Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by C6H12O6, Oct 18, 2011.
Yea its one of them.........
144 Mins is the default one I believe...........
I finally watched the short 115-minute International version recently and I think it is by far inferior to the longer US cut. I don't find Jack's transformation quite as quick as King complained about in the long version, but in the short version, ouch - it's as if all the back story is removed and 15 minutes in, the horror begins.
And as another poster said, certain very important information is missing, including that Jack attacked Danny due to his drinking, and the introduction of Dick Hallorann. In the short version, Hallorann just sorta pops in outta nowhere. It's almost as if Kubrick had lost confidence in his movie by that point and just had it cut to commercial length without real concern for the negative effects this may have on the film.
While the short version was interesting to see as a curiosity, I won't be bothering to watch it again. Even with a few poor choices made here and there, the long version is a classic creepy horror film.
The short version also irritates me because it removes one of my favorite scenes:
I just got the FIRST RELEASE on VHS today (1981 release) and its 143 Minutes so I reckon this is the one they originally wanted to share with everyone.. (It doesnt have the scene with him going to the garage and pulling the wires from the snow cat)
I don't remember the scene showing him actually pulling out the wires from the snow cat, just the scene with him taking the radio apart. The way I remember it is he tells Wendy to go check the snow cat while he's locked in the pantry.
Holy Crum-oley, that was a scream and a half. Genius!
Its in the 144 Minute version.. (I had a 1999 copy that had it)
I don't own The Shining on Blu-ray, but last December, I picked up the DVD released in 2010, which has the movie "presented in the full aspect ration of the original camera negative as Stanley Kubrick intended." 142 Min. DD 5.1
Here's a Shining themed rock band performance by Star & Dagger:
Kubrick composed in 1:85.1 widescreen ratio for theatrical screens. He intended "the full aspect ratio" only for television / home video viewing when CRT televisions were the norm. There's a storyboard with Kubrick's hand-drawn brackets and notation documenting this. When filming in 1978-79 he did not anticipate there would be widescreen hi-def television in 25 years. So with the advent of widescreen hi-def television we are provided the widescreen theatrical ratio which Kubrick preferred and composed for. True he protected for television but that was the old television.
The region A / USA blu-ray is 144 minutes.
The shortened UK version is no improvement.
I wish the Kubrick estate and Warner Home Video would issue the longer version as an option on the menu, perhaps a 4K scan would give them a reason. The liner notes should make it clear that Kubrick cut the film for commercial reasons, not for creative reasons, and that he shot optional footage for creative reasons that he would decide during the editing phase.
King's novel is unreadable junk, and his mini-series is unwatchable junk. Kubrick's film version is the book King should have written.
Hardly. It's actually one of his better books.
I think so too. I run kind of hot and cold on Stephen King, but The Shining is probably my personal favorite.
I revisited Kubrick's film yesterday via Netflix after not seeing it for several years. I still have the same problem I've always had with the film: the acting. While Jack Nicholson is great fun to watch, he's just so hammy and over the top. There is no time for empathy with him, unlike King's novel. He looks pretty nuts just heading to the hotel with his family on closing day. And Shelly Duvall looks completely out of place in the film; one of the most glaring examples of miscasting in film, IMO. Still, the film has some unforgettable visuals and I love the creepy soundtrack.
I enjoy both the film and the book. I also felt Shelly Duvall was well cast.
Ya I wanted the most pure copy of this movie i could get so I got rid of my 1999 digitalised copy and got the first release in 1981 which to me is 100% better... (Natural colours,etc)
The 1981 release is 143 Mins (Does not show the garage scene with him pulling the wires)
Seeing this is 143 Mins,I would have to assume this is the version they wanted ppl to see from the begginging....
THE most disappointing film I have ever seen in a theater. Repeated viewings have done nothing to change that assessment. As has been mentioned the acting was 'hammy.' The screenplay was ludicrous and completely missed the theme of the original novel. My greatest EVER disappointment in cinema.
Oh wow..... No the movie HAD A LIFE OF ITS OWN!! (It was not 100% the book)
I think its an awesome movie!!
Great post. The 'short' 119 minute version of 'The Shining' is my go-to version. I believe one reviewer described it as 'a snake eating it's own tail'. Perfect. The 119 is tight, scary-freaky & flows with ease. Way better IMHO.
Kubrick decided he didn't care for the longer cut just as he didn't for "2001". The difference is that the longer version was already out there. Simple as that.
Does Stephen King still dislike it?
I would say yes, he still dislikes it very much! A year ago, he gave the german Rolling Stone a deep interview, in which he talked about a lot of stuff, including Stanley Kubricks "The Shining":
What do you think of the cult, which took place during the last decades around Stanley Kubricks "The Shining" ?
"I don´t get it. (...) People seem to love this movie - and don´t understand, why it doesn´t appeal to me. The book is hot, the movie is cold, the book ends within fire, the film within ice. In the book you have a transition of Jack Torrance (...), in the movie he is nuts right from the beginning..."
He also watched Room 237 (at least the first half; then he was impatient and turned it down); but - quess what - also doesn´t like it very much:
"Those people are quite far-out. I never liked eggheads, who just talk ********..."
For me, the longer cut is the abnormality. In Europe only the short cut is common. As I first saw the ´american cut´, it seemed kind of slow to me, with quite a bit of redundant scenes and cheesy stuff (like the skeleton scene at the very end). Also I repeatedly read in several german books about Kubrick, that his favourite cut should have been the ´european cut´, because he thought it was better paced and he also should have been kind of forced into doing a longer cut in the first place, because the studio thought, the american audience would not be able to fill the plot gaps on their own, other than the seemingly more sophisticated european public...
But I really liked those moments in the ´american cut´, which were kind of unnecessary, but atmospheric. Like Danny and Wendy watching TV in the abandoned hotel...
Here you can find the scenes, which are missing from the european cut (but it´s in german, sorry):
Superb movie. Preferring the USA cut.. Although I grew up watching the European cut..
I preferred SK novel at the time and was dissapointed with the film version. Although I've come to appreciate the film version over the years ( maybe because I've forgotten the books version). There's something classy about Kubrick's vision, of course the cast were outstanding and in Nicholson's case iconic.
The shorted version makes it MORE SUSPENSEFUL ... Like in my version YOU DONT SEE "JACK" PULLING THE WIRES SO YOUR NOT 100% SURE IF HE DID IT OR HAD SOMEONE ELSE DO IT.....
I don't remember this scene being in the longer cut at all but Jack does tell his wife to check the snow cat and she does to discover....the wires have been pulled.
Although the maze is spooky none of the supernatural occurrences are outside the hotel--they are confined to within. The ghosts can't leave the building so to speak.
Interesting, I thought he was doing a nod to Tenniel's drawings of Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Separate names with a comma.