Review of The Shining (1980) by Justin A — 15 Nov 2015

One of the most grossly overrated movies of all time. I say this as a fan of horror movies, Stephen King books, and Stanley Kubrick's movies.

I could criticize this for how it defers from the books, but I'm not. While I think the book is better overall for its characters and storytelling, there were plenty of things I didn't care for in the book that (thankfully) aren't in the movie (hedge monsters). So I'm not a book purist who hates this movie purely for that reason.

And I don't dislike this movie to be a detractor. As if hating it is some hip way to go against the popular opinion.

I honestly, don't really dislike it. I think it has some major issues though and it's far from being the horror masterpiece that it has the reputation of being.

The biggest problem with this movie is that... quite frankly, it's a mess. While the first 30 to 40 minutes builds perfectly fine, it goes off the rail with a jumbling of scenes that almost feel like they were edited out of sequence. Most of the scenes don't carry over so well, and it's a schizophrenic watch. The tones and emotions of the characters will change at the drop of a dime with little to no explanation. Considering this is supposed to be a movie about a man going crazy from isolation, that's a bit of a problem. Because it never feels like a man slowly descending into madness. Jack Nicholson is basically a psychopath from the very start of the film, showing little regard or care for his family. He seems to resent them from the start.

The casting of Shelley Duvall is kind of a problem too. She can play the motherly character just fine, but her look from the very beginning is that of a woman of spousal abuse. That may be fine for some people who want to see signs of Jack Torrence being psychotic before attempting to murder his family, but it makes the entire movie and its characters so one-dimensional.

Then there are the ghosts. Are there ghosts? Yes? No? The movie can't seem to make up its mind either. All signs point to "Yes, there were ghosts the whole time" since several parts are inexplainable without ghosts. However, the entire story is inconsequential to whether the ghosts exists or not because Jack Torrence was on the verge of murdering his family even before he starts seeing ghosts (which are then sometimes treated as hallucinations). So what's the real answer? Yes, there are ghosts, but it's so ambiguous that it's hard to tell what even Kubrick was going for.

I'm not going to completely hate on the movie. It has its problems, but it also has its fair share of great moments. Kubrick is one of the most visual directors of all time, and this movie is filled with some amazing tracking shots. The hotel is beautiful, and Kubrick takes it to full advantage. The bathroom/axe scene is also very intense and the hedge maze scene (which isn't even in the novel) is wonderful. There are also some iconic shots, like the twin girls standing at the end of the hallway. It's a pretty unnerving scene and the best part of the movie by far.

It's just that, aside from some great visuals strung together, the movie isn't all that good (from a plot and character point of view). I can understand why Stephen King had an issue with this movie since it basically destroys some of the most memorable characters he had ever written. The novel is about a haunted hotel that corrupts a vulnerable man struggling with addiction. The movie is about a psychopath who might be seeing ghosts and tries to kill his family.