Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Film Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 24-05-2008, 00:05   #81
Richie
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 23,671
Thanks: 238
Thanked 159 Times in 82 Posts
Yes but in an old hotel you'd expect lots of weird **** to go on behind closed doors really! It doesn't need explaining, it just is.
Richie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2008, 05:05   #82
Guest 45586
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 912
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by anephric View Post
If you hadn't read the book, it's quite a big, incongruous slap in the face to any audience expecting "sense".
The same applies to 2001 - the movie explains nothing, the novel explains everything. I think Kubrick once said something like 'I prefer the feel of it rather than the think of it.'
Guest 45586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2008, 13:59   #83
GarethH
Idle
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 5,964
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenza View Post
Were thee scenes where Jack is being served by the barman and then talking to the waiter in the toilet and then later again in the kitchen store room just being imagined by Jack?
I take this actually happening at least it in some sense. Wendy also sees stuff at the end of the film too, so its not just Jack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zenza View Post
Finally, the ending, how did Jack get on the photo which was based in 1921?
Grady says that Jack has always been the caretaker and he's always been there. I always see this as Jack's spirit is owned by the overlook and he got re-encarnated only to come back again.
__________________
Camera Body: 5D Mark III and 5D Mark II | Lenses: Canon 35L, Canon 135L, Canon 70-200L II, Canon 300 f4L, Sigma 85 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron Di II 90 Macro
500px
GarethH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2008, 14:01   #84
GarethH
Idle
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 5,964
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by anephric View Post
Kubrick nearly completely removes the backstory of The Overlook too, so all of the visitations (the party and the costume sex, the old lady waiting for her lover who never comes etc) go completely unexplained. If you hadn't read the book, it's quite a big, incongruous slap in the face to any audience expecting "sense".
The book is most certainly different from the film. I read it last year and couldn't help thinking of the film rather than the book as I was reading. Personally I think the choices Kuberick made to change the story from the book were good. The ending is very different and what was up with the hedge animals
__________________
Camera Body: 5D Mark III and 5D Mark II | Lenses: Canon 35L, Canon 135L, Canon 70-200L II, Canon 300 f4L, Sigma 85 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron Di II 90 Macro
500px
GarethH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2008, 20:03   #85
Guest 10192
Trusted User
 
Guest 10192's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 698
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well I haven't read the book but did enjoy the movie so will give the book a go too sometime.

Books are usually better than the films.............in most cases.

Last edited by zenza; 02-06-2008 at 20:04.
Guest 10192 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 22:58   #86
Guest 65630
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Shots of Shining

-Danny, Wendy, and Halloran enter the food storage room as Halloran is giving Wendy and Danny a tour of the Overlook's kitchen. The camera focuses on Danny as piercing, ringing music begins to play on the soundtrack. Kubrick cuts to a low-angle (Danny's POV?) shot of Halloran, zooming in on his face as Halloran glances at Danny and shines "How'd you like some ice cream, Doc?".

-After a title card that reads "THURSDAY," we are shown Wendy and Danny outside, running over to the hedge maze. The same piercing music begins to play as we cut to a low-angle shot of Jack, unshaven and in a black sweater, glaring at something off camera. The camera zooms in on his face before cutting to the next title card.

-Halloran is lying on his bed at home, watching the news on television. The same music begins to play as we see a high-angle shot zoom in on Halloran's face, staring, frightened, at something we can't see. But we do see it as Kubrick cuts to shots of what is happening in the Overlook. We know Halloran is shining - but we would have known this anyway as the type of shot and the music cued us to this as soon as they began.

This shot and music occur whenever a person in the film is shining. Placed where it is chronologically, we seem to be led to believe that Jack can in fact shine. In King's story, it occurs around when he would have found the photo album (left out of the film's story but shown on Jack's writing table in a few shots) and perhaps what is being implied is that, as Jack's mania grows and as Wendy and Danny play innocently in the maze, Jack is shining, learning about the Overlook's past, contemplating the "white man's burden" he says he has later in the film.
Guest 65630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2008, 07:30   #87
Guest 65628
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 37
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Best horror movie of all time - Jack Nicholson beats any modern day special effects
Guest 65628 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 08:49   #88
Guest 3460
fallen english gent
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 956
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by otto24 View Post
Best horror movie of all time - Jack Nicholson beats any modern day special effects
And, yet, for me it's possibly the most over-rated horror film of all time.

That's not to say that I think it's bad, but that it fails to do the one thing that I want from a horror film: scare me. Or at least un-nerve me. Sure, I admire the level of atmosphere that Kubrick generates from the hallways of that cavernous hotel, and the soundtrack is inspired and suitably ominous, and it's nice to see a ghost story trated with such intelligent style and panache. And yet... when we get to the 'horror moments' I really don't think Kubrick nails it at all.

Lost of people on here seem to imply that Kubrick crafted the film to be deliberately non-frightening/jumpy/scary, as though he was making something more cerebal and, being a genius, bucking expectations.

Really?

