Brad’s review of The Shining (The Shining #1) > Likes and Comments
193 likes · Like
I've got to ask: you mean the Jack Nicholson version, yes? Because he certainly inspired terror into my heart. (The book did as well, though. The book terrified me beyond a doubt, but something in Jack Nicholson's face made me shudder in my bed at night!)
Yeah, that's the one. The one directed by Stanley Kubrick.
Eww, haven't they tried climbing the Dune-mountain enough times now?
Also, my go-to item for movies that are better than the books is always The Devil Wears Prada. It's a bit of a chick-flick but while the film was actually interesting and showed some new things, the book was written with such a juvenile frame of mind, it seriously bothered me. Don't ever pick up the book or give it to someone else!
Oh I LOVE the tv version of The Shining. King even makes a cameo appearance in it--if I remember correctly he's a bartender or a bandleader. I have to watch it again now.
What King did well in the Shining, and what the tv movie version did well was to tell the story through the eyes of a child, believably.
I always experience this with Stephen King. His stories always translate better on screen than on paper.
Shawshank Redemption and Misery are other examples of this.
Oh gosh... Misery is a movie? I don't think I could ever stand watching it!
Although, I found that Rose Red was definitely better in book form.
If they ever film either The Long Walk or Rose Madder, though, then I'd be interested to see if they could be better than the books, since those are my two favorite King!
Shawshank is much better as a book, though the film is also excellent. Briliant review, though, and not just because I agree.
♥Xeni♥ wrote: "Oh gosh... Misery is a movie? I don't think I could ever stand watching it!
Although, I found that Rose Red was definitely better in book form.
If they ever film either The Long Walk or Rose Mad..."
Yuppers, Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes. Brilliant.I haven't read the Rose Red book, but the made-for-TV movie was...entertaining (and super cheesy!) .
@ Helen... I don't know, the short story wasn't bad, but for me, it was emotionally void next to the movie. It doesn't help that Morgan Freeman narrates the movie either. I'm a huge fan of Morgan Freeman narrating things.
It sounds as if the young man may have fallen victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well known is certainty that books are always better than movies, without recognizing that a movie can be better than the book if both are excellent and one sees the first before reading the latter.
Inconceivable!
Brilliant review! But I must say that Stephen King is the only writer whose books seem to make better movies My favourite is Stand By Me - great film, boring story. Now I never read his books - I just wait for the film to come out - oh, and I never get involved in land wars in Asia either.
I thought of another writer the other day, Maxine. Chuck Pahlaniuk. I think his books are better as films too. Although, sometimes, that's not saying much.
Kubrick version was sewage. It was completely changed. I will alway prefer books to movies.
Saying you "will always prefer books to movies" seems a bit inflexible, Lisa, but I support your right to feel that way. Thanks for sharing.
The movie adaptaion of a book is always to liberal for me. I prefer it when they stay true to the beauty of the novel. For instance, both adaptaions of the Shining. The first one, no where near the plot line of the book. It was about Jack decent into madness. The book was about that as well as the haunting of the Overlook. More importantly, the Overlook's desire to have the little boy because of his abilities.
The second adaptaion, that King himself oversaw, stayed true to the story. Not once in the novel did Jack say, "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy." I know this because I have read it 20+ times. The second adaptaion is one instance where I love the movie version of a book. Another is The Stand. Whenever King is aloud to oversee, or outight write, his screenplay. You get cinematic gold, in my opinion.
Excellent review!
There is one scene in the book that wasn’t in either movie. It’s at the end where Jack catches up with Danny and Danny yells at him, “You’re not my daddy, you’re the hotel. Take off your mask.” So Jack takes the crochet mallet and smashes his own face to a pulp. He then tells Danny, “No more mask.” I thought that was creepy as hell.
I don’t think any of the movies have captured the true nature of what’s happened to Jack. The hotel has taken him over. Yes, he’s kind of jerk to begin with, but by the end he’s just the hotel. I think that’s why I prefer the book.
To be honest, I'm not a huge Stephen King fan. I feel like his characters are unlikable, so I don't usually care about them. I think I liked this book because it was so imaginative.
I know what you mean though. There are some movies that are so much better than the book. You go to read the book to get more insight and all you get is disappointment. I could make a list.
