lack of coherency

Rating: Null/10 (19 June 2000)

This is one of those typical movies that divides its viewers in two camps: those who loved Stephen King's source novel and disliked the movie for bearing too little relation with it, and those who love Kubrick films and called the film his umpteenth masterpiece. As a occasional admirer of both artists, I agree with Kubrick's fans when they say that a filmmaker should be able to use a novel as a start off point - sounds to me like one of the fun things of filmmaking: taking an existing story and do your own take on it. I also agree with the film's advocates when they mention the visual beauty (direction; sets; photography) as one of its strengths. However, it's the visual beauty that underlines the inner emptiness of the film.
The problem lies mainly within the film's screenplay: 1. I totally agree that for some movies a script is nothing more than a blueprint (like "Evil Dead", which has a cliche "story", but can totally rely on Sam Raimi's direction and Tim Philo's haunting photography), but when the phrase "psychological" comes to pass and the film evolves around only three main characters, I expect fleshed out characters and increasing psychological suspense, but we don't get any of that. The characters are astonishingly one-dimensional people who don't seem to have a past. 2. Nicholson is nuts to begin with and spends the remainder of the movie, at turns, being nuts-"normal"-nuts-"normal"-nuts. 3. There's no real (psychological) build up to the final, which just arrives after a rather meandering middle section consisting of incoherent sequences which without any problem could swap places. 4. There's almost no dialogue between the three characters (the first time I saw it, I kept waiting for an uncomfortable scene with Jack, Danny and Wendy around the dinner table - which would have been an ideal setting to return four or five times in the film to underline the falling apart of the family). 5. Nicholson plays mostly for laughs, thereby putting even more emphasis on the exterior and, alas, thereby also emphasizing the inner shallowness. 6. The all too obvious symbolism (like Nicholson dying in a labyrinth which is both physical AND metaphorical) 6. Kubrick's gives the obviously very tired Shelley Duvall ways too many close ups (especially in the final) thereby painfully emphasizing her rather mediocre acting. I had the chance to see it in the theatre about a year ago and people weren't afraid --and they were laughing at some of the meant to be eerie scenes, especially Nicholson's encounter with the naked lady that turns into a witch. King's TV-remake of the film may be a bit unnecessary (like one of his characters says in his novel "It": "Your book is in the shops and nobody can change a word in it") but psychologically and (too) emotionally, it's stronger than Kubrick's film. Nevertheless, I still give Kubrick's film 3 stars out of four, because he was a master filmmaker, a personal favorite whose lesser films are still ten times better than other directors best works. I have seen it five times now and everytime I thoroughly enjoy its direction, photography, and rich atmosphere. Try to track down Vivian kubrick's 'making of', too, because it's an enjoyable companion piece.