Incoherent, lifeless, hack film-making. Horrible storytelling.

Rating: 1/10 (20 October 2009)

How this film gained such high praise and notoriety completely escapes me. I have seen hundreds of films, and this is easily the most incoherent, bland, and lifeless piece of work I can recall seeing (especailly by such a renowned filmmaker). And yes, I hated "2001: A Space Odyssey" as well. Long, drawn-out, boring, lifeless film packed full of irrelevant imagery and symbolism that amounts to a filmmaker who doesn't know how to tell an intelligent story with solid characters and emotions. That is the same exact problem here.
First off, Shelley DuVall added nothing of value to the film. She was blah from beginning to end. No endearing qualities whatsoever. The whole film was a failed experiment thinking that random creepy, irrelevant images coupled with an incoherent story progression devoid of any character arcs would be successful. Kubrick had no sense of scene transitions. He shows no ability to allow one scene to flow into another, to give it fluidity or convey that he has an overall, consistent vision. The inconsistency over what aspect ratio he intended for it is further proof that he had no concrete vision, in my honest opinion. A solid, competent, talented director knows what they want, and are very confident in their visions. They have a very clear idea of how they want things viewed by every audience, everywhere. That's why directors and DPs hate it when their films are put into the pan-and-scan format. Kubrick also fails to have his DP shoot or light 98% of the scenes intriguingly. Watching this, it was like watching an old TV-movie - dull, uninspired, and lifeless. Yeah, the steadi-cams and dolly shots are all impressive, but sometimes, scenes seem to exist just to show off the cool camera moves they can do. Scenes which contribute absolutely nothing to the overall film, in any aspect. Being a filmmaker myself, I am of the belief that every scene should have a purpose to either the plot or characters of the film. Anything else is a waste. And beyond those steadi-cam and dolly shots, it's essentially bland for nearly the entire film. Almost zero interesting angles, and amateurish editing skills. Yawn inducing cinema.
Good story progression would show Jack Torrance starting out as a well adjusted, happy family man that gradually descends into complete psychosis and homicidal mania. Instead, Kubrick shows him as already a man dissatisfied with his life, marriage, son, and career. Then, Kubrick just flashes a title card on the screen saying 'One Month Later,' and Jack is already deteriorated towards the verge of madness. That's shoddy storytelling, and a hack's idea of executing a character arc. No cause is given to why he becomes a homicidal maniac. There's also no correlation between all the surreal, nightmarish imagery. It's completely random, and doesn't evolve into revealing a story behind its origins. All this surrealism is just an excuse for it to be labeled 'horror' as it doesn't serve an underlying purpose as to why anything is happening amongst the characters. They don't confront, deal, or resolve the reasons or purpose behind it all. It's just there to make the film bizarre.
Now, I don't mind methodically paced films as long as there's a purpose to it all. Any talented editor could make this a much more effective film by chopping a good 35 minutes or more out of it. Horror films require momentum to equal good pacing, and good pacing is necessary for solid tension. Still, even if there was tension and good pacing, fact is, really, there are no endearing characters in this film for me to build any sympathy for. I don't care what happens to them because they're one dimensional, emotionless, weak-willed people. How this family could even co-exist for five minutes is beyond me, let alone how they survived a more than three hour drive up to the hotel in the first place.
This film is almost complete trash because it shows the filmmakers have no intelligence or coherence for the movie they were attempting to make. There are enormously better conceived and executed films from this time that proved far more effective. If you want isolation and paranoia, check out "John Carpenter's The Thing." If you want surrealism, go rent Don Coscarelli's original "Phantasm."