Or is it simply the case of Kubrick, as great as a director as he was, not having the cinematic ability/sensibility to understand how to create an effective scare? Not every director can direct horror. He tries though. He uses all the old tricks: crash zoom cuts, giant musical 'jump' stings, slow-mo blood, etc. But they just feel forced to me. They generate very little real tension, and fail to raise the hairs on my neck.

Take the infamous 'Here's Johnny' scene. I find this genuinely suspenseful to begin with, and fear very much for Shelley Duval (who, in my opinion, gives the film's standout turn). But, Kubrick being Kubrick, we have to watch, in real time, Jack butcher his way through the door, blow-by-blow, and this takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r, killing what tension there initially was for me. I then get angry at Duval for taking all-the-time-in-the-world to realise there's a window in the room.

It continually bemuses me that this film is forever voted Number 1 in all those 'scariest horror films of all time' poll thingies. Personally, from the same era, i'd say that The Exorcist is a much more un-nerving film, as is Rosemary's Baby.

And, for me, the grand daddy of all haunted house flicks is Robert Wise's The Haunting.

There, that's my two cents
Guest 3460 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 12:13   #89
GarethH
Idle
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 5,964
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooseUK View Post
And, yet, for me it's possibly the most over-rated horror film of all time.

That's not to say that I think it's bad, but that it fails to do the one thing that I want from a horror film: scare me. Or at least un-nerve me. Sure, I admire the level of atmosphere that Kubrick generates from the hallways of that cavernous hotel, and the soundtrack is inspired and suitably ominous, and it's nice to see a ghost story trated with such intelligent style and panache. And yet... when we get to the 'horror moments' I really don't think Kubrick nails it at all.

Lost of people on here seem to imply that Kubrick crafted the film to be deliberately non-frightening/jumpy/scary, as though he was making something more cerebal and, being a genius, bucking expectations.

Really?

Or is it simply the case of Kubrick, as great as a director as he was, not having the cinematic ability/sensibility to understand how to create an effective scare? Not every director can direct horror. He tries though. He uses all the old tricks: crash zoom cuts, giant musical 'jump' stings, slow-mo blood, etc. But they just feel forced to me. They generate very little real tension, and fail to raise the hairs on my neck.

Take the infamous 'Here's Johnny' scene. I find this genuinely suspenseful to begin with, and fear very much for Shelley Duval (who, in my opinion, gives the film's standout turn). But, Kubrick being Kubrick, we have to watch, in real time, Jack butcher his way through the door, blow-by-blow, and this takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r, killing what tension there initially was for me. I then get angry at Duval for taking all-the-time-in-the-world to realise there's a window in the room.

It continually bemuses me that this film is forever voted Number 1 in all those 'scariest horror films of all time' poll thingies. Personally, from the same era, i'd say that The Exorcist is a much more un-nerving film, as is Rosemary's Baby.

And, for me, the grand daddy of all haunted house flicks is Robert Wise's The Haunting.

There, that's my two cents
Each to their own, but can't say I agree at all with your negative points. The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby are very good films, amoung the best horrors, but The Shining is still a cut above them IMO.
__________________
Camera Body: 5D Mark III and 5D Mark II | Lenses: Canon 35L, Canon 135L, Canon 70-200L II, Canon 300 f4L, Sigma 85 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron Di II 90 Macro
500px
GarethH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 13:28   #90
Guest 3460
fallen english gent
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 956
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarethH View Post
Each to their own, but can't say I agree at all with your negative points. The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby are very good films, amoung the best horrors, but The Shining is still a cut above them IMO.
That's cool, and I'll be the first to admit that you're opinion of The Shining being better than my examples is one shared by pretty much all of my friends: I'm very much in the minority by finding it underwhelming (for instance, it's my wife's favourite horror film). And I really try to like it, but I just can't appreciate it as this much-lauded horror masterpiece. It's good, but it doesn't click with me deeply. It's the same with Full Metal Jacket: it's good, but overpraised imho. Maybe I just don't get 'Kubrick': I seem to appreciate his craft rather than enjoy his films. That said, I'm one of the few people I know who liked Eyes Wide Shut, so go figure!
Guest 3460 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 18:53   #91
GarethH
Idle
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 5,964
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Sometimes some films just don't click with everybody. I see where you're coming from in regard to Full Metal Jacket, I do like it but wouldn't say its one of my favourite movies.

I've not seen "The Haunting" but will check it out most certainly.
__________________
Camera Body: 5D Mark III and 5D Mark II | Lenses: Canon 35L, Canon 135L, Canon 70-200L II, Canon 300 f4L, Sigma 85 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron Di II 90 Macro
500px
GarethH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 19:20   #92
Livius
Is it far?
 
Livius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Med
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarethH View Post
Sometimes some films just don't click with everybody.
I have a confession to make - I don't like Stanley Kubrick's films! I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say such things around here; I may be asking for a flaming from the "Kubrick police" .
I've seen every one of his movies and, with the exception of The Killing and Paths of Glory, I don't care if I never see them again. For me, there's just such a coldness or lack of humanity to his stuff that I can't connect with it on any level.
What can I say - I just needed to get that off my chest. Flame away.
__________________
Riding the High Country
Livius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 19:45   #93
GarethH
Idle
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 5,964
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livius View Post
with the exception of The Killing
I watched The Killing a couple of months ago and I have to say its very different for a Kubrick film. Def worth a watch if you like older films.
__________________
Camera Body: 5D Mark III and 5D Mark II | Lenses: Canon 35L, Canon 135L, Canon 70-200L II, Canon 300 f4L, Sigma 85 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron Di II 90 Macro
500px
GarethH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 19:55   #94
Livius
Is it far?
 
