Visually stunning, but...

Rating: 6/10 (5 October 2006)

In typical Kubrick fashion, here is a movie that is like flipping through a Time-Life "The Year in Pictures". The imagery is beautiful, but there is no story. And that's a real shame, because the story is wonderful. Don't get me wrong, I do like this movie, but I wish Kubrick had spent as much time developing the characters as he did working out beautiful steadicam shots. It exposes Kubrick for what he was, a photographer. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think Jack Nicholson was great in the movie, but was probably not the best choice for the role since he looked crazy already. Shelly Duvall had the most difficult role, and I thought she did an admirable job.
Kubrick took a great story and turned it into a disconnected, disjointed mess. Anyone who watches this film and thinks they have the slightest idea of whats going on is fooling themselves.
Oh, and this movie is NOT scary.