Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ill let u guys talk about it and read posts about it cause i luved the movie and i just want to here others opinoins without my influence towards it

it was excellent almost bought the book 2 days ago but got the Dead Zoneinstead
All woork and no play makes Jack a dull boy lol!

sorry about all the mistakes b4!

Scariest movie of all time. Absolutely amazing.

classic

It is fantastic, it is my favorite horror movie. I really can't understand why Stephen King didn't like Kubrick's screen version of it. Stephen King's own screen version of it was terrible, but Kubrick's was brilliant.

stephen king writes books, he doesn't know jack about movies or what makes them good.

The Shining is in my top three favorite movies. Of course I am speaking of the Stanley Kubrick version, NOT the Stephen King version. The overall feel of the movie is creepy and the actors do such a wonderful job of becoming the characters.

I love the Shining!!The new one was terrible.I didn't even finish watching all of it cuz I just couldn't take it.

Great movie. Anyone else think that she was really funny looking?

yeah she was the ugliest lady 2 ever walk this earth

Hey the new Shining, which I too wasn't fond of, was more geared towards the book, I mean the croket hitter, and the hotel were both in the book, the hotel in the new one is the same hotel, where it happened in the book.

come on Shelly Duvall Rocks Popeye as Olive Oil. lol.

yeah, you guys have seen the extended version also right? a few more scenes of dead people at the party, shelly finding the two guys in the hotel room, with one of them dressed as a dog?? weird shyt.

by far the best horro movie of all time IMO!


Blood slow mo through the doors and hallway...talk about eireeee

good movie, but not scary in my option at all

All sorts of people told me about how The Shining (with Jack Nicholson) was a good movie. I rented it and want my money back, that was the worst movie I ever saw. Damn people for tricking me, damn them. And d a m n better not be filtered, that'd be stupid.

If you read the book the movie is HORRENDOUS, it does it no justice at all. The only good part was Jack's acting due to his weird-ass face. BOO! Who else thinks it sucks? And why would anyone like it?

I also didnt like it. I was very disappointed cos I was always hearing how scary it is and stuff. Didnt find it scary, found it boring. Jack is good in it has e always his but thats it.
But this is a horror movies so moving to horror movie forum.
moving--moved

Pfft horror.. It was a comedy if anything, and a crappy one at that. It ended completely wrong and never even explained who Tony was. HORRIBLE..

I loved Shining...especially the re-maike, i really got into it!It didnt scare me as such, but i found it disturbing...

I thought it was a pretty good movie, it wasn't that scary it was just a little freaky. Jack Nicholson did a really good job though, you have to say that much!

*sigh* It's one of the greatest horror movies of all time. It has the most overwhelming creepy atmosphere I've ever experienced. It's the only movie to ever truley terrify me deeply. When I first saw it as a child, I couldn't sleep that night, and even now when I watched it, it still creeps me out.

It's also one of the few movies to successfully combined terror and comedy without going soft. Many of Nicholsons lines are hilarious, along with his over acting and expressions. Probably Nicholsons best performance besides Cuckoos Nest.

But back to why the movie is indeed good. The whole movie has a feeling comparable to a calm before the storm, you can tell that something is going to explode...but you don't know when or where...Or who. It's all so quiet and calm...then we see those 2 creepy little girls beckoning Danny to come play with them...probably the creepiest thing I've ever seen is when they are talkign to him and it keeps flashing to show us what happened to them, we see their bloody corpses for a few split seconds...

The movie is the most successfully terrifying horror movie ever made. You are definately in the minority of thinking it sucks. All horror fans I know recognize this movie as absolutely terrifying and haunting....I can't agree with them more..

