*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..
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.
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.
__________________
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." --Friedrich Nietzsche
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.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
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.
__________________ When running out of milk for the lucky charms, I shouted "That's magically inconvenient!"
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.
__________________ My dizzy head is conscience laden.
I wasn't comparing plot points only the feel of the story
__________________
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." --Friedrich Nietzsche
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.
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.
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?
KMC Community Forums
Oct 26th, 2003 03:24 AM
