An overrated travesty of a great novel

Rating: 2/10 (19 October 2016)

I've watched this twice because, the first time round, I couldn't believe how awful it was. The script, direction and performances completely throw away the empathy created by Stephen King's brilliant novel and the impression is that the director felt either indifferent to or contemptuous of the source material. The received wisdom is that the late Stanley Kubrick was a genius. Not on the evidence of this film. He may have been a talented film-maker but he is/was not the New Messiah.
Kubrick's Shining is a travesty of the book, a one-dimensional film without any emotional impact. The trailers are intriguing but, in truth, there is little more to the film than they show. None of the performances (with the possible exception of Scatman Crothers') have any light or shade and the music score - cobbled together from Bartók, Penderecki and Ligeti - is monotonously bleak. The whole driving force of King's story is cancelled out by Kubrick's lack of build-up and the casting of Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance. As this Torrance is clearly insane and murderous from the start of the film, there is no story to tell. Similarly, Shelley Duvall's Wendy is ready to descend into hysteria at a moment's notice. Duvall's character is completely lacking in the gutsy resourcefulness that a proper portrayal needs. The viewer has to wonder why this version of Wendy contemplated going with Jack in the first place, and didn't go off to her mother's as suggested.
Even worse, Kubrick trivialised the central idea of the Shining, casting the expressionless Danny Lloyd in the role of Danny and reducing his psychic alter ego Tony to a waggling finger! King's careful build-up of a supernatural threat is trivialised into a series of scares and "chilly" scenes. Kubrick reportedly auditioned thousands of boys for the role and still managed to get one without any apparent acting ability. Kubrick and his collaborators also threw away the important character of Hallorann, having him killed off immediately on his reappearance. Surely it's arrogance to disrespect your source in this way.
Admittedly, the film's visuals are impressive: but it seems to be about creating striking images and little else. The result is a relentlessly cold experience that never elicits any sympathy for the characters: a multi-million dollar ornament. Fans of Peter Greenaway and people who enjoy "art house" films will like it but, for those of us who enjoyed the book, the film is an ordeal. I may be a heretic but this film annoys me intensely as a representation of a great novel; nor is it good storytelling.