Kubrick's "The Shining"...

User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by HoldenIsHere »

Sepiatone wrote: May 28th, 2023, 11:24 am
HoldenIsHere wrote: May 27th, 2023, 12:41 pm
Best and worst are, of course a matter of opinion.
In my opinion THE SHINING is a better movie than EYES WIDE SHUT, LOLITA or BARRY LYNDON.
If one is not a fan of Peter Sellers (which I am not), DR. STRANGELOVE is also tiresome.

THE SHINING is actually the only Stanley Kubrick movie that I have watched multiple times.
I find it highly entertaining and very well executed.
I don't compare it to King's novel (which I have never read --- I'm not a fan of his writing), but I take the movie on its own merits.
I know that KIng was particularly unhappy with the way Kubrick altered the ending of the story, but that's what can happen when a writer sells the movie rights to one of their works.
I've never seen EYES WIDE SHUT but saw LOLITA many times and BARRY LYNDON only once. And I'd have to say both LOLITA and the later mentioned DR. STRANGELOVE tower over Kubrick's THE SHINING. And I wasn't also thrilled much by BARRY LYNDON. But even THAT snooze fest was better than The Shining.

And one needn't be a Peter Sellers fan to like DR. STRANGELOVE on it's own merits. It would have still been a brilliant satire without Sellers multi-roles.

Sepiatone
But Peter Sellers does appear in multiple roles in DR. STRANGELOVE so your response here doesn't make sense.

My comment was that, in my opinion, someone who finds Peter Sellers tiresome to the degree that I do (there are many of us) would not be able ignore his performances in DR. STRANGELOVE and not find the movie itself a chore to watch.
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by HoldenIsHere »

Intrepid37 wrote: May 28th, 2023, 2:44 pm
LiamCasey wrote: May 28th, 2023, 1:29 pm Although I feel that The Shining (1980) is a good movie that is worth watching, it is neither what I consider Stanley Kubrick's best movie (That would be Spartacus (1960). Maybe I'm just a sucker for epics. But it seems telling that my favorite of his movies is the one that he probably had the least creative control over.) nor what I consider Stephen King's best movie (That would be The Dead Zone (1983). But I must admit that there are a fair number of his movies that I haven't seen. Especially those made post-2000.).
I agree that The Dead Zone is the best adaptation of a Stephen King novel that I've both seen and read.

I do enjoy King's writing a great deal more than the film versions - that's pretty much the case for everything that is transposed from novel to screen for me.
You make a good point about how being a fan of a literary work by a particular writer can impact a person's opinion of the movie adaptation of the work.

I have a friend who is a fan of King's writing, but I have never been able to finish any of his novels with the exception of CARRIE .
User avatar
Intrepid37
Posts: 870
Joined: March 5th, 2023, 5:05 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by Intrepid37 »

HoldenIsHere wrote: May 28th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Sepiatone wrote: May 28th, 2023, 11:24 am It would have still been a brilliant satire without Sellers multi-roles.
But Peter Sellers does appear in multiple roles in DR. STRANGELOVE so your response here doesn't make sense.
Makes sense to me. What he's saying is that even if Sellers hadn't played 4 different roles - or any - and 4 different actors had played those parts, it still would have been a brilliant satire. I think, though, that without Sellers in those roles, it would be a lesser film than what we have now.

Then again, I don't find Sellers to be "tiresome" in everything.

Just as Clouseau. As that Frenchman, his over-done stupidity actually becomes obnoxious (not to mention way too repetitive) for enjoyment.
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by HoldenIsHere »

Intrepid37 wrote: May 28th, 2023, 4:38 pm
HoldenIsHere wrote: May 28th, 2023, 3:59 pm
Sepiatone wrote: May 28th, 2023, 11:24 am It would have still been a brilliant satire without Sellers multi-roles.
But Peter Sellers does appear in multiple roles in DR. STRANGELOVE so your response here doesn't make sense.
Makes sense to me. What he's saying is that even if Sellers hadn't played 4 different roles - or any - and 4 different actors had played those parts, it still would have been a brilliant satire. I think, though, that without Sellers in those roles, it would be a lesser film than what we have now.

Then again, I don't find Sellers to be "tiresome" in everything.

Just as Clouseau. As that Frenchman, his over-done stupidity actually becomes obnoxious (not to mention way too repetitive) for enjoyment.

I'll break it down for those who lack reading comprehension skills.

My original statement (which was not quoted in the above response) was:
"If one is not a fan of Peter Sellers (which I am not), DR. STRANGELOVE is also tiresome."
Central point: DR. STRANGELOVE is tiresome
Tiresome under what condition? if one is not a fan of Peters Sellers
INFERENCE: The presence of Peters Sellers in DR. STRANGELOVE makes the movie tiresome to those who are not fans of Peter Sellers.

Sepiatone's bizarre (or to use his terminology asinine) response:
And one needn't be a Peter Sellers fan to like DR. STRANGELOVE on it's own merits. It would have still been a brilliant satire without Sellers multi-roles.

