I suprised that they were able to stray away from several parts from the book to especially make their own good version of the story, so both book and movie feel like their own experience.
Kubrick figured a horror story works best by you not knowing what’s going to happen. He deliberately made the changes he did to keep those who already read the novel on their toes. Much like Salem’s Lot adaptation. Who’ve thought they would change Barlow into Count Orlock? That jailhouse reveal was iconic.
Even though I love The Shinning movie, I love the book even better. I like it's remake by King in the 90s it was more faithful to the book. My favorite King's book is IT And favorite Kubrick's movie is A Clockwork Orange
I read the book about 20 years ago, just before I watched the movie and I hated the movie! Some of my favourite creepy scenes from the book didn’t make it to the movie-like the hedge animals stalking Danny, which was super chilling (but understandably difficult to translate into film). Then I recently watched the movie again and I actually loved it. I haven’t reread the book so a lot of the details were fuzzy so I think I was able to appreciate the movie as its own story, masterfully told.
Ok, i just finished the book. How the hell could anyone like the movie? Movie had no build up, wendy was useless, danny was.....there, hallorman was done dirty, and worst of all jack torence was not in it! It was Jack Nicholson staring jack Nicholson!
I'm one of those people who think the book is just okay, but the movie is AMAZING. I have few reasons for that. - I love the ending of the film where the portrait is shown and I don't like the over the top ending where the hotel explodes. - The book is explicit about the supernatural stuff that happens. The ghosts are actually there and Jack is possessed rather than just going insane. I like how in the movie all the weird shit the Torrence family sees in the Overlook can be explained in other ways than supernatural stuff. - All the greatest moments of the film can't be found in the book: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", the twins, the blood elevator - I like that they changed the characters. Jack's decent to madness is more believable if he's already a more abusive dad that feels resentful towards his family and Wendy being less brave makes it more believable that she'd stay with Jack. - The film really captures the wide open spaces in the hotel with great camerawork. That together with the soundtrack makes for a great athmosphere I think the story works better with more simplistic characters (that are also acted excellently) and the story is just about a cabin fever leading to horrific murder attempts. I also like the room for theories the film leaves for the viewer. The Shining might be my favorite film.
The mini series seemed more true to the book. The hotel is better. It's the one he imagined in the book. You watch it and you can see it in your head when you read
The Shining was my first Stephen King book as well. I like the book because it was more paranormal, but I think out of the two I would rather watch the movie.
I Saw the movie many years ago and it was one of my favorite horror movies ever. I recently read the book and i can say that the book is faaaaar better than the movie. To be fair most of the books are better than their movies(not all of them). But the most important is what you said. That King's version didn't show Jack as the villain but the hotel itself. Jack was only the vessel that the hotel took advantage and possesed due to his vulnerabilities. Im Kubrick's version Jack just gets crazy and wants to kill his family. I also loved the other part that you mentioned on the book that Jack saves Danny when for a few seconds regains consciousness and tells Danny to run and remember how much he loves him. That part almost made me cry. It wasn't that Kubric's film wasn't good but compared to the book it's less meaningful.
Jack being the villain in the film still spoke to The Overlook’s evil. He was a man on the verge of a breaking point, and The Hotel’s influence was the final nail in the coffin. Jack is manipulated into believing he’s always been the care taker, that’s what pissed him to his his family. If anything that’s showing how evil the Overlook actually is. The point of the Overlook in the film is that the Hotel is trying to tire the Torrance’s on one another instead of blogging out of its way to kill the family on-itself. That’s significantly more impactful since is deals with the fear and the concept of loved ones becoming your enemy. The film has WAY more nuance than the book. That’s just a fact.
My only problem with the movie version is, like you said, that Jack becomes crazy too quickly; I feel like he starts becoming crazy at the moment when he is aggressively throwing a tennis ball at the walls in the longue room over and over - which seems like a pretty strange thing to do - and that is pretty much immediately after they have arrived at the hotel.
The movie is mainly different because it is all from the point of view of the Overlook Hotel entity itself, not the characters, the Overlook is the main character in the film.
