This movie sucked. The book is better. Kubrick was a hack

>Lolita is good.
You could have Peter sellers play every part in the film and it would still be a trash, boring waste of time.

Can't watch Griffith in film school anymore. He was racist. Now you watch Spike Lee joints at film school these days. And feminist flicks like Taxi Driver.

Finally watched it all the way through the other day. It’s boring as shit and besides Nicholson the acting was terrible. No idea why people put this movie on a pedestal.

>No idea why people put this movie on a pedestal
because it's a masterpiece and the best horror movie ever made

Stephen please go

no one believes you stephen, you coked up pedophile freak

ITT: it opposite day

hello zoomutt

>This movie sucked. The book is better. Kubrick was a hack.

Attached: Stephen_king-coming-to-boulder.jpg (414x403, 19K)

>This movie sucked. The book is better. Kubrick was a hack.

Attached: Shining-Red-Beetle-18-wheeler.jpg (2000x1000, 1002K)

the book is pretty good though.

But it’s not scary or suspenseful or anything, how is it horror? Maybe it’s my zoomer sensibilities but to think The Shining is anything related to horror is a trash opinion.

what's a scary and suspenseful movie then?

>projecting
griffith's masterpieces take a gorilla shit on kikebrick's nihilistic middlebrow mysticism

>how is it horror?
It's got ghosts and a haunted house and a crazy dude with an axe.

While King wanted to see a faithful and precise adaptation on the big screen, Kubrick always did HIS (own) version of books he used as sources. I think that was the fundamental difference between their approach.

That being said, it's not a coincidence his work is considered a (borderline) classic of the genre while the 1997 mini-series is quite forgettable even by TV standards, despite King's heavy involvement in the production.

Attached: shining-1997.jpg (697x1003, 151K)

yes the 4h '97 version is trashy, the book is really good. just like the kubrick movie is a masterpiece, even though or because he shifted the source of horror from the hotel to the family itself, which seems to make a better movie

Think about it: Kubrick is on par with people like Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa. Meanwhile King is relegated with James Patterson and Dean Koontz.

he just really sucks at any other medium than literature. his music sucks, his movies are hilariously bad. and many of his books are trash, but some are really good. like shining.

this but the opposite

It is obviously a horror film, but includes a lot of bullshit that prevent it from being remotely scary, including:
>overacting, especially from Nicholson
>moronic Steadicam shots
>the ridiculous still picture of Jack's corpse
>plastic skeletons
>plastic spider webs
And so on.

>Dean Koontz.

Speaking of which, that man has the worst toupee I've ever seen in my life. Literally.

Attached: deanrkoontz.jpg (1200x1489, 149K)

shut the fuck up stephen, it's been 40 years already get over it

King is a washed up old crone. The Shining sequel/Doctor Sleep wasn't that good. But the Doctor Sleep movie out later this year will be better than the book. And part 2 of the 2017 It movie will be better than the book as well.

You have been visited by the Laura of not great, not terrible threads.

This thread is currently reading 33 replies (not great, not terrible).

Attached: Laura.jpg (1275x637, 108K)