Rating: 
Summary: The worst film from a great director
Review: There can be no question that this is the worst film ever made by Kubrick, precisely because he utterly failed to tell a story in this. The author of the original novel on which this movie is based hated the movie, too. It stars Jack Nicholson playing (surprise surprise) a sociopath. Doesn't this guy know how to play any other type of character? He is one of the worst overpaid actors ever. C'mon, Jack, try playing some other type. The rest of the cast are mostly only as talented as Mr. Nicholson. This is not a compliment to them. The direction is, as I've said, some of the worst that Kubrick has ever done. The movie is filled with a bunch of seemingly random, supposedly frightening incidents, with nothing to make sense of the proceedings. This has the feeling of a very low-budget production that cost more than it should to make. It probably would have been much better had the studio decided to actors instead of celebrities for the parts, and if money had been spent to turn Stephen King's novel into a screenplay, rather than just a bunch of random incidents that were supposed to frighten the audience. So please remember Kubrick for films such as "Dr. Strangelove" or "A Clockwork Orange", and not for the rare pieces of stuff... he produced. I would advise against buying this. It is not worth the money, no matter how much you pay.
Rating: 
Summary: A must see classic!!!
Review: Jack and stanley at their best...Will scare the heck out of you. Based on a Steven King novel, Jack takes a job at the overlook hotel for the winter as a handyman so he would have time to finish his book. After a while his mind starts going wild on him in an evil way. Cabin fever sets in and his imaginary friends tell him the proper ways to discipline his family... With the fine acting of Jack Nicholson and the feel of a Stanley Kubrick film, this movie will have an everlasting impact on your psyche.
Rating: 
Summary: The old shining vs the newshining from 1997
Review: Both movies are incredible i never read the book but i loved both movies.Lets begin with the 1997 version the woman in the bathroom scene was scary and no site for the human eyes.The animal hedges were very scary and very diffrent from the maze there were no little twins but i think the ghosts in this movie were a lot scarier then the older version.The dog head, grady the bar tender instead of playing a butler in the old version was a lot more forceful in this version.i liked the fact in the 1997 version tony was a actual spirit instead of a finger and the ending was veryyyy diffrent in this one in honesty i liked this ending better it made me shed a tear.The final thing i got to say is this one was 4 hours and 3 cds too long for me even though its a great movie and very detailed.Now on to jack nickolsans 1980 version.Where to begin but what a great actor this guy is he not only made me freak out but laugh at the same time.The maze was not as good as the animal hedges but it had its parts.The woman in the bathroom was more grotest then scary but still effective.When danny started screaming redrum i believed he was actually posessed by spirits.The best part of this movie is there were curses vulgar language and things the other movie couldnt have due to being made for television.The 1997 version is 4 hours this one is 2 and keeps all the important stuff.Nickolsan is the real jack the parts where it says all work and no play make jack a dull boy and wendy im not gonna hurt you im gonna bash your brains in and heres johny is what made the movie and the 1980 versions wins in my eyes
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick's anti-horror film
Review: Kubrick's The Shining is an inversion of King's story; King's novel is about a man driven to madness in a hotel every bit alive and as evil as the worst murderer. Kubrick's film, on the other hand, is about a man already standing at the abyss of madness who channels the energy of the hotel and fashions it to fit his madness. All that really remains are the bare bones of King's story. It's understandable that King was displeased with Kubrick's film as it isn't his novel at all. Kubrick wasn't interested in the how's or why's of what happened but the process of madness and how it envelopes all those around it. In many respects, the obsession that pulls Jack Torrence into his ocean of madness, is not too dissimilar to the cinematic obsession that drove Kubrick himself. You could argue that this is as much about the destructive powers of the dry, conformist society we live in and the madness that seeps out of the artist forced to live in that society. Or some pretentious claptrap like that. The plot (thread bare as it is) concerns Jack Torrence and his family hotel siting the old, majestic Overlook Hotel. During winter the hotel isn't accessible because of its narrow winding roads and seclusion. Jack has recently given up teaching to work on his novel. He brings his wife and son along to this beautiful place. Unfortunately, the Overlook has a history of madness and murder. Jack's son, like his father, has the ability to "shine", i.e., read other people's thoughts, touch on the spiritual world. Jack is a recovering alcoholic. When he's had a bit to drink he becomes dangerous and nasty. The Overlook's "Ghosts" provide Jack with drink. It's an imaginery drink representing his descent into insanity. Timmy, his son, is still innocent enough not to be seduced by the Overlook. The hotel wants him, though, because he has a stronger ability to "shine" than his father. The hotel literally moves in for the kill by pushing Jack into madness. He chases his family around the hotel in an attempt to kill them and make them join the Overlook as permanent residents. There's more to the plot than there seems. Kubrick and co-screenwriter Diane Johnson change much of King's novel focusing on Jack's infectious insanity. Is the Overlook driving him to madness or is the energy there driving his madness--making it seem acceptable. We never really know. The bizarre ending (a departure from both King's novel and the television adaption)opens a Pandora's Box of questions that are never answered. If you want fidelity to King's novel stick to the television adaption (which is also quite good). Both films provide fascinating bookends to a shared theme.
