Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is not a good movie. Seriously, people were excited about this movie in the 70's?
It's poorly acted with the exception of Nicholson who gives a great performance, though I have to wonder if it's only good because everyone else was so bad.
It felt like everyone was reading off a cue card on one take with no previous knowledge of the situation or script. Nicholson, again, was light years ahead of his supporting cast. Couple this with One Flew Over The Cookoos Nest and it's obvious why he was loved by many and continues to be today.
I do have to give Shelley Duvall credit for her scenes with fear. Hard to see that today and after feeling like grinding teeth as she acted like Ms. happy Wendy, I see why she was given this role.
Anyway, it's not the acting that ruin this film; it's the lack of explanation that creates random occurences that hardly make any sense. The film was written for a reader of the novel that wanted to see a visual of their imagination. Unfortunately, they failed to please me because the movie doesn't touch the book's excellent story telling.
I feel horrible for viewers that have only experienced the film: it doesn't make any sense and it leaves out crucial bits of information that were oddly enough still important pieces of the film's plot. How does that work?
A few examples:
1. There's no horror without fear, so lets make fear.
There is history in all films - a background if you must. Some back story can help build character. Some build plot. The Shining needed back story to build plot. Yet, for easons unknown, it ignored the most important of backstories in Jack's life - that he was a violent alcoholic who lost his job as a teacher for physically beating a student and had seriously injured his son.
Now, the injury is mentioned but it's explanation comes at a trivial time. Perhaps, you can say that plot was revealed in terrible order.
We know that Danny was injured by Jack, but Danny shows no ill effects or fear as a result of the situation. For most of the early scenes, there is only happiness. That is until Danny wants to grab his fire truck which happens to be in the same room his dad is sleeping in.
Danny recieves permission to get his toy and finds Jack sitting up in bed. Danny expresses a fear for his dad that has no basis since he had never expressed any fear prior. Jack also has done nothing up to this point so why would Danny suddenly fear his father? There is no explanation in the film because there is no explanation period.
Well, actually there is a reason. The audience needs to know that Jack is beginning to lose his marbles. Sadly, we never see why. Jack just suddenly falls into an abyss of madness.
2. Give me another one Lloyd.
Sure, we realize that things are going a bit crazy and something is not right. So when Jack abuptly wanders into the ballroom bar, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Jack is met by a real life bar tender. What's really a surprise is Jack needing a drink in the first place.
The film offers some backstory on Jack once drinking and dislocating his son's shoulder. Wendy even explains that he stopped drinking so she wouldn't leave him. Yet not once were we led to believe that Jack had the urge to binge with the likes of Dean Martin and Fred Astaire. He simply had no urges and never indicated a desire to knock back a bottle again.
So when Jack suddenly hits the bar and utters the words: "I need a drink," it's purely plot driven drivel with no supporting explanation. This is a man that has commented on his committment to being sober (3 years in fact) and without a reason, an explanation, or pressure is driven to drink again? I don't buy it and Kubrick lost me.
3. There's a party in my house and everyone's invited.
In the book, there is actually a very deep back story that explains why the hotel has so many lively occupants and what their true intentions might be. Kubrick obviously thought none of that was important because a room full of strangers on a random night in a previously empty hotel is weird enough to make things interesting. That's poor writing.
We are supposed to accept these newcomers without a hint as to who they are? Why? We know Jack has lost his marbles (the music tells me so) but that doesn't explain why there are 100 people dancing in a ballroom. And it's never explained. They are just there.
Well, that's not entirely true. Jack is the house keeper. For as long as Grady can remember at least...or because a picture taken in 1921 says so.
Why does this matter? It doesn't because there's no basis for Jack coming back to the hotel. He needs to kill because he returned to the place he had always been? This is going nowhere. It's added mystery to confuse the viewer, only there is no flipping to the back of the book to find out how Encyclopedia Brown always knew. The pages were ripped out or Kubrick decided they werent't important.
4. Can you hear me?
I couldn't and maybe that was the point. The Shining is only for those special someone's. We aren't supposed to know how it works. But wait, didn't Halloran speak to Danny through telekinisis and didn't we hear him do it? Why yes, yes we did.
So why does Halloran lie in his bedroom (with two large pictures of naked blck woman...talk about odd set design. It's almost as if they weren't sure how to paint this guy) and widen his eyes while leaving us in mystery?
Wait, why am I asking? We're the audience and we don't need to know.
Of course, Grady (good ol' Grady. He's like the guy that jumps in during a story that someone is screwing up royally. "No, no dude, it was like this, remember?") spills the beans when he reveals that Danny is trying to include another party through communication.
It just would have been nice to see that happening because you know the film is called The Shining so go figure they would include moments when a character, oh, I don't know...shines?
5. Pull my finger. No, seriously, pull it.
Tony is a kid that lives in Danny's mouth and he talks when Danny wiggles his little finger.
This is what having The Shining gets you: a make believe friend so bad, you don't even give him a face.
It would have been more effective ( not to mention that Kubrick's awesome quick cuts could have been used) if Tony was actually a little boy that Danny sees. Genius idea, right? If only someone thought of that.
Oh, wait, you mean that Stephen King already did in the book that this film is based on? No. I can't believe it. A wiggling finger had to be the first and only idea. I'm positive that if someone stood up and said to Kubrick: "Shouldn't we cast a real kid to play Tony? I mean, we can even use the same kid," then Kubrick would have used it. I'm sure. 100% positive. No way you choose a wiggling finger over an actual kid. Not possible.