He's such a vastly different character in the movie that isn't really a change to look for. Kubrick's Jack is already an ass to his family on the way up. The hotel seems more like an excuse for him to finally get rid of them like he's been wanting to. Kubrick wasn't interested in having the characters or their internal conflicts be part of the story.
Great review.I think it was a very personal novel for King, and much of Jack’s character is him, particularly the struggles with alcohol. Thats probably why he felt such aversion to Kubrick’s decision to make Jack unsympathetic and cold from the get go. I prefer Kubrick’s version, largely because film Jack is obviously not someone you’d want to be holed up in a hotel with for months. I like the coldness of it, and find King a little sentimental at times. Both are great in their own way.
@@PungiFungiBecause that type of character doesn’t fit the overall theme of the film. The film themes are about toxicity in a family. Wendy soften and sucks up towards Jack because she knows she can’t do anything, & if she did she’d have too endure Jacks’ wrath, which obviously isn’t worth it. These are VERY common in abusive households.
@@cincin4515Which was the point. And is why she’s a much better character than her shallow character in the book and how she develops her character when she’s had enough of Jack’s bs and decides that the health of Danny is more cause for concern than Jack’s obsession with The Overlook. The subtext of the film is the cycle of violence and tragedy, and the Hotel uses this as a source of energy. Wendy essentially breaks free of the lapse of misery and leaves Jack.
I h ave been a Stephen King fan since I read Carrie. I agree very much with your take on the movie. I always felt that Jack seemed crazy already when they arrive at the Overlook. In the book, you get to see the hotel take him over.While I like the movie, I love the book.
I have about 100 pages left in the book. I saw the movie like 20 years ago. The book has the minor character George Hatfield in it, the book talks about Jack's abusive dad, and it has a scrapbook detailing the Overlook's history. None of those things are in the movie. The book does not have a maze in it.
I just read the book for the first time. And I just finished watching the movie for the first time. The book is way better. I didn’t really enjoy the movie. It wasn’t scary. Jack’s descent into madness happens almost instantly in the movie. In the book Danny was my favorite character but in the movie he’s so boring. He really does nothing. Also I found it interesting that in the movie the boiler is such a big plot point as it’s supposed to mirror Jack’s anger rising. But in the movie it’s not even a plot point.
Jack decent into insanity can’t be considered quick because it’s constantly implied there’s something up with him from the jump. His burst towards Wendy and Wendy telling the doctor that visited Danny about breaking Danny’s arm.
I read Carrie as a high school senior and it felt relatable because my intrusive thoughts tell me that when someone hurts you, you grab them by the hair or neck and smash their skull in by banging their head against the wall. Does this make me crazy I never done it before and I try to suppress my intrusive thoughts.
Personally I wasn’t the biggest fan of the book I don’t know why I loved the characters and the ghost stuff and I really like other Stephen king books so idk
Are we living the same life? I’m 31, about to turn 32, and picked up my first King novel just last week at a train station.. The Shining no less. I’m 100 pages in and hooked.
I read the book before the movie came out and I was incredibly disappointed with it. It had none of the subtleties and suspense of the book. It was basically a corny slasher flick. About a year ago I listened to the audio book and it reminded me of what a masterful writer King is. He was put in the horror category, but his work is a lot more complex than that.