PS. Don't see the remake, it's cheezy and stupid.

agreed. remake was crap. i saw it on tv

Oh yeah I saw that made for TV shit too.Sucked nuts.But The Shining with Jack Nicholson was good.I am actually not a fan of the movies based on the Stephen King novels but the movie was okay.Not the best but okay.

shining wasnt bad at all.. my dad was just like him which boosted the scare factor for me @_@ needless to say we dont live with him anymore lol

I loved it didn't find it very scary though. Next time i go2 blockbuster i'll rent it.

The Shining is a wonderful movie and those of you that think it sucked must not be very "into" horror movies.

I loved The Shining it is one of the best adaptations of Stephen King aside from Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me. The remake was horrible.

yeah the remke sucked bad!

oops i meamnt remake and it was also bad because it went 4 over 4 hours!

Well i didnt mind re-make...maybe some other actor should have been involved, but i liked it.
It didnt bother me how long it lasted, it was a mini series and it did last long, but so did Rose Red, but it was a still great movie.

Never saw the remake, the orginal, it is good.

I dinit like it that much eiter, but it wasint that bad, not creepy in my option, and not funny eiter

If that's one of the best then I want to DIE and never see any others.. I read the book and then saw the movie. If you did this you'd see how they BUTCHERED IT. As I said, Jack is great as Jack, but that's all. What they left out was the best parts! Jack fights off the house trying to take over him to use the boy's gift to draw people to itself. He does chase them around outside but he doesn't ****ing FREEZE to death! That was so STUPID. He let the boiler explode and blow up the whole house, he did it to save his family. It didn't explain that Tony was actually an older version of the kid, who's middle name was Anthony if I remember right. He could see himself older because of the Shining. Also, doesn't the cook Halloran DIE in the movie?! What the hell!? He was one of the best characters in the book and survived till the end, and they killed him?! God I hate this movie. Butchering butchering BUTCHERING.

So yea, you guys might like it but read the book. It is the ABSOLUTE WORST adaptation of a book ever.. in history.. forever.. always.

The book was BOOORING. I read it a couple years ago expecting a masterpiece, but I was disapointed. Stanley Kubrick did a great job of making it more entertaining.

I wasn't comparing plot points only the feel of the story

The reasons that stuff wasn't put into the movie is because it would have made it cheezy. Books and movies always have different aspects as to what makes them good. What makes a book good isn't going to make a movie good, and vice versa.

Comparing books to movies is always a bad idea, since it's impossible to make a book straight into a movie without changing some stuff.

The remake was a better adaptation, but it turned out to be just cheezy, even though it followed the book better.

i agree

Anybody who compares a book to a movie is a retard. Completely different mediums.

Books are merely stories that propell the reader to imagine the story. They are usually more detailed because they have to be. There are no restrictions. A book can be as long as the author wants it to be.

Films are moving pictures that tell a story in hopes of captivating the audience and drawing them into the story, making them forget about the world going on around them. Since these pictures are created in the real world with real people and not in a person's mind, there are obvious restrictions. Length of film ofcourse......this means that only the best and most relevant information to the central plot is to be included. Laws of Physics.....using real actors on real sets mean that you can only put situations into a movie what can be physically pulled off and still appear realistic enough to keep the audience captivated, unlike books which have no bounds because the laws of physics do not apply to what is occuring in one's mind.


Forest Gump is a great movie. Agreed? It won many awards. Did you ever read the book?.....completely different. In the book Forest is a foul mouthed southern boy who finds himself in many different situations in his lifetime (more than double what's in the movie). He is not the sweet and lovable moron he had to be portrayed as on screen to appeal to the audience to draw them into the story.

How can you not compare the book to the movie, when the movie is based on that book?!

BASED on.................

key word there darling...........it means, "the PLOT of this movie is somewhat based on the plot of a book"................nowhere does it imply that it will be the exact same story.......merely the same plot.

