The Shining

This is quite nice. However, I don't feel like Jack has done his best here. Something missing from his highlights from The Witches of Eastwick or Wolf. On the other hand, King adaptations can be absolute hell. And this one got a great Simpsons parody, and it's got the name of the anointed one inscribed in the crest. (01/04/2013)

For Kubrick, this wasn’t about making a standard horror movie with causally plotted fantastical elements. On the contrary, he presents to viewers a devastating metaphor for a pathological toxic relationship resembling and shrouded in the classic forms of the genre. Of course this adaptation irritated Stephen King, since he had drawn the story in his novel (and in a number of others) from his own demons, or rather from his own essence. He unsurprisingly wanted Jack Torrance, as his alter ego, to gain the reader’s sympathy due to the fact that Jack suffers and struggles with those demons. In this case, such an “inner demons” comparison is fundamentally meaningful in its inherent buck-passing. And that is where King and Kubrick differ. Whereas the author has the protagonist struggle with the external forces of evil, Kubrick seemingly uses the supernatural elements as a metaphor for the personalities of the characters and the dynamics of their relationship. The motif of stifling chauvinism and a toxic yet outwardly orderly relationship in The Shining is also wonderfully incorporated into Kubrick’s characteristic image compositions. While the frequently heard mythology of the great directors requires highlighting filmmakers working with a widescreen format, Kubrick preferred the 1.66:1 format starting with A Clockwork Orange. On the one hand, he was led to that by his desire to protect his compositions from lateral cuts in video releases, but mainly the narrower screen in combination with the right lens enabled him to create aesthetically imposing symmetrical compositions centred in the middle of the screen. In The Shining, the perfectly framed images in combination with the precise production design and the tense acting of the central couple create their own unnaturalness and the omnipresence of an almost terrifyingly oppressive atmosphere, which brings out the inner tension from behind the tidy façade. Over the course of the narrative, the camerawork maintains an identical approach; only the characters’ façade gradually crumbles. Kubrick thus expresses that the rising madness is not coming from the outside, but rather that it has always been present on the inside. After all, the film’s most unsettling moments include one of the first scenes, when Wendy is speaking with the doctor and unconsciously reveals more about the dynamics of her relationship with Jack than she would have wanted. (22/09/2024)

Incredibly chilling. When you watch one of today’s would-be horrors, you can’t not be shocked at what’s happened. Fear doesn’t come from cheap surprises, but from the stifling atmosphere that pushes the hero over the brink of madness. Is it the filmmakers or the viewers who are to blame? The drive-bys on the tricycle and the visit to room no. 237 are terrifying in their very essence (loneliness, vulnerability) and not because a ghoul jumps out at you. Nicholson is great, a little weird right from the beginning, but still sufficiently natural. The wife in her simplicity is “normal" most of the time, but visually looks very strange, to say the least. Unlike in the book, Danny is demoted from the main role to child medium full of fear, but paradoxically it didn’t bother me much. It works perfectly in Kubrick’s hands. The blood in the elevator is super, the finale in the maze excellently executed. Maybe better than with the boiler. (10/05/2016)

Stanley Kubrick met with horror for the first and last time in 1980 to elevate the genre to slightly different dimensions, creating a valuable piece and one of his more digestible works. Jack Nicholson's devilish one-man show and the musical accompaniment composed of disharmonies and squeaky sounds heavily contributed to this, maintaining an unpleasant feeling of tension throughout. However, the result somewhat pales in comparison to Stephen King's brilliant source material, possibly due to inadequate psychological groundwork. (31/03/2006)

I may be strange, but I tried to read King's book three times, and I always put it down about 100 pages. I didn't like it. But the film immediately got to me through its suggestive atmosphere of creeping terror, in which Jack Nicholson's masterful performance plays a big part. He plays Jack Torrance like a harp, first quietly with all the dark undertones, and then suddenly he starts to yank on all the strings. Jack's transformation into a monster is gradual, and he's basically "making" this film. Kubrick admirably managed to create fear without darkness and cramped spaces. The fear of The Shining is an airy, light, spacious fear... And that's absolutely unique. The film also feels authentic because the evil seems to have no source – is it "from inside" Jack, or is it evil embodied in the genius loci? Is Jack's madness really just the work of his bruised psyche? The viewer is stuck in the same uncertainty as the main heroes of the film - it is difficult to determine the distribution of forces between reality and the supernatural. But everything only leads to one thing... REDRUM... did it also give you goose bumps? (30/01/2004)