As a fan of the original novel, this movie makes me sad.

Rating: 7/10 (13 July 2014)

I'm going to get a lot of hate for this opinion, but I'll say it anyway.
I don't like this movie.
Mainly because I love the book.
If this movie wasn't associated with the book, I probably would enjoy it more.
I'll keep this quick, but the main reasons I don't like the book are as follows.
1. Wendy Torrance: What is a fantastically strong mother figure in the novel turns into an annoying screaming woman who does nothing productive in the movie. She takes little responsibility for her son, and when Jack snaps, she cries in a corner rather than try to get out of the situation. I get that both reactions are legitimate for the situation, but I don't understand why Kubrick decided that a weak female character was better than a strong female character.
2. The Shining is severely underplayed. In this story, the Shining is the name Hallorann gives the psychic powers he and Danny share. In the novel, the shining is very important to the film and is the main reason that Wendy and Danny survive the ordeal, whereas in the film, a lot of it could be chalked up to coincidence.
3. Hallorann dies. There's a reason that the weapon in the novel is a croquet mallet, as opposed to an ax. I get that an ax is much better for the purposes of tension than a mallet, but it's hard to survive being hit by an ax. So in both the novel and the movie, Hallorann is summoned by the Shining, and is the first victim of mad-Jack, but because in the movie it's an ax rather than a mallet, he dies. Why does the hero of the story, and the only African American character die? He's also the only person that dies. The only victim of Mad Jack is the only African American character, who is the hero in the original book. I don't think that Stanley Kubrick is racist at all, but it's a very perplexing decision anyway.
4. It overshadowed the book. While the novel is a typical haunting story with great characters, the movie is the exact polar opposite of that, and is therefore more respected in terms of plot. I'm sure most people who have seen the film haven't read the book, and consider it as a stand-alone work. The conspiracy theorists that connect this film to the moon landing also probably consider this film independent of the book. This is sad because I love the book, and I feel that the characters in said book are very well developed, three dimensional and not-too- stereotypical. It's strange that a director known more for his purely cinematic and plot-centric movies adapted a story that relied more on emotion and character than logic. I completely understand why Stephen King didn't like this adaptation and licensed the television miniseries as a reaction (a series that was panned because it was compared to the film) It's also an odd thing to adapt compared to Kubrick's other adaptations (A Clockwork Orange and 2001, both of which are very niche novels to my knowledge) that he would also adapt something that is more 'NYT Bestseller' than 'Literature'.
I'll just stop here. I already probably annoyed a lot of you with my ignorance already, so just consider this: People probably also hate the LOTR films because they abandon something that was in the original film. I personally love them because they are great films, but just because a film is good in its own right, doesn't mean that it's a good adaptation. And because there's no such thing as a good adaptation, there will always be someone who hates the film because it doesn't compare to the book, and vice versa.