Sepiatone's counter point would be valid if the original point was that the presence of Peter Sellers is the factor that makes DR. STRANGELOVE an enjoyable movie. But the original point, in fact, was the opposite: that it is Sellers's presence that makes the movie unenjoyable (tiresome).
User avatar
Intrepid37
Posts: 870
Joined: March 5th, 2023, 5:05 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by Intrepid37 »

HoldenIsHere wrote: May 28th, 2023, 6:08 pm I'll break it down for those who lack reading comprehension skills.
Thank you so much. Dumb-ies like me need all the help we can get.
User avatar
TikiSoo
Posts: 702
Joined: March 9th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Upstate NY
Contact:

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by TikiSoo »

Well I understood what Holden & everyone else was saying, even if the responses were a bit off.

My personal opinion is Kubrick is a great director and The Shining is one of my favorites of his movies. (2001 A Space Odyssey is #1)

I love Stephen King's writing and enjoyed most of his books. Movie adaptations of his books range from good (Shawshank Redemption/Stand By Me) to horrible (Pet Cemetery/Cujo)
But this is all a matter of personal taste and both King & Kubrick have ardent fans & detractors, seemingly no one in the middle.

Never read or seen The Dead Zone and since many like it, I'll give it a try. It will be interesting to see if it succeeds as a movie without knowing the book.
User avatar
Sepiatone
Posts: 574
Joined: February 23rd, 2023, 12:59 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by Sepiatone »

TikiSoo wrote: May 29th, 2023, 5:05 am Well I understood what Holden & everyone else was saying, even if the responses were a bit off.

My personal opinion is Kubrick is a great director and The Shining is one of my favorites of his movies. (2001 A Space Odyssey is #1)

I love Stephen King's writing and enjoyed most of his books. Movie adaptations of his books range from good (Shawshank Redemption/Stand By Me) to horrible (Pet Cemetery/Cujo)
But this is all a matter of personal taste and both King & Kubrick have ardent fans & detractors, seemingly no one in the middle.

Never read or seen The Dead Zone and since many like it, I'll give it a try. It will be interesting to see if it succeeds as a movie without knowing the book.
I can't say THE SHINING is Kubrick's worst movie as I haven't seen every movie he's directed, but I can say it's a piss poor adaptation of the novel.

I will concede that it's a well put together movie with a fine performance from Nicholson. But also(like the "finger puppet" thing with the kid) a lot of poor choices.

THE DEAD ZONE isn't too bad of a movie, but does leave out sections of the book that might give more insight to some of the characters. So, if it costs you nothing, give the movie a try.

I've never read PET SEMATARY or CUJO, but I can only hope the book CUJO isn't near as boring as the movie. And didn't like the Pet Sematary movie either.

Sepiatone
User avatar
jamesjazzguitar
Posts: 771
Joined: November 14th, 2022, 2:43 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by jamesjazzguitar »

Intrepid37 wrote: May 28th, 2023, 9:19 pm
HoldenIsHere wrote: May 28th, 2023, 6:08 pm I'll break it down for those who lack reading comprehension skills.
Thank you so much. Dumb-ies like me need all the help we can get.
Bravo reply to such a smarty comment. As for Peter Sellers and Strangelove: I believe the overall disagreement is due to when posters give their opinion as if it represents a consensus opinion, I.e., an opinion that implies the vast majority of people have the same one (and thus it really isn't just an opinion but so much more).

E.g., "someone who finds Peter Sellers tiresome to the degree that I do (there are many of us) would not be able ignore his performances in DR. STRANGELOVE and not find the movie itself a chore to watch".

See this so-called opinion is more about the "someone" and "many of us" than the views of the single person posting it.

As for Strangelove and Sellers: I'm another person that finds Sellers tiresome, but I was able to bypass his performances in Strangelove and really enjoy the satire etc. I.e. I really love this film. Thus, it looks like Sepia, you and I have a similar POV in this regard, and it isn't because we lack reading comprehension skills.

Note that we went down a similar hole when discussing Bob Dylan.
User avatar
Intrepid37
Posts: 870
Joined: March 5th, 2023, 5:05 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by Intrepid37 »

kingrat wrote: May 29th, 2023, 12:23 pm I wonder how much people's view of The Shining depends on how much you like Jack Nicholson's performance. If you think Nicholson made a mistake in playing the guy as crazy from the get-go
YES!!

King suggested that Michael Moriarty would have been a much better choice to play the role of Jack Torrance. I agree absolutely - it would have been brilliant watching a self-controlled, low-key and civil persona like Moriarty be broken down into a hallucinating victim by the haunting force in the hotel.

Nicholson's manic (you can sense it immediately) performance changes everything about the novel for me - as do the inexplicable changes to the narrative details.

