Tweet
I agree on the movie. I should have said that before. While I think Jack is too, let's call it intense, to begin with, the rest of the movie is very good.
-
-
mjaycox...agreed across the board...sigpicComment
-
Let's put an end to this...battle of the Shining directors.
Stanley Kubrick vs Mick Garris.
Thank you, thank you very much...
sigpicComment
-
.
.
.
"When things are at their darkest, it's a brave man that can kick back and party."Comment
-
Interesting to hear Mick Garris discuss this at Horror Rama this weekend. He concedes that the Kubrick version is an excellent film (although he hated the way it deviates from the novel with it first came out), and he gives Kubrick full credit as an innovator of cinematic language, but Garris was attempting to capture the spirit and intent of the original Stephen King novel in his TV version.
nick.jpgLast edited by samurainoir; Oct 21, '15, 10:41 AM.Comment
-
Funny, cuz I stopped reading King shortly after the Tommyknockers as well. I think the last thing I read was Needful Things. Over the last few years I've been watching and rewatching most of the film adaptations of his books, and that got me back into reading. Starting off slowly with short story collections though. After reading a couple of the new collections, I still prefer the early stuff, up to about Pet Sematary.
Back on topic though. I cannot sit through the miniseries, mainly because of the actors. I've also found I'm not as in love with the movie as I once was. It's one horror movie I've got no trouble skipping during this time of year.Comment
-
Kubrick has a way of setting a mood and making a movie cold.
He usually films a lot of scenes with the camera pulled way back - sometimes to a point it's a little hard to hear the actors.
He also lingers for a very long time on his takes.
I think these techniques helped make the movie a success and hit ... but for actual storytelling I think the miniseries was far superior.Comment
-
No doubt-- I totally get it. It's obvious that's what he was going for. And I understand the desire for remakes of movies, and am fond of many-- one must recall that "The Maltese Falcon" was the third adaptation of that story made in a ten-year period. "Farewell my Lovely" is just as good a film as "Murder my Sweet".
And this is not the only time a Kubrick film was remade ("Lolita" was remade by Adrian Lynne).
But slavish adherence to a novel simply for the sake of being more adherent is not a virtue in and of itself. One need only compare the excellent "Manhunter" with the stupefyingly dull "Red Dragon," which, it must be said, is closer to the novel. The pacing in a novel-- even in a fast read-- is far more langorous, and it allows for side diversions and inner character monologues that don't translate well to screen. Now some stories benefit from the long-form format in their adaptations (The marvelous Gerard Depardiu TV version of "Count of Monte Cristo" comes to mind), but King' stories, for whatever reason, never seem to ("Salem's Lot" '79 being the sole exception, IMO).
When you think of the truly great King adaptations, they are almost invariably films, and extensive liberties have frequently been taken in all cases, even though Kubrick always seems to bear the brunt of criticism for this. Examples: Carrie, Shining, Christine, Pet Sematary, Shawshank, Hearts in Atlantis, The Mist, The Dead Zone (Cronenberg) to name a few.
When you add up the King TV adaptations, it just seems a rising tide of mediocrity: IT (Tim Curry was great, but then, when isn't he? Everything else was boring), The Stand, Golden Years (written for TV), Night Flier, Kingdom Hospital (written for TV, adapted from Lars von Trier miniseries), Salem's Lot remake, The Shining (TVM), Tommyknockers, Carrie (TVM remake), The Langoliers (a terrific novellette adapted into a terrible TVM where Bronson Pinchot was the villain??)
... But, apart from that, and this is just one man's opinion, there are certain movies that should NOT be remade-- their original or most famous incarnations are so definitive that any remake is simply turning wine back into water. And-- if done so-- it shouldn't merely be done on the grounds of being more adherent to the novel. If I want more adherence to the novel, I'll read the novel.
I don't want to see remakes of "2001". I don't want to see a reinterpretation of "Clockwork Orange" with the 21st chapter added back in. I don't want to see the cast of Downton Abbey in a new Masterpiece Theatre production of "Barry Lyndon" which follows Thackeray more closely. I don't want to see a color version of "To Kill a Mockingbird" which is more faithful to the novel. I don't want to see "Vertigo" remade. Or "Goodfellas." Or "The Godfather". I couldn't care less if a more faithful adaptation of the "Wizard of Oz" got made-- for me it's Judy Garland or nothing!
And so, no, I don't think "The Shining" should have been remade. It did, obviously. And the results are about what one would expect when the the goal is to proceed with novel-plot fidelity, and one possesses only a journeyman's knowledge of cinematic language-- and to hell with good acting, pacing, and a desire for scares.
MattWarm up?! We may as well sit around this cigarette!Comment
-
I know this is silly but i like the Simpsons "The Shinning "Comment
-
Totally agree about the King TV movies. They're all pretty awful. But we live in a different world now. Just think what could be done for Netflix or Amazon, or even FX as a limited series. Forget about making It and The Stand as movies. Make an 8 episode series through one of these platforms and do it right.
TBH, I wouldn't mind a remake of Clockwork Orange.
Comment
-
Personally I think a remake of 2001 might be interesting.
Would love to see a version more like 2010 without the boring drug-induced never-ending scenes.Comment
Comment