I saw The Shining when I was five years old. It has stuck with me my entire life. I adore it. Having said that, the book is utterly amazing. After I read it, I saw things in the movie I never noticed before. There is Stephen King's The Shining, and Kubrick's The Shining. They are two different beings, and it is unfair to compare them. Most of the time, it is possible to say one is better, but to me, The Shining stands alone in either category as brilliant.
I enjoyed both versions of The Shining in different ways. I honestly felt that the book was creepier as it gives you more of a feel for what the heck Jack Torrance is thinking. I have to disagree with your review inasmuch as you said the movie version of Pride and Prejudice was not as good as the book (of course I am referring to the BBC Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version). It is really excellent!
Nice review. I feel the same way. The movie is made by a master, the book written by a middling "writer for the masses."
Couldn't agree less. The book is way superior to the movie.
the book is meandering, silly. animated shrubbery? everything Kubrick left out was stupid. everything he added was genius
I'd say that the book has a stronger first two acts than the film, but the film has a stronger final act that leaves the more satisfying final impression of the two.
I disagree. I was not delighted with the infamous Kubrick film, and thought that it - while beautifully shot and creepy in its own right - lacked depth. I found that depth with the book, which examines complex characters and the experiences they undergo. Everyone in the film came off as stunted caricatures. Jack - as Stephen King complained - already gave off an impression of insanity before we get 10 minutes into the film, and Wendy seemed little more than an airhead wife scared stupid. Much more interesting people in the book.
I think tath i prefear 1000 times th book more than the movie
I haven’t seen the movie yet but I know I will hold the same thought
But the book is so so so much better than Kubrick's movie, in my opinion. I was really disappointed, mainly due to the fact that it had no depth at all, no hints whatsoever that Jack was on the madness path - his madness was too sudden. And not to mention the poor choice for the actress that played "Wendy". I'm currently reading the book and I just can't put it down! The movie didn't scare me at all (and some scenes annoyed me), but the book already gave me nightmares...
Thanks for this review. I wasn't going to bother with the film, given I didn't rate the book. But now I'll check it out. :)
Probably an unpopular opinion, but thought the same about Lord of the Rings.
You described exactly my feeling reading it right now. Too fond of this masterpiece of a movie, a bit bored by the book....
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
♥Xeni♥
(new)
Mar 26, 2011 10:02AM
I've got to ask: you mean the Jack Nicholson version, yes? Because he certainly inspired terror into my heart. (The book did as well, though. The book terrified me beyond a doubt, but something in Jack Nicholson's face made me shudder in my bed at night!)
reply
|
flag
Yeah, that's the one. The one directed by Stanley Kubrick.
Eww, haven't they tried climbing the Dune-mountain enough times now?Also, my go-to item for movies that are better than the books is always The Devil Wears Prada. It's a bit of a chick-flick but while the film was actually interesting and showed some new things, the book was written with such a juvenile frame of mind, it seriously bothered me. Don't ever pick up the book or give it to someone else!
There's also a cable tv version with the guy from Wings. King reportedly prefers that one to Kubrick's.
L to the OL.
L to the OL.
Oh I LOVE the tv version of The Shining. King even makes a cameo appearance in it--if I remember correctly he's a bartender or a bandleader. I have to watch it again now.What King did well in the Shining, and what the tv movie version did well was to tell the story through the eyes of a child, believably.
I always experience this with Stephen King. His stories always translate better on screen than on paper.Shawshank Redemption and Misery are other examples of this.
Oh gosh... Misery is a movie? I don't think I could ever stand watching it!Although, I found that Rose Red was definitely better in book form.
If they ever film either The Long Walk or Rose Madder, though, then I'd be interested to see if they could be better than the books, since those are my two favorite King!
Shawshank is much better as a book, though the film is also excellent. Briliant review, though, and not just because I agree.
♥Xeni♥ wrote: "Oh gosh... Misery is a movie? I don't think I could ever stand watching it!Although, I found that Rose Red was definitely better in book form.
If they ever film either The Long Walk or Rose Mad..."
Yuppers, Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes. Brilliant.I haven't read the Rose Red book, but the made-for-TV movie was...entertaining (and super cheesy!) .
@ Helen... I don't know, the short story wasn't bad, but for me, it was emotionally void next to the movie. It doesn't help that Morgan Freeman narrates the movie either. I'm a huge fan of Morgan Freeman narrating things.
It sounds as if the young man may have fallen victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well known is certainty that books are always better than movies, without recognizing that a movie can be better than the book if both are excellent and one sees the first before reading the latter.
