I watched that cut too, I’m not sure, but I think the version I saw in cinema was longer. This version seemed much better paced, which solved one of the problems of the movie.
So are we moved on from The Shining or is the subject still open?
Why, you want to start some s@*t? BTW, I didn’t hear your detailed take on The Shining.
Well for me its the only horror film that has ever gotten me scared…Im so desensitized (apparently) that every time I watch a supposedly scary film it does nothing for me, but I’m sure that a lot of people here are the same way. Anyway I watched the film in the perfect atmosphere when I was 14. By myself late at night in which I was particularly sleepy, when I begin to give the film a spin…The subtle style kept me intrigued from the opening to the first look at the mansion…Now the score really got me going…Every time a scene was going peacefully that distinctive violin burst gave me a jolt…From there my memory was imprinted with those darling shots of mutilated apparitions and all the visual macabre that followed.
My favorite horror film of all time…
Before we move on to another title, one of my favorite scenes is when Jack walks down the hall talking to himself.
:-
BTW, I’m 1 for 1 agreeing with Stanton on this thread (wonder how long that will last)
My favorite scenes are with the twins.
“Come play with us Danny…Forever…and Ever…”
Awesome stuff.
just for jiggles I was reading about the movie and there was a real photo that Kubrick based his twins on:
Identical Twins, Roselle, NJ, 1967 by Diane Arbus
Yes only in NJ can someone find inspiration for two of the creepiest kids in cinema.
I think this scene with the twins is one in which the film gets scary. I can describe this better in German, as I don’t find the optimal words in English.
There’s a difference between the terroristic would be scares of slasher films (which are mostly not scary, which are often get boring in their overuse of false shock moments and gore), and a more subtle feeling of scare (one which you actually can feel in your stomach) in often more leisurely horror films. I’m searching for this feel in horror films, but I find it only seldom. The Shining at least has it, but mainly in the first half of the film.
But I watch The Shining more in the context of the other Kubrick films than as part of the horror genre. Hardcore horror fans often don’t care very much about Shining, cause it tries to be intellectual in a arty farty way they normally despise.
I’m still working on my ‘detailed’ comment
I’m a bit busy at the moment, but don’t worry, i’ll be there, just looking for my axe
It’s 10/10 movie for me. I love the comments about Nicholson being ‘over the top’. He was supposed to be crazy, would you like him to be calm and relaxed 
?
No, not calm and relaxed. But better acted. More subtle, and less of his grimaces.
In most cases I enjoy these often criticised over the top performances like e.g. Brando in The Missouri Breaks. But in The Shining it was often not so fascinating.
Kubrick was in these days alternating between films with near parodistic overplaying leads (Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange) and films with actors which were advised to do nearly nothing (2001, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket).
Can’t imagine a better actor than McDowell for Orange, but I can imagine several others for Shining. I still think Gene Hackman would have been a blast in Shining.
that’s an interesting choice of actors… I’m trying to imagine him in the role and it seems funny to me, maybe because I can’t help but imagining Hackman doing the same kind of things Nicholson did
I normally despise arty fartyness as well but in the case of the Shining I think the arty farty actually helps the film.
[quote=“Stanton, post:33, topic:1962”]No, not calm and relaxed. But better acted. More subtle, and less of his grimaces.
Can’t imagine a better actor than McDowell for Orange, but I can imagine several others for Shining. I still think Gene Hackman would have been a blast in Shining.[/quote]
I can’t help but wonder that Stephen King, who hated kubricks vision as well as Nicholson’s casting would’ve prefered hackman as well.
I also love how some see him as hamming it up in the beginning of the movie. I don’t see this. I think he sets up his ‘mad’ side beautifully by seeming pretty normal early in the film.
[quote=“Frank Talby, post:29, topic:1962”]just for jiggles I was reading about the movie and there was a real photo that Kubrick based his twins on:
Identical Twins, Roselle, NJ, 1967 by Diane Arbus
Yes only in NJ can someone find inspiration for two of the creepiest kids in cinema.[/quote]
Creepy! (& ugly) great detective work FT.
@ Stanton NO on Gene Hackman!
Yes those two are ugly as sin.
so when’s the next debatable movie being posted?
We are still waiting for Sherp’s detailed synopsis. Maybe Stanton can spark one of his patented ‘I hate a movie folks love’ debate (unless you have one). That’s what this thread is about.
OK sounds good. I’ll have to think of a movie that I don’t like and post it later.
Ha ha, I REALLY have to work on my image.
If you go through my 3000+ posts I doubt you will find me hating a film. In fact I have stated here and there that I never hate films. Why should someone hate films? I love some films, well, many, but I don’t hate films which are boring, badly made or whatever.
But there are films “folks love” I don’t care very much for. That’s unavoidable.