How many movies have been based on the life of Ed Gein?

welll, luv, if the book and the film are called exactly the same, and if atthe begining of the film says, ''based on a novel/book/ by ....whoever, you are naturaly gonna compare...
And dont patronise me!
And at the begining of how many movies does it say 'based on the life of Ed Gein'?!

many are based on the life of Ed Gein.......different aspects ofcourse. Psycho is based on the schitzofrenic, cross dressing, mama fearing, killing side of Gein........The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is based on the killing, canabalistic, skin wearing side of Ed Gein.

and how did I patronize you?..........

and no, you should not naturally compare because most people with common sense know the vast differences between the two mediums and know that it impossible to create the exact same story in two completely different mediums and both to appeal to the audience. That is why it says, "based on"..........if it wanted you to think it was the exact same story they wouldn't put anything dealing with "based on" up there. They would merely have the title screen then begin the movie.

Once again, Movies and books are completely different mediums and should not be compared, even if a movie is based on a book. They take different aspects to be successful.

I never compare a movie to a book because of how different each medium is.

I agree with you except for the first line. I wouldn't call people who compare the book to the movie retards. I like to compare the books to the films just not on plot points and character details, but more for the overall atmosphere, message, feel, ect. that the story is trying to convey. For instance, in the shining I thought the movie protrayed the conflicts inside Jack great and really showed the denial of Wendy when her whole world was falling apart around her.

Riiight!
You naturaly make the connection between the book and the film....take Staphen King for example....he works on the films of his own books! If you are gonna already base the film on the book, do it right!
you are talking about totally diferent thing here...Ed Gein..hes an idividual that few films are based upon....
if the film is based on a book and has EXACTLY THE SAME story line, how can you not compare it?!?!

I didn't say those who look at both mediums are retards......only those who compare them.

To compare them means you are putting them head to head to decide which is better.........you cannot do this with stories from two seperate mediums. Apples and Oranges. Movies have their upside over books........books have their upsides over movies.........hence the retard remark.

Yes, and have you noticed all the movies King works on directly suck?

This is because he is a writer, he has no idea what makes a movie good. He only knows how to write a good book. To make a good movie takes many completely different skills and aspects.

I liked how Rose Red came out...

I liked The Shining very much I thought it was a great movie. Not all horror movies have been able to keep me entertained as much as The Shining

Just because you don't happen to like, it doesn't mean it's crap!

Let's have some respect!

to be honost I thought Shining sucked,................ films off Stephen King books I enjoyed Storm of the Century

Storm of the Centery...oh man, i loved that..loved the book...film was alright...

for all you nay sayers, come on over and visit us here at the Stanley Hotel, in Colorado. It gives me chills walking down those hallways!!!!

HERES JOHNNY

I loved the shinning!

Shinning was great and Jack N. was perfact in his role. Dont forget that it was made about twnty years ago. It is not a movie of special effcts but full of suspense and a classical. Of course it is out of age but still impressing.

Good movie if you ask me I've watched it 3 times.

Okay.....I have read everything Stephen King has written and seen all his movies. The first Shining movie, in my opinion is good because of the actors. Yes, they did change the plot of the movie a lot from the book. The second one may have been longer, but it more closely followed the book (could have been the fact that Stephen King himself was like producer on it or something). What I didn't like about the remake was the actors. The kid who played Danny Torrence used to do Disney commercials. I just can't get creeped out watching a kid from Disney commercials. If they could have taken the plot of the remake and put the actors of the original in it, it would have been terrific.

I like the shining part 2, i hated 1..it was retarded

The Shining is awfully mediocre. The book is a mindnumbing bore. This coming from a Kubrick fan.

I want to see this, it seems creepy.

It's very good. I try to watch it about once a year, and each time I do, there are a few things where I have to go, "that's messed up." - even though I've seen it at least 10 times.

Originally posted by Solo
The Shining is awfully mediocre. The book is a mindnumbing bore. This coming from a Kubrick fan.

I disagree, sir. The Shining was one of the few films that genuinely terrified me. The book, while not on par with Kubrick's version, is brilliantly written.

scary to you lot? or is it more thrilling type?