Read the book seen the film.. Some thoughts

Sounds to me like you prefer the book.


I like the movie better, I think it's scarier, more interesting and just better written. I do wish though that Dick had survived his attack in the movie, as he does in the book.

Yes, great points and I agree with you. I just watched the movie (DVD) again this past weekend.

I have read EVERTHING King has written multiple times over the years. I'm well aware that his books have not always adapted to the screen very well.

I liked the movie in it's own context. But held up against the book, I was disappointed the first time I saw the movie.

My biggest complaint is the same as Kings.

Jack Nicholson was wrong for the part. He was creepy from the first scene. I would have liked to see any other actor portray that slow, sad, unavoidable descent into madness much like the Jack in the book.

I didn't like the Jack Torrence in the movie; So from the start I didn't care what happened to him.

I didn't like the "Wendy" in the movie either. She was just a timid screamer. I would have gone crazy too if I had to live with her. No wonder Torrence was a drinker. I liked the way the "Wendy" in the book was strong willed but sheltered and clueless in the way the real world worked.

Danny, in the book, was smart and quick to catch on to things. The movie Danny was just annoying.


Guess she didn't like the cornbread either.

Kubrick changed very little in the story. It is all just transformed and reinterpreted.

1) The Hedge animals were in the film. You will see them in pictures, books, tv shows and Danny's toys. Some of them move around on their own and appear in different parts of the hotel.

2) Having a ghostly teenager visiting little Danny would have been confusing and ridiculous. The proof of it is in the mini-series. By keeping it vague, having it possibly be an imaginary friend was a stroke of genius. And the finger idea wasn't Kubrick's that was all little Danny Lloyd's improvisation. So authentic childhood behavior of the unexplainable straight from a child source. How can that be less believable?

3) Danny and Halloran chatting like buddies through ESP would have been downright silly. Besides what an intrusion of privacy for both of them. We saw enough of the two to know that Halloran was frightened about Danny's presence in the hotel before he left for the winter. We know that Danny was a little, untrusting of Halloran's concern for him (believable for a child who has been abused by his father). He only contacted Halloran when he felt he had no ability to stop Jack. That makes the vision scene powerful.

4) The Boiler was in the film. It just didn't explode, Jack did. Instead of a big action set piece, Kubrick turned it into a psychological metaphor.

At this point, I can't see how King could complain that Kubrick changed his story. He absolutely did not. He just changed the center of it from outright supernatural to the place in between fantasy and reality.

5) Jack was normal in the beginning. As normal as a dry drunk attempting to go straight can be. A full account of 30 days of watching Jack longing for a drink and being afraid of going into the boiler room alone (because he thinks he sees weird things) would have been BORING. Just as it was in the mini-series. Plus there isn't a lot of time to convey this in a 2 hour film. So Kubrick just flashes the title 1 Month Later and we cut to Jack still suffering from alcohol withdrawal and developing cabin fever.

6) Yes, the ending was better than the novel but still the same message. Jack wanted his past or any past that didn't force him to face himself and his choices. So he was frozen in time, as it were.

I agree with much of your post, and had a thought to offer. In thinking about the movie----I almost think that the hotel "spirits" knew Jack would be an easy target because of his already present issues. I hope I'm making sense! I may be way off but anger is often covering up a deep hurt. Chronic anger can weaken you and be a wound all its own. A vulnerability that can easily be manipulated. I haven't read the book in years so I forget much of King's original description of Jack, but regardless, many people can see through the outward anger---so---if there IS a spirit world, I would think those spirits could see that void as well. And in this case, evil spirits looking to consume someone to carry out some acts and relive long ago events...they would definitely look at someone like that, I would think!

Similar to manipulative living people. Those types LOOK for those who have some sort of void (and hence that vulnerability) that open wound....and then attach themselves to people like that. Manipulation takes a resolve and a coldness....but they don't seek out the strong people!

Again, just a thought I had reading your post.