What was Stanley Kubrick doing directing horror?

Rating: 1/10 (22 July 2004)

The suspense was ruined scene after scene by bad editing. Jack Nicholson was never credible as a sane Jack Torrence. This should have been billed as "loosely inspired by Stephen King's The Shining". Left out the topiary (a very important aspect of horror in the book) and what's with the repeated shots of the elevator of blood? I think the ONLY reason this has gotten decent ratings is because it has Stanley Kubrick's name attached to it. If it had the director as Alan Smithee, I doubt it would have gotten above a 3 rating. If you want to see a very faithful adaptation of the novel, rent the mini-series Stephen King's The Shining. Shelley Duvall (an accomplished actress) was reduced to a whimpering, sniveling extra. And, what's with the finger "redrum"?!? In the book... Tony lived in the back of his throat, not in his finger. About the only thing worth watching in this movie is Scatman, even though they changed his role quite dramatically from the book. This movie appears to have been made to show how insane Jack Nicholson can act, as he is really about the only thing featured in the movie. Those that rated it well, obviously never have touched the book.