A round of applause for a 31-year old film

Rating: 8/10 (29 July 2011)

--- my review does contain a few spoilers.---
I had heard of this movie a couple of times before i decided to watch it. They say it is very scary and probably one of the scariest films ever made. I viewed this film about two hours ago at a very late time of night. And yes, it is still quite late.
First off, I will say that the film was done well even in comparison to modern day films, which made me at first think that people must have had nightmares for three months after watching this movie in 1980. Then, i found out that they didn't and i will deal with that later in my review. I will say that the movie was not incredible and did not have me on the edge of my seat, but it was still enjoyable.
The movie is purely about suspense. Suspense is a great thing in my opinion. I will applaud the director here for successfully making the film scary with his suspense without having to add excessive amounts of gore and blood or scenes where some ugly monster pops out of the mirror or something and makes the audience scream. The storyline is extremely slow-paced and the music was made so that we could really get into the movie.
Some good acting in my opinion. (not awful like some reviewers said) most of the actors put up good performances. That other guy who had the ability to see things as well, however, was awful. I guess it's because Hollywood at the time was still getting used to African-American actors. The guy might have even been new.
The script was good, although i had felt that the African-American guy was given awful lines of dialogue on purpose because of his race, which seemed unfair.
The characters seemed well developed. They seemed convincing to me and we could certainly feel emotions for them.
The storyline had a nice flow. I will mention again that i like how the director made it slow-paced to add on to the suspense. Some questions still end up being raised at the end. Who were those two girls the boy kept seeing? Who is Tony, Danny's split personality or some voice he hears or something? Why does the hotel room make jack go mentally insane? How does it turn out that jack was the same age in 1921 as he is now? Is he some spirit or ghost or something that is insane and thinks he is human?
I would encourage a remake for this film and i suppose the gross revenue would have been $700+M if it had been done. If i had done a remake, i would probably do the following:
Replace the actor who played as Jack's wife. She is ugly. Jack's wife seemed to have enough of a psychological breakdown. But to make the audience more hooked on the movie, i would make tweak things up a bit and make the breakdown twice as bad.
"redrum" is written with crayon. I would have haven it written with blood.
I would have an explanation as to why the father is going crazy. I would make the two twin girls look scarred and scabbed and covered in blood.
I like the suspense, but i prefer horror movies that are generally suspense suspense suspense POP!! I did mention that this director managed to create a good movie without that element of surprise, but i still think it could've been better with it.
As i said before, i finished watching the film thinking that the audiences back then ended up having nightmares for months on end after seeing this. BUT other reviewers confirmed the complete opposite and said it was because it did not stay faithful to the storyline of the book. I'm not a big fan of steven king's and i have not read any of his books, but i will say that the movie was probably overlooked back then. Audiences were disappointed when they found that the movie completely deviated from the storyline of the book. (at least, that's what they say). I suppose they expected it to be completely like its book. Before, i always thought that movies deviate from the storyline of the original work are not great but after remembering the Prince of Persia movie, i decided that i guess it might depend on the film. The POP movie wasn't incredible, but it was still good despite the way in which it stayed completely away from the storyline of the video game. It may also depend on the acting, script, and character development. I watched 30 minutes of the 1990 version of lord of the flies recently, and it was the worst movie i've ever seen. If anything, that movie was the one that should have been booed and jeered at. Here, i guess the changed and already awful storyline looked even worse because of the abominable acting and script. So, my message here is this: don't into the theatre expecting a film to be 100% like its book. If the director decides to change the storyline 90%, then try to adapt to the changes and enjoy the film. Those of you who still want to rant on about how it was not a good book-movie adaptation, i suggest you go read lord of the flies and watch the 1990 version. Not the 1963 version, because that stays faithful to the novel's storyline. The 1990 version will be the most awful piece of motion-picture you've ever seen in your life AND the worst book-movie adaptation.
Anyways, i'm done writing this review. And again, another round of applause for this 1980 movie that still appears enjoyable and scary even in 2011. I'll even mention my rating once for this film.
8/10 for good quality horror film entertainment.