I've tried and tried and tried to reassess this film in a more favorable light - but I just can't manage it. Nicholson is completely miscast, the special effects are over the top, Scatman's role goes from being a heroic and guiding figure to a pointless red herring cartoon for no reason at all other than to put an unnecessary death in the movie and Torrance is ultimately shown to be a reincarnation of a previous hotel dweller - that's suggested earlier when the bathroom attendant tells him "but you've always been the caretaker here". Just a ridiculous explanation - I can't imagine what on earth Kubrick was smoking to come up with that one.

That this has an unusually high ranking at IMDb is evidence that I'm way off the usual path as a viewer. I can only explain it as the consequence of having read the novel.
User avatar
TikiSoo
Posts: 702
Joined: March 9th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Upstate NY
Contact:

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by TikiSoo »

Sepiatone wrote: May 29th, 2023, 11:26 am I can't say THE SHINING is Kubrick's worst movie as I haven't seen every movie he's directed, but I can say it's a piss poor adaptation of the novel.
As someone who read King's novel, I disagree & think it's a great adaptation. But I understand why some people hate it...just like I understand why people hate 2001.

King could only tell the story in words, but through his writing we were able to "read the minds" of the charactors, conveying their thoughts to us and rounding out the story somewhat.

Kubrick couldn't do that, he had to tell the story in dialogue & pictures. These are wo very different experiences for the receiver.

I found the film to be extremely nightmarish & arresting, with crazy shots of horrifying imagery that further the story in your mind rather than with a typical, linear horror story.

I really enjoy Kubrick's artistry and the only movie of his I haven't seen is Full Metal Jacket because of the subject matter. I was lucky to get through The Shining despite all the blood/violence.
User avatar
Intrepid37
Posts: 870
Joined: March 5th, 2023, 5:05 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by Intrepid37 »

TikiSoo wrote: May 29th, 2023, 2:04 pm As someone who read King's novel, I disagree & think it's a great adaptation.
I'm thinking that you had to have read the novel after you saw the movie.
User avatar
TikiSoo
Posts: 702
Joined: March 9th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Upstate NY
Contact:

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by TikiSoo »

Intrepid37 wrote: May 29th, 2023, 2:20 pm
TikiSoo wrote: May 29th, 2023, 2:04 pm As someone who read King's novel, I disagree & think it's a great adaptation.
I'm thinking that you had to have read the novel after you saw the movie.
Sorry, read the book as soon as it come out.
User avatar
Intrepid37
Posts: 870
Joined: March 5th, 2023, 5:05 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by Intrepid37 »

TikiSoo wrote: May 29th, 2023, 5:43 pm
Intrepid37 wrote: May 29th, 2023, 2:20 pm
TikiSoo wrote: May 29th, 2023, 2:04 pm As someone who read King's novel, I disagree & think it's a great adaptation.
I'm thinking that you had to have read the novel after you saw the movie.
Sorry, read the book as soon as it come out.
Wow. It's puzzling to me, but if you thought it was a good movie after reading the book it just goes to show that we're all unique in our own way.
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Kubrick's "The Shining"...

Post by HoldenIsHere »

jamesjazzguitar wrote: May 29th, 2023, 1:06 pm
Intrepid37 wrote: May 28th, 2023, 9:19 pm
HoldenIsHere wrote: May 28th, 2023, 6:08 pm I'll break it down for those who lack reading comprehension skills.
Thank you so much. Dumb-ies like me need all the help we can get.
Bravo reply to such a smarty comment. As for Peter Sellers and Strangelove: I believe the overall disagreement is due to when posters give their opinion as if it represents a consensus opinion, I.e., an opinion that implies the vast majority of people have the same one (and thus it really isn't just an opinion but so much more).

E.g., "someone who finds Peter Sellers tiresome to the degree that I do (there are many of us) would not be able ignore his performances in DR. STRANGELOVE and not find the movie itself a chore to watch".

See this so-called opinion is more about the "someone" and "many of us" than the views of the single person posting it.

As for Strangelove and Sellers: I'm another person that finds Sellers tiresome, but I was able to bypass his performances in Strangelove and really enjoy the satire etc. I.e. I really love this film. Thus, it looks like Sepia, you and I have a similar POV in this regard, and it isn't because we lack reading comprehension skills.

Note that we went down a similar hole when discussing Bob Dylan.
jamesjazzguitar, I'm not sure why you're including yourself as one that I believed lacked reading comprehension skills. Your response that you find Peter Sellers tiresome yet were able to enjoy (in fact "really love") DR. STRANGELOVE in spite of his being in the movie shows that you understood the point I was making, and your counter argument is well-taken. Sepia's response, on the other hand, indicates that he failed to grasp my point. On the TCM message boards, he frequently responded to others' comments in ways that indicated he either did not read what was originally posted or was confused about what had been posted.

Also, I'm not sure why Intrepid37 felt compelled to defend Sepia, going so far as to remove my original response from the quote in order to hide Sepia's error. I'm puzzled why he would prop someone who regularly engaged in trollish behavior on the old TCM boards and has already shown that kind of behavior in his short time here at the SSO.

Loyalty can be commendable, but it should be reserved for those who are worthy of it.
Post Reply