The Shining

usachan · Post by **usachan** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:49 pm

Yea, so I finally watched this movie all the way through for the first time last night, and I just didn't get it. Basically I got the hotel was haunted, but I didn't really understand why. Did I miss something? Am I supposed to understand? Or is it supposed to be one of those stories that drives you insane because you don't get why anything happened?

Post by **Tiff** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:03 pm

I don't know if you missed it, but in the movie they state that the previous caretaker went insane as well, and killed his entier family with an axe (he had a wife and twin girls. The twin girls in the hallway scene are those girls). Jack goes insane and tries to kill his family in the same fashion.

I'm not sure if there's a specific reason why, but the ghosts throughout the movie urge Jack to kill his family, the same way they did the old caretaker. That, combined with the isolation driving him insane, is what causes Jack to go nuts.

At the end of the movie, it shows the photograph of the 1920's ball, and Jack is inside of that photograph. Basically, he is now part of the hotel's history, part of the other spirits that reside there.

EDIT: oh, and The Shining is one of my favorite movies ever. XD

Neon Heart · Post by **Neon Heart** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:07 pm

The Shining is an awesome movie....But I only just now started understanding it when Tiff explained it. A good movie, but a veryweird movie it is. ^^;;

Post by **Tiff** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 pm

Neon Heart wrote:The Shining is an awesome movie....But I only just now started understanding it when Tiff explained it. A good movie, but a veryweird movie it is. ^^;;

XD I took a Horror Analysis class in college, and this was one of the movies we watched and analyzed.

Gamer8585 · Post by **Gamer8585** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:19 pm

Its a long story that doesn't fully come out in the movie. Basically bad things have happened in the hotel over the years (murders, suicides, rapes, adultery, criminal conspiracy,etc) and there was a huge fire during a party in which many people died. Those events were constantly covered up by the management, however all of the "negative energy" from the events trapped the spirits in the hotel and caused the hotel itself to "Shine" in an evil way, and that allows the spirits to form bodies.

The hotel drove the previous caretaker "Grady" to kill his family, and thus add more power to itself. In the movie the Overlook senses Danny's gift and knows if it can trap Danny's spirit in the hotel the spirits will become so strong the can maintain their physical form throughout the entire year.

Or that's how I understand it anyway.

Sylphiel · Post by **Sylphiel** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:20 pm

Yeah, I love the movie too. It's also one of my favorites. Stanley Kubrick is a genious. I think that blood gushing from the elevator scene is still one of the most psychologically disturbing images ever put in a movie. The camera work in the film is incredible too.

The only thing I didn't really get was the ending, but then I thought more about how [spoiler]the ghost in the bar talking to Jack was the other guy who killed his family who stayed there. And he clearly became part of the history/ghosts, and then the same thing happened to Jack at the end.[/spoiler]

Also, that thing Tiff said about the ending should possibly be in spoiler tags? ^^;

Post by **Tiff** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:28 pm

The reason I didn't put it in spoiler tags is becuase generally when we're discussing ANY movie or book exclusively, spoilers are going to be revealed. Otherwise, just about every post would contain spoiler tags, and that makes for difficult/annoying reading.

And yes, Sylphiel, I agree. The cinematography is just awesome.

Kasumi · Post by **Kasumi** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:55 am

I've recently watched it again and I think it's one of the best movie I've ever seen... I mean old movies ^^°
I don't know what to write, it's early in the morning, sorry ^^°

usachan · Post by **usachan** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:12 am

Thanks guys! I think I finally get why the stuff happened. It just seemed off that a hotel would make someone kill their family, without having some sort of background story! Well, in real life it'd be odd either way, but yea. It's too late for me to make sense!!

Mad Hatteress Belial · Post by **Mad Hatteress Belial** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:40 am

I still remember when I saw that Shining for the first time; it was sort of an accident. Does anyone remember the clip Cartoon Network used to show that spoofed the riding the bike down the hall scene with the mice and the cat (I can't remember their names, but their old cartoon characters; it was something like Pixie and Jinxy)? Well, I turned on the movie at exactly that point and continued watching it.

To really get a full sense of the Shining, I think you have to read King's book, because Kubrick used his own imagination for some parts which made me not like his movie, plus the chick they cast as Wendy was TERRIBLE.

