Snow capped peaks, winter white roads and a wonderfully isolated hotel. It's enough to drive a man insane isn't it?

Why do movies based on Stephen King books cause such heated discussion? Before I get into this question let's focus our mind on the movie itself.  The opening ominous score, the luscious scenic backdrops. It all adds to the element of the film.

I would love to state for the record I like The Shining, I do not by any means love it. It has some fantastically engrossing moments but as an whole it is not the most, excuse the pun, shining horror out there.

Plotline: Who doesn't know it? Ok just a little side note in case: A family of three make their way to an isolated hotel for the winter season where an evil; spiritual presence pushes the father into a state of violence. Whilst this goes on his son who has psychic abilities starts to see horrific foreboding from the past and warnings of the future.

It is undoubtedly a suspenseful little number but watching it today made me think something more was missing from it. A little detail that would have made it truly superb but as that is not the case I can only like it and not love it like I ought to.

That said it is a nice film to watch when you have nothing else to do.

In terms of the actors, Nicholson, Duvall, Lloyd and Scatman I have very little complaint. They played the roles to the maximum of their game and did so very well.

Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance was brilliant. This is an actor I greatly admire for his movies, a particular favourite being (ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) as he brings a touch of normality to movies. To look at him you don't see a big name star but a regular Joe like many of us. His style of acting is powerful especially in this movie. Moving from a loving father to a man possessed, you believe his every motif and are captured by his essence of acting. Brilliant actor, need I say more?

Shelly Duvall as Wendy Torrance was quite damn good in her role. Trying to keep the family together despite realising they are fraying at the seams. She basically plays the part of a worried, terrified mother very well and I believed whole-heartedly in her performance.

That said respect as to go toward Danny Lloyd as their son. Confused, in new unfamiliar place he plays the part of a young one (who happens to be psychic) very well. He was excellent to watch and the stances where he was required not to speak and stand still as ever he did it to such chilling effect that I felt shivers run down my back. Scatman Crothers as Halloran was equally as good and I admit when his final scene pushed pedal I was slightly disheartened, an absolutely awesome actor from start to end.

We all know the deal with the score and I don't want to rain on parades but I do feel there could have been several times when the score was not so shrill and calmer and it would still have had a brilliant effect, I liked the score no question but a few alterations and I could have been stunned by it.

For a film more reliant on atmosphere and tension there was a few creepy scenes, one that commanded some blood to be shown. But done to taste and done to the style of the movie it doesn't look over-the-top, so all in all quite darn good. Now the camera angles / shots.

Ahh this I loved :) Some of the lingering camera angles are gorgeous, case in point when their son Danny is riding along the corridors of the hotel on his tricycle the way the camera angles in to make the corridors look more narrow makes for a very ominous feel. It adds a creepy tension and gives the movie more depth, so when it came to Cinematography, I was in my element.

 

Back to the question I asked earlier: Why do movies based on Stephen King books cause such heated discussion? I have a theory.

 

The problem with many of his horror films is there seems to be a condensed feel. More need to add an extra piece which detracts from the movie. That aside the directors have a task on hand. I have in my time read numerous books of his and they are all very heavy to get into. Essentially the director has to tap into the core of the story in order to make the movie work and more often than not elements get lost to stay true to the book. I do respect King but sometimes I feel he could be a little less into the depth of a story and focus on the main aim because in the process it pulls the director's attentions in too many ways. 

 

He causes such discussion because No1, he condenses the stories way too much instead of focussing on the main plot and characters and No2, his books have great attention to detail but cop out often with endings that do not leave us angry or happy. If no emotion embarks on the last scenes then you have all but lost the reader. Frank Darabont succeeded with The Shawshank Redemption because he went for the basic layer before he went for the labyrinth of layers which he added later on. I admire King but this movie leaves me cold at the end which is never a good thing.
 

There really is so much going for the movie. A great cast, a potentially great story and beautiful surroundings but it doesn't grab me like it should. Yes there are many a beautiful scene but they seem lost within the movie, like they were more an afterthought
 

It is a shame this movie does not grip my attention like it should do especially after all the good things I heard of it. That said I do not regret watching it. Scenes of the snow and subsequent surroundings make it too beautiful to not like. For its efforts it gets a 7/10, it is a good movie but in my opinion falls just short of the mark. Disappointing.