one of the few horror movies I've liked

Rating: 8/10 (15 December 1999)

I usually dislike horror movies. Most horror movies are stupid in many ways, so the first great thing about The Shining is that it avoids many common horror movie flaws.
Most horror movies are good at delivering startling moments, like villains jumping victims from off camera, but bad at gradually building suspense. They're often too eager to jump right into the gore, apparently working on the theory that if one bloody murder is scary, twenty of them will be terrifying. (But maybe such movies are just getting rid of the worst actors, leaving more screen time for the less-bad actors.) Kubrick knew that the threat that something bad will happen can be scarier than actually seeing it happen.
The motivations of the villain are often poorly explained, in the rush to get to the gore. If we don't have some idea of why the villain wants to hurt the victims, it's harder to maintain belief of the movie in general. Explanations are typically simplistic; a few words suggesting that the villain is a "psycho killer", a "monster", "evil", or "possessed". Jack is carefully revealed as an on-the-wagon alcoholic with a temper he hasn't always kept under control, entering an environment that had been the scene of a past multiple murder and suicide, and the site of disturbed graves. We aren't told which factors cause his descent into violent madness, but we have plenty of possibilities, so his madness is entirely believable.
Isolation from possible rescue is another horror movie convention, often done badly but here done right. Sometimes the victims remain isolated only because of stubbornness or stupidity. Often villains come up with a trick to insure the isolation that only works because the plot needs it to work. The Shining tells us from the start that the radio is necessary because the phones often don't last through the winter, and that the hotel is a very long snow-cat drive from the nearest civilization. Not only is the isolation clear from the start, it's also a possible reason for Jack's madness.
Yet another horror convention this movie overcomes is the typical pattern of unnaturally stupid victims and villains who are unreasonably powerful or know things they have no way of knowing. (This paragraph contains spoilers.) Wendy may seem a bit dim to some viewers, but when Jack becomes clearly dangerous, she's no fool. Danny is clever in trying to escape the danger, particularly for a child. Hallorann is the only one who seems foolish in the face of danger; if his sense of need to come to the rescue was so great, it seems he should have been more cautious. Jack is no more dangerous than one could expect an armed madman to be, and often vulnerable. Only his escape from the pantry required powers that had to come from the hotel's ghosts rather than from himself -- making the ghosts real in that way was the movie's sole fault, in my opinion.
The real strength of the movie, however, isn't avoidance of common mistakes of horror movies. It's great movie-making craft. The directing is Kubrick perfectionism. The cinematography is a matter of wonder, particularly in the Steadicam maze scene and the scenes of Danny exploring the hotel. The sound in the tricycle ride over wood and carpet is a memorable detail. The music is great, particularly the Carlos piece that had been meant for A Clockwork Orange.
All of the acting was at least competent, and much of it was brilliant. Jack Nicholson's building madness was intense. Shelley Duvall's acting (even if she didn't prepare well on the set) was pretty good when she was just the somewhat annoying bored wife, and her terror face was outstanding. Danny Lloyd was cute and very competent, particularly when playing both Danny and his possibly-imaginary, possibly-supernatural friend Tony. Scatman Crothers was very good. All the supporting characters -- the ghosts, mainly -- were competent or better.
The story has been debated extensively. I can't compare it to the book or the television remake, since I either haven't seen them or don't remember them. But it stands well on its own. Did Jack crack up because of inner madness, did the haunted hotel push him over the edge, or did the hotel choose him to be the caretaker because he was near madness already? Were the ghosts real, or figments of the isolated characters' imaginations? The movie doesn't entirely answer those questions, but leaves them to our imaginations.