Inconceivable!
Brilliant review! But I must say that Stephen King is the only writer whose books seem to make better movies My favourite is Stand By Me - great film, boring story. Now I never read his books - I just wait for the film to come out - oh, and I never get involved in land wars in Asia either.
I thought of another writer the other day, Maxine. Chuck Pahlaniuk. I think his books are better as films too. Although, sometimes, that's not saying much.
Kubrick version was sewage. It was completely changed. I will alway prefer books to movies.
Saying you "will always prefer books to movies" seems a bit inflexible, Lisa, but I support your right to feel that way. Thanks for sharing.
The movie adaptaion of a book is always to liberal for me. I prefer it when they stay true to the beauty of the novel. For instance, both adaptaions of the Shining. The first one, no where near the plot line of the book. It was about Jack decent into madness. The book was about that as well as the haunting of the Overlook. More importantly, the Overlook's desire to have the little boy because of his abilities. The second adaptaion, that King himself oversaw, stayed true to the story. Not once in the novel did Jack say, "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy." I know this because I have read it 20+ times. The second adaptaion is one instance where I love the movie version of a book. Another is The Stand. Whenever King is aloud to oversee, or outight write, his screenplay. You get cinematic gold, in my opinion.
Excellent review! There is one scene in the book that wasn’t in either movie. It’s at the end where Jack catches up with Danny and Danny yells at him, “You’re not my daddy, you’re the hotel. Take off your mask.” So Jack takes the crochet mallet and smashes his own face to a pulp. He then tells Danny, “No more mask.” I thought that was creepy as hell.
I don’t think any of the movies have captured the true nature of what’s happened to Jack. The hotel has taken him over. Yes, he’s kind of jerk to begin with, but by the end he’s just the hotel. I think that’s why I prefer the book.
To be honest, I'm not a huge Stephen King fan. I feel like his characters are unlikable, so I don't usually care about them. I think I liked this book because it was so imaginative.
I know what you mean though. There are some movies that are so much better than the book. You go to read the book to get more insight and all you get is disappointment. I could make a list.
I saw The Shining when I was five years old. It has stuck with me my entire life. I adore it. Having said that, the book is utterly amazing. After I read it, I saw things in the movie I never noticed before. There is Stephen King's The Shining, and Kubrick's The Shining. They are two different beings, and it is unfair to compare them. Most of the time, it is possible to say one is better, but to me, The Shining stands alone in either category as brilliant.
I enjoyed both versions of The Shining in different ways. I honestly felt that the book was creepier as it gives you more of a feel for what the heck Jack Torrance is thinking. I have to disagree with your review inasmuch as you said the movie version of Pride and Prejudice was not as good as the book (of course I am referring to the BBC Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version). It is really excellent!
Nice review. I feel the same way. The movie is made by a master, the book written by a middling "writer for the masses."
Couldn't agree less. The book is way superior to the movie.
the book is meandering, silly. animated shrubbery? everything Kubrick left out was stupid. everything he added was genius
I'd say that the book has a stronger first two acts than the film, but the film has a stronger final act that leaves the more satisfying final impression of the two.
I disagree. I was not delighted with the infamous Kubrick film, and thought that it - while beautifully shot and creepy in its own right - lacked depth. I found that depth with the book, which examines complex characters and the experiences they undergo. Everyone in the film came off as stunted caricatures. Jack - as Stephen King complained - already gave off an impression of insanity before we get 10 minutes into the film, and Wendy seemed little more than an airhead wife scared stupid. Much more interesting people in the book.
I think tath i prefear 1000 times th book more than the movie
I haven’t seen the movie yet but I know I will hold the same thought
But the book is so so so much better than Kubrick's movie, in my opinion. I was really disappointed, mainly due to the fact that it had no depth at all, no hints whatsoever that Jack was on the madness path - his madness was too sudden. And not to mention the poor choice for the actress that played "Wendy". I'm currently reading the book and I just can't put it down! The movie didn't scare me at all (and some scenes annoyed me), but the book already gave me nightmares...
Thanks for this review. I wasn't going to bother with the film, given I didn't rate the book. But now I'll check it out. :)
Probably an unpopular opinion, but thought the same about Lord of the Rings.
You described exactly my feeling reading it right now. Too fond of this masterpiece of a movie, a bit bored by the book....