This movie was garbage.
It's poorly acted with the exception of Nicholson who gives a great performance, though I have to wonder if it's only good because everyone else was so bad.
It felt like everyone was reading off a cue card on one take with no previous knowledge of the situation or script. Nicholson, again, was light years ahead of his supporting cast. Couple this with One Flew Over The Cookoos Nest and it's obvious why he was loved by many and continues to be today.
I do have to give Shelley Duvall credit for her scenes with fear. Hard to see that today and after feeling like grinding teeth as she acted like Ms. happy Wendy, I see why she was given this role.
Anyway, it's not the acting that ruin this film; it's the lack of explanation that creates random occurences that hardly make any sense. The film was written for a reader of the novel that wanted to see a visual of their imagination. Unfortunately, they failed to please me because the movie doesn't touch the book's excellent story telling.
I feel horrible for viewers that have only experienced the film: it doesn't make any sense and it leaves out crucial bits of information that were oddly enough still important pieces of the film's plot. How does that work?
A few examples:
1. There's no horror without fear, so lets make fear.
There is history in all films - a background if you must. Some back story can help build character. Some build plot. The Shining needed back story to build plot. Yet, for easons unknown, it ignored the most important of backstories in Jack's life - that he was a violent alcoholic who lost his job as a teacher for physically beating a student and had seriously injured his son.
Now, the injury is mentioned but it's explanation comes at a trivial time. Perhaps, you can say that plot was revealed in terrible order.
We know that Danny was injured by Jack, but Danny shows no ill effects or fear as a result of the situation. For most of the early scenes, there is only happiness. That is until Danny wants to grab his fire truck which happens to be in the same room his dad is sleeping in.
Danny recieves permission to get his toy and finds Jack sitting up in bed. Danny expresses a fear for his dad that has no basis since he had never expressed any fear prior. Jack also has done nothing up to this point so why would Danny suddenly fear his father? There is no explanation in the film because there is no explanation period.
Well, actually there is a reason. The audience needs to know that Jack is beginning to lose his marbles. Sadly, we never see why. Jack just suddenly falls into an abyss of madness.
2. Give me another one Lloyd.
Sure, we realize that things are going a bit crazy and something is not right. So when Jack abuptly wanders into the ballroom bar, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Jack is met by a real life bar tender. What's really a surprise is Jack needing a drink in the first place.
The film offers some backstory on Jack once drinking and dislocating his son's shoulder. Wendy even explains that he stopped drinking so she wouldn't leave him. Yet not once were we led to believe that Jack had the urge to binge with the likes of Dean Martin and Fred Astaire. He simply had no urges and never indicated a desire to knock back a bottle again.
So when Jack suddenly hits the bar and utters the words: "I need a drink," it's purely plot driven drivel with no supporting explanation. This is a man that has commented on his committment to being sober (3 years in fact) and without a reason, an explanation, or pressure is driven to drink again? I don't buy it and Kubrick lost me.
3. There's a party in my house and everyone's invited.
In the book, there is actually a very deep back story that explains why the hotel has so many lively occupants and what their true intentions might be. Kubrick obviously thought none of that was important because a room full of strangers on a random night in a previously empty hotel is weird enough to make things interesting. That's poor writing.
We are supposed to accept these newcomers without a hint as to who they are? Why? We know Jack has lost his marbles (the music tells me so) but that doesn't explain why there are 100 people dancing in a ballroom. And it's never explained. They are just there.
Well, that's not entirely true. Jack is the house keeper. For as long as Grady can remember at least...or because a picture taken in 1921 says so.
Why does this matter? It doesn't because there's no basis for Jack coming back to the hotel. He needs to kill because he returned to the place he had always been? This is going nowhere. It's added mystery to confuse the viewer, only there is no flipping to the back of the book to find out how Encyclopedia Brown always knew. The pages were ripped out or Kubrick decided they werent't important.
4. Can you hear me?
I couldn't and maybe that was the point. The Shining is only for those special someone's. We aren't supposed to know how it works. But wait, didn't Halloran speak to Danny through telekinisis and didn't we hear him do it? Why yes, yes we did.
So why does Halloran lie in his bedroom (with two large pictures of naked blck woman...talk about odd set design. It's almost as if they weren't sure how to paint this guy) and widen his eyes while leaving us in mystery?
Wait, why am I asking? We're the audience and we don't need to know.
Of course, Grady (good ol' Grady. He's like the guy that jumps in during a story that someone is screwing up royally. "No, no dude, it was like this, remember?") spills the beans when he reveals that Danny is trying to include another party through communication.
It just would have been nice to see that happening because you know the film is called The Shining so go figure they would include moments when a character, oh, I don't know...shines?
5. Pull my finger. No, seriously, pull it.
Tony is a kid that lives in Danny's mouth and he talks when Danny wiggles his little finger.
This is what having The Shining gets you: a make believe friend so bad, you don't even give him a face.
It would have been more effective ( not to mention that Kubrick's awesome quick cuts could have been used) if Tony was actually a little boy that Danny sees. Genius idea, right? If only someone thought of that.
Oh, wait, you mean that Stephen King already did in the book that this film is based on? No. I can't believe it. A wiggling finger had to be the first and only idea. I'm positive that if someone stood up and said to Kubrick: "Shouldn't we cast a real kid to play Tony? I mean, we can even use the same kid," then Kubrick would have used it. I'm sure. 100% positive. No way you choose a wiggling finger over an actual kid. Not possible.
This movie was garbage.
Comment