It's not fair to compare this good book with that Stanley Kubrick thing

[Nisus]

Congratulations to Stephen King for writing this thing. I haven't finished it yet, but I can surely already say it's one of the best modern fiction books I have read so far (I'm definitely more into the classics). It's engaging, entertaining, fascinating, and honestly "unputdownable" (sic). All the characters are credible up to a certain point, and the paranormal element of the story is introduced little by little and developed quite well. Here the "haunted house" theme is extended to a much greater level- it's quite clear the Overlook hotel is a living entity, it's quite clear that it doesn't want Jack and his family (and especially Danny) to leave the place. At least, not in a sane state of mind.

now, this being a great and thoroughly entertaining piece of horror literature, why do people insist in comparing it with that (horrible) "adaptation" made by the famous 2001: A Space Odyssey director Stanley Kubrick and "starring" (cough) the horribly over-rated Jack Nicholson?

It's like Kubrick had read a summary (a brief summary) of King's story and decided to focus on the more "shocking" aspect of it- Jack Torrance's descent into madness- giving Mr Jack Nicholson all the screen time he needed to showcase all his histrionic abilities. The result was, simply, a movie about an insane guy (insane from the get-going) who was given the chance to be locked in a desolate hotel with a pale, feeble-minded woman and a defenseless boy (two characters entirely different from their book counterparts), and therefore could spend most of the movie chasing his two helpless victims. Nicholson's performance (sic) in that film is- how could I phrase it- barely watchable. He's an over-the-top, theatrical actor who almost needs to SHOUT to viewers- "HEY, DO YOU SEE THIS MAN HERE IS INSANE?". He knows not the meaning of subtlety. While his book counterpart is a weak man trying to come to terms with his life and make up with his family, the movie Jack Torrance is just a psycho. And this does not mean the other actors in the film are any better- Shelley Duvall, for example, is incredibly miscast.

Kubrick (and I don't know if it was entirely his fault or if it was Jack Nicholson's ego's fault) really succeeded in bastardizing this good story, and he was surely rewarded- his movie is now generally regarded as a "classic", which just goes to show how little the general public, and the movie critics themselves, need and expect from their sources of entertainment.

It's only because I'm reading this now that I understand why King disliked that (horrible) movie so much. And also I can't even imagine myself ever having the patience to watch 2 straight hours of Jack Nicholson's histrionics ever again.

[[Another book to confirm the old truism- books are always better than the movies based on them. A.L.W.A.Y.S.]]

[Dee Dee]

I only just started and I see what you mean...

[Chelsea]

I was excited to watch the movie after I read the book last summer and I was SO disappointed. The book is so rich and I loved the blend of real life horror (Jack's descent into madness) and paranormal horror. The suspense is palpable in the book and the movie is just so dumbed down it's almost offensive if you've read the book. I don't understand how the movie is a 'cult classic'.

[Melissa]

I completely agree! I read the book after watching the film, and was shocked at how different the characters were. Book is always better, indeed!