What the Shining Book does for Literature, this movie does for film.

Rating: 8/10 (2 February 2008)

Now everyone always says that, "Oh well it was different from the book... or the book was better." Typically that is the case, because movies cannot provide such intricate details as a novel can.
And yes, Kubrick changes the ending, again, and it is a bit of a different story than the book tells. So if you have been living in a cave and have not seen/read either, know that beforehand.
Now...Stephen King's novel plays such an interesting story about the effects of past ghosts, suppressed issues, mistrust in relationships, tension, pressure, and of course a haunted hotel on a family on the brink of falling apart. It is unique, well thought out, and nearly perfectly paced. Like always the characters are completely believable in their actions (minus some paranormal happenings) and it makes quite a good piece of literature.
So how the hell can we expect Kubrick to remake that on the film? We cannot and we do not need to.
He brings his own genius to the screen with his use of chilling photography. Jack N. plays the perfect Jack Torrance FOR THE SCREEN and for the purpose of what Kubrick was doing. It was an interesting combination of cinematography, writing, music, imagery, and suspense. Just as King's elements made for a good piece of literature, Kubrick's made for a good piece of film.
I recommend both the movie and the film.