Has anyone else seen the three hour mini-series? That stayed as close to King's book as possible, and the DVD of it has tons of special features, plus it has a small bit of my favorite part from the book when they're getting the man in the dog costume to perform tricks at the party.

Gamer8585 · Post by **Gamer8585** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:08 pm

Mad Hatteress Belial wrote:I still remember when I saw that Shining for the first time; it was sort of an accident. Does anyone remember the clip Cartoon Network used to show that spoofed the riding the bike down the hall scene with the mice and the cat (I can't remember their names, but their old cartoon characters; it was something like Pixie and Jinxy)? Well, I turned on the movie at exactly that point and continued watching it.

To really get a full sense of the Shining, I think you have to read King's book, because Kubrick used his own imagination for some parts which made me not like his movie, plus the chick they cast as Wendy was TERRIBLE.

Has anyone else seen the three hour mini-series? That stayed as close to King's book as possible, and the DVD of it has tons of special features, plus it has a small bit of my favorite part from the book when they're getting the man in the dog costume to perform tricks at the party.

The characters on CN's parody were Pixie, Dixie, and Mr. Jinx. Your right, Kubrick had his own vision for the film, but he couldn't have possibly fit everything in one movie so he had to leave a lot of stuff out. I didn't like Shelly Duvall, but I think Jack Nicholson was so awesome it made up for it.

I've seen the mini-series you speak of, but I think it had the exact opposite problems of the movie. The mini-series had a much smaller budget (and it shows), the acting was sub-par, the direction wasn't nearly as good, and the very end of the movie was really cheesy.

However I like how they were able to go into more detail about the hotel and Jack's past, and I like the woman that played Wendy in the mini-series more then I did the movie.

In brief: Ax > Roquet Mallet

Kasumi · Post by **Kasumi** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:07 pm

I preferred the roquet mallet xD

Hm, now there's something that bugs me (the fact that Kubrick had his own vision of the film aside): It's Wendy's actress.
Now someone mentioned that she was horrible... now I agree 100% to this.
She was probably the worst looking woman I've ever seen in a film. Okay, not THAT bad, but still bad enough. I know that looks don't really matter, but her acting was mediocre too. THAT's what's so bad. She doesn't have anything to compensate with.

usachan · Post by **usachan** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:31 pm

Kasumi wrote:I preferred the roquet mallet xD

Hm, now there's something that bugs me (the fact that Kubrick had his own vision of the film aside): It's Wendy's actress.
Now someone mentioned that she was horrible... now I agree 100% to this.
She was probably the worst looking woman I've ever seen in a film. Okay, not THAT bad, but still bad enough. I know that looks don't really matter, but her acting was mediocre too. THAT's what's so bad. She doesn't have anything to compensate with.

Ehh, I actually liked her. That's just me I guess.

Sylphiel · Post by **Sylphiel** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:49 pm

usachan wrote:
Kasumi wrote:I preferred the roquet mallet xD

Hm, now there's something that bugs me (the fact that Kubrick had his own vision of the film aside): It's Wendy's actress.
Now someone mentioned that she was horrible... now I agree 100% to this.
She was probably the worst looking woman I've ever seen in a film. Okay, not THAT bad, but still bad enough. I know that looks don't really matter, but her acting was mediocre too. THAT's what's so bad. She doesn't have anything to compensate with.
Ehh, I actually liked her. That's just me I guess.

I liked her too. I think she did the "really freaked out wife" part fine, and she was creepy, which added to the creepiness of the movie.

Mad Hatteress Belial · Post by **Mad Hatteress Belial** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:58 am

I actually started laughing during the movie when Jack finally snaps because the actress looked so fake being scared and swinging the bat at him.

Plus, as was said, looks don't matter, but in the book Wendy was described as a blonde haired hottie. I mean, didn't the original actress even play Olive in the Popeye movie?

Kasumi · Post by **Kasumi** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:21 am

Yes, she played Olive. Well, I think this role fits perfectly.

And I agree with Mad Hatteress: She looked so fake. That's why I don't like her.
I found Danny to be a bit irritating at times, but he played his role well enough.