Livius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Med
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The Killing is just a great movie in every way - acting, script, editing etc.
Yes, Kubrick's early films do feel completely different from his later ones and I prefer them. I wonder if there is a division between those who go for his early work and those who like the later ones?
__________________
Riding the High Country

Last edited by Livius; 11-06-2008 at 19:56.
Livius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 20:13   #95
GarethH
Idle
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 5,964
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livius View Post
The Killing is just a great movie in every way - acting, script, editing etc.
Yes, Kubrick's early films do feel completely different from his later ones and I prefer them. I wonder if there is a division between those who go for his early work and those who like the later ones?
Re-read what you said, i thought you'd not seen them but you said you liked them lol.
__________________
Camera Body: 5D Mark III and 5D Mark II | Lenses: Canon 35L, Canon 135L, Canon 70-200L II, Canon 300 f4L, Sigma 85 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron Di II 90 Macro
500px
GarethH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 20:30   #96
Livius
Is it far?
 
Livius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere in the Med
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hmm, confusion all round then.

I've seen all Kubrick's films, and seen them a few times. The only ones I can honestly say I liked enough to want to revisit are The Killing and Paths of Glory.
__________________
Riding the High Country
Livius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 22:17   #97
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarethH View Post
Each to their own, but can't say I agree at all with your negative points. The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby are very good films, amoung the best horrors, but The Shining is still a cut above them IMO.
I'm with the other guy - I hated The Shining when I saw it on its opening night in LA. Over the years, I've grown quite fond of it for various reasons (none of which have to do with the book that it's based on, since Mr. Kubrick systematically took out everything that worked in the book), and I really enjoy it now for what it is. But in terms of unnerving it's not a patch on the behind of Rosemary's Baby (truly the best adaptation EVER done from a book - it IS the book, literally - its author, who was a friend during the last fifteen years, told me why that's so - I'll share the story if anyone is interested), which I find to be one of the most brilliantly directed movies of all time - and that includes Mr. Kubrick's films. While I'm not the greatest fan of The Exorcist, it, too, is much more unnerving than The Shining. I think people simply read into The Shining things that simply aren't there - creating their "own" creepiness for creepiness that simply doesn't exist (save fot the steadicam shots of Danny driving his wheeler and seeing the twins).
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 07:51   #98
Guest 58450
Poke Us White Face
 
Guest 58450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 7,186
Thanks: 38
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
The only films that make me jump have done so with cheap tricks that don't work a second time and are often a sign of a bad film.

I'm not really sure how any film can really be labelled 'scary'? Surely it's about the stuff that remains after first viewing and the scare factor never does. My experience is that people tend to cite the scariest/best horror movies as the ones they saw when they were kids when you can really get drawn into things.

Anyway, my point is actually that I saw The Shining when I was fully grown but I thought a lot of the things gooseUK thought were 'forced' actually worked for me despite me being too old to really buy into these sorts of films properly. I thought the slow motion blood was one of the most chilling things I'd seen on film for ages. I'd put the Shining with Alien and The Thing as a film that's ostensibly a horror film but really is just a great movie that's pretty damn dark.
Guest 58450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 11:16   #99
anephric
Kidney Thief
 
anephric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 22,698
Thanks: 33
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
If you read interviews with Kubrick about his opinion of the book, he comes across as sometimes quite dismissive of King's abilities ("He takes no great care in his writing") and what constitutes the "horror" of the novel. Similarly to a great deal of King's oeuvre, it's the Jungian notion of a "dark father" that informs most of the novel's action and hence horror, including the climax. Kubrick pretty much hacks that out. It's there in notional form, of course, but Kubrick completely changes the ending of the novel, so that you have a confrontation of sorts between Jack and Danny, but not in the way of the novel, with the repudiation of the monster inside Jack, and Jack wrestling with that part of himself. Sure, it's bargain-basement psychoanalysis, but there's a sense of it being about something, which you don't get so much in Kubrick's version.
__________________
www.khaaan.com
anephric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 11:49   #100
Guest 58450
Poke Us White Face
 
Guest 58450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 7,186
Thanks: 38
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
I like both but I totally agree with all King's criticism of the movie. I don't really know that Kubrick had a leg to stand on to criticise the book when he made a film that was far less weighty and thoughtful, but there you go.
Guest 58450 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
Anne Jackson, Barry Dennen, Barry Nelson, Danny Lloyd, Diane Johnson, Jack Nicholson, Jan Harlan, Joe Turkel, Lisa Burns, Louise Burns, Martin Richards, Norman Gay, Philip Stone, Scatman Crothers, Shelley Duvall, Stanley Kubrick, Stephen King, The Shining, Tony Burton, Vivian Kubrick

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.qq
Copyright ©2000 - 2021 Network N Ltd.