Excellent review as usual! I also must admit I have never read a Stephen King's novel to this day, but I consider him to be one of the best story-tellers of our time. I like most of the movie adaptations from his books and short stories, among them, The Green Mile and Stand by Me, based on a short story called "The Body". As regards to Stanley Kubrick, my favorite films are 2001 A Space Odyssey and Full Metal Jacket, which in Mexico was released under the title of "Cara de Guerra" (War Face), in reference to a famous line from the movie ("Show me your warface!"), and just recently watched Spartacus on DVD, which I enjoyed also. Thank you very much 👏👏👍
oOoOO finally a video I can comment on knowing what I'm saying!!! I actually thought Danny behaved more like a kid in the movie? In the book I remember thinking several times "sir ur 5 how are you thinking these things" I prefer the slow burn of the book, but prefer the like... for lack of a better term: spooky things of the movie. Like the sounds and everything scare me more than the scenes in the book (tho I did miss sleep over the 217 lady,,,,) I hated Jack Nicholson in the movie sO much. Like I was always laughing when he was onscreen he was so ridiculous (except when he was mistreating Wendy bc no one disrespects my girl Shelley on my watch). But Jack in the book also kinda bothered me bc I felt like it was ambiguous whether or not he hated his family and was just trying to be normal. I guess I liked the book more, bc it didn't have Jack Nicholson, that final stretch that kept going back and forth between the hotel and Dick was really tense and I loved the scenes with the animals coming to life (especially Danny's). edit: oh shit gotta finish reading dune then
Great points! I get what you’re saying about Danny, but he’s just so stoic in the film (can’t be too harsh on child actors though) and there were several moments in the book where he seemed like a little kid (getting scared/crying and spelling ‘suite’ as ‘sweet’). I know a lot of people criticize Nicholson’s performance as over the top and ridiculous, which I totally get, he is pretty silly at times. But - for whatever reason I still love him in this movie. I do think his performance is part of the reason I don’t find this movie particularly scary though. And yes! The back and forth at the end of the book between Halloran and the events at the hotel was great!! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I would read more books before Jumping into the Dark tower since a lot of those mix together Your comment is a year old so now im curious what did you decided to do 😂
A movie is not a book and a book is not a movie…to expect Kubrick to follow the book is to have not looked at the other things he adapted from others works… he never stayed with the books vision… you have to accept the film as a Kubrick film alone. The differences are too different to be considered same thing . Every time I watch the film I’m seeing a completely different film than the last time I watched it… no character in the movie is actually in the same story as everybody else in the film. The entire thing is an illusion from multiple view points. The book is a great book…but the movie defies the book and the genre in general. Why are people still talking about this film over 40 years later? Been lots of crappy King adaptations… but this one is the only one people care about… it makes the book that much greater. There is the mini series from the 90s that sticks to the book… I didn’t like it.
I read the book and watched the movie but for me the book was boring. The book went into more detail but the movie visually was just too imposing and creepy, while the book didn’t really creep me out.
I actually prefer the Kubrick film over the King novel. King has a tendency to ramble on for page after page and he takes too long to make his point. As a result, I have actually gotten bored while reading some of his books. And he's often crude, with lots of profane language. It is not that the cursing bothers me, but a truly effective writer should be able to tell his story without the excessive use of expletives. I was talking with a college professor who taught a few Stephen King stories in her English classes. She spoke about how she thought the horrid series was better than the Kubrick film. And I though to myself, "is this lady serious?" I think that the series was SO bad that it actually ruined the book for me. That's what happened. Admittedly, I started reading a few of his other books, but I ended up having other obligations and I didn't ever finish them. When I was 12 years old, I picked up a copy of Pet Cemetery (Sematary) over the summer. But in a few weeks, school started, and then there was required reading for English class. I could not concentrate on two novels at the same time.
I agree...I liked the the more ghostly book, though the movie was excellent. The book reminded me of Shirley Jackson's book "the Haunting of Hill House", where the house ( or hotel) was the civilian. Very interesting video!👍👍
He did add a bunch of supernatural elements in his movie version, though. And you don't need to believe in ghosts in order to be able to write supernatural stories; that is kind of the whole point of fiction.
All I know Kubrick is far greater a director than King is a writer. Truly the very definition of quality vs. quantity, with Kubrick taking years and years between his Films most of the time to King literally churning out numerous books a year.
I disagree. King definitely wasn’t churning out novels with zero substance. He wrote The Shining in a month writing five thousand words per day, it was out of passion. As I writer I can tell you that’s 12-16 pages per day, that’s extremely tough to maintain- He was loosing grip on his family in real time while struggling with alcoholism, just like Jack in the novel. Kubrick is my favorite director of all time by the way i’m not a Kubrick hater. I mean King wrote 11/22/63, The Dark Tower series, IT, Pet Sematary, Salems’s Lot- he dabbles to this day in short story’s, and is damn good at it.
This is one time where I prefer the film. King disowned a classic because the film wasn't a dead on replica of the book. And how could he criticize Jack Nicholson? He's a fantastic actor. The series (which King endorsed) ruined the book for me.