Rating:
Summary: An Effective But Not-So-Scary Allegory of Writer's Block
Review: Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) has writer's block. Needing, like all writers, some isolated time away from society to work on his assignment, he decides to become the winter overtaker of the Overlook Hotel, which sits on a lonely monutaintop in Colorado. During snowstorms, the lone road there is impassable, so Jack and his wife (Shelley Duvall) and son (Danny Lloyd) will be completely alone for a whole five months. But instead of finding the Muse at the hotel, Jack discovers other things that might not be so pleasant, or hopeful. His son is seeing strange, bloody visions of the previous family that had stayed here. What's behind room 237? And why is a once loving father carrying that axe? Stanley Kubrick's film is reported to be very different from the novel by Stephen King, but since I haven't read the King book, I can't really compare. Whatever he did, however, the film is an effective and suspenseful piece of existential horror. The claustrophobic tracking shots down the hallways are very eerie the first time you see them, as are the visions that Danny (the son) sees, especially of the two little girls. However, if you're a horror film buff, you might find that this film isn't all that scary--it's often too slow-paced and deliberate (in Kubrickian fashion) to be too scary, and by modern standards the body count is very, very low. (The death scenes aren't as frightening as some of the title cards like "TUESDAY" to me!) The film "shines" mostly in Jack Nicholson's frenzied and passionate acting and in Kubrick's cinematography of the hotel; though many of the scenes and lines are familiar to movie buffs, it's still amazing to see his growing insanity on screen. Ultimately, this film is an exaggeration of the frustration of being a blocked writer. Those of us who write probably all at least thought the same words that Jack recites here, in one of the memorable lines of hte film: ... Most of us, however, manage to refrain from wielding axes afterwards. :)
Rating:
Summary: Great acting and filmmaking
Review: This is a truly scary movie. The acting by Nicholson is some of the best. Watch the special feature on the making of movie and it shows how cool Nicholson is and what a little sissy Shelly Duvall really is. The movie however is definitely a bit different from the book. The names and basic idea and major parts are the same. However in the book the ending is alot different in many ways. Everything from what happens to the characters to what happens to the house. What happens between the good looking chic in the bathtub and Jack, or what doesn't happen, is even different. What a hottie that woman is! :) Still the movie was great and Kubrick's scenes at time are just plain freaky. The 2 girls always were weird to me. This movie is worth the {money}.
Rating:
Summary: A creepy horror flick with great Nicholson
Review: While it's definitely not Stanley Kubrick's best film, "The Shining" is a definitely good movie. However, it's not quite up there with the likes of "The Exorcist" or "Evil Dead." The story, based on Stephen King's novel (though King hates the movie), is about the Torrance family moving to the Overlook Hotel to tend to it during the winter. The father Jack slowly begins to lose his mind and is soon chasing after his wife and son, which eventually goes outside into one of the scariest, most haunting chase scenes ever. The movie gets a little boring at times, with shots going a little longer than needed, but the story is very thick and we care for the characters. Jack Nicholson steals the show, however, in a role that will almost have you rooting for him, the villain! While it doesn't really mess with your mind, it still delivers the goods and is occasionally very, very scary.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: This movie was great it kept me watching until it was over all the people who say it [was bad] probablly just didnt get it or had very bad judgement when it comes to movies! Well i loved this movie when he chopped his way through the door and said heres johnny the freaked me ouot and when he was locked in the celler and was like go check it out that sounded really funny the way he said it, i like died of laughter!
Rating: 
Summary: typically over-rated Kubrick fare
Review: Stephen King's excellent horror novel was essentially a character study of a family coming apart through the weakness of an alchoholic husband driven over the edge in a remote and spooky off-season hotel. The horror was as much psychological as supernatural, and any film adaptation needed subtle, careful writing and direction to effectively bring this out. Stanley Kubrick was entirely wrong for this project, which badly exposed his limitations as a writer/director. Barry Lyndon had already shown that his very deliberate, technical style, while visually impressive, simply failed to tell human stories or create interesting, believable characters. Acting always looks so stilted in his later movies, probably due to the ridiculous amount of takes he insisted upon, stifling any spontenaity among his performers. Stuck here with just a few characters, most of them hugely miscast, the whole exercise falls apart in terrible scripting, over-wrought performances sometimes bordering on the laughable and clumsy,ham-fisted plot development. If this film did not carry Kubrick's name most reveiwers would recognise it for what it is - dull, uninvolving, badly made and lacking in any thematic point. Sorry Stanley, you couldn't hide behind enigmatic nothingness this time! Two stars are for technical merit only.
Rating:
Summary: Not a bad adaptation.
Review: Stanley Kubrick takes you on a journey a little different than the novel, and if you're a stickler for the book, this movie might be a bit disappointing. However, if you like the horror like Nicholson can deliver, this is a must-see. His line "Here's Johnny," as he is trying to tear down the bathroom door, is not only classic Nicholson, but it captures the character's slow crawl down to evil. There's much in this movie which deviates from the novel, but it doesn't take away from it either. Again, a classic film, and it's highly recommended!!!
| 
