and revise his review to give it the highest marks after he realized what Kubrick was doing).

Same with Clockwork Orange and certainly Dr Strangelove, nobody evolves because they're basically caricatures of human archetypes.

Does knowing this make The Shining more entertaining? Probably not. I also get kinda tired of Jack Nicholson's over the top insanity for 2.5 hours, but I guess it makes sense knowing Kubrick's strategy of storytelling.

The book is not cannon to this film, Larsen.

Faithful adaption to the book is not necessary.

I haven’t read the book so I don’t know what from it is in the movie vs. the miniseries. All I know is that I liked the miniseries more than the movie.

@Tresix said:

I haven’t read the book so I don’t know what from it is in the movie vs. the miniseries. All I know is that I liked the miniseries more than the movie.

King himself did not like Kubric's movie adaptation — he made the miniseries to get back to his book, so he'd agree with you!

Maybe I’ll get around to reading the book.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Tresix said:

I haven’t read the book so I don’t know what from it is in the movie vs. the miniseries. All I know is that I liked the miniseries more than the movie.

King himself did not like Kubric's movie adaptation — he made the miniseries to get back to his book, so he'd agree with you!

Google is stalking me again because it gave me this youtube suggestion this morning:

Stephen King's honest opinion about The Shining

Stephen King is one of the wittiest and most well spoken guests I've ever seen on Letterman. Kudos to Dave for backing off and letting him speak uninterrupted. At 4:52 Dave asks what he thought about Jack Nicholson and he answers "I thought he did a wonderful job, I enjoyed it very much." Then when asked how he felt about the movie itself he gives a complimentary but loaded answer: "There are an awful lot of things about that movie that I think are flawless and beautiful ... and there are other times when I feel as though I'd given Stanley Kubrick a live grenade and he heroically threw his body on it." 😄

After all. King's book 'The Shining'is two things.

1. Not canon to this film.
2. Mere pulp is the book.

The book had all the trappings of being adapted to an ABC Tuesday Movie of the Week. ( Remember that anyone.)

Only under Kubrick's incredible direction was this made into something far, far greater!

@Benton12 said:

The book had all the trappings of being adapted to an ABC Tuesday Movie of the Week. ( Remember that anyone.)

Only under Kubrick's incredible direction was this made into something far, far greater!

Well, didn’t part one of the miniseries air on a Tuesday? I think Mick Garris did a better job than Kubrick.

To be honest, there were moments in “The Simpsons” parody that I thought were scarier than Kubrick’s movie.

No, Tresix that is not Tuesday Movie of the Week you described. And that two-bit filmmaker was no equal to an esteemed master director like Kubrick.