The Shining

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. 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 King's brilliant source material, possibly due to inadequate psychological groundwork. 70% (31/03/2006)

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)

I love it when a film takes me away for two hours and lets me wander in an unpredictable labyrinth of cinephile perfection, and in the end exhausts and decimates me emotionally and psychically. The Shining is the only film in my life that can fully do that several times. It’s no wonder that King doesn’t like this masterpiece, Kubrick is a visionary of such style that he playfully surpasses the narrative value and power of an otherwise great book, and he does it “only” with carefully built interiors and a minimalist staging of a space that is arranged in detail and expressively connected to the different perspectives of the three protagonists. What is reality and what is fantasy? Is the deranged Jack an instigator or an unfortunate victim? What do all those carefully constructed events represent and symbolise? Kubrick gives clues, ambiguously and cunningly, to constantly draw the viewer into a seemingly depersonalised world and at the same time force them to experience the simple story of the characters. The Shining is an incredibly complex product by a genius who likes to hide and wrap meanings, but also knows how to narrate with the intensity of a monsoon storm and entertain the viewer with an iconic direction of the scenes and the actors, who are exposed to the bone – Jack Nicholson delivers what’s probably his most amazing performance and he actually carries most of the film’s meaning. I strongly recommend to watch the shorter, 114 minute version, the longer one has redundant scenes that explain things for the dumber part of the audience and lack filmmaking zest. (17/11/2018)

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)

Redrum. Redrum. Redrum. The main asset of this movie is neither Nicholson, nor Kubrick’s precise directing, but the flawless atmosphere in the mountain top hotel. Kubrick’s loose adaptation of King’s novel is attractive due to it being actually only very loosely based on the motifs in one of King’s best stories and is not a mere idealess “one to one" adaptation (however much I may think that Torrance’s fall was far too sudden in comparison with the gradual descent in the book). redruM! (30/01/2007)