Fast & Furious 6
The Hangover Part III
As I Lay Dying
The movie is not about ghosts but about madness and the energies it sets loose in an isolated situation primed to magnify them.
Perfect reading of this film, I can only expect this from the great ebert. This is a horror classic.
Feb 4 - 12:04 AM
Indeed the film wasn't about ghosts, it was about a brilliant director who didn't know how to make a horror film. Shame really, the book was entertaining as hell, and Kubrik has the chops to pull it off. Too bad this movie stunk like hot crap on ice, no actually watching hot crap on ice would have been less dull.
This movie was God Fing Awful.
Aug 29 - 03:53 PM
I agree with Dan J. this is a horror classic. Critics liked to dismiss Steven King as a "pulp" writer but I think that his book The Shining was one of his best and I believe that great movies are usually based upon great books. The movie is a little different from the book but just as spellbinding. Read the book again you can't put it down once you start reading it.
Mar 10 - 11:46 AM
I'll have to disagree with you, Phoebe. In almost every point you mention. First: The movie is totally different to the book; the book is focused on the haunted hotel how it tries to keep the kid inside because of the power he has, while the movie is focused on the insanity of his father. Second: Great movies not necessarily are based on great books; not even near to be close. Jaws is an example, The Godfather is another one, Pinocchio is another one... and it goes on. Third: I have read 23 Stephen King's books, and he is NOT a genius. He is a commercial, above-the-average writer, but most of his books do not deserve to be read twice, and you know: a book that does not deserve to be read twice does not deserve to be read once. He has excelent books, but most of his works are not.I totally agree in your point when you say that the critics are hostile to him just because it's him. The Academy is too, the proof being Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption.On the other hand, I totally agree with Roger Ebert.I honestly think that the focus that Kubrick gave to the movie saved it and made it an amazing film, because King's work was very mediocre in this case (at least in my opinion), compared to Bag of Bones or Dead Zone.
Aug 15 - 09:39 PM
Actually, even though I agree the book was for the most part just a pulp novel and Kubrick improved on it, I think King is an example of how a writer can develop for the better over their career. Despite many of his novels being merely average, he's also shown a fair amount of artistic vision and creativity.
Oct 20 - 02:16 PM
umm... the godfather is based on a book
Feb 16 - 09:38 AM
@Jose V - Jaws is based on a book and so is Pinocchio.
Apr 5 - 05:38 PM
You dumbass. He's making a point that The Godfather, Pinocchio, and Jaws were all horrible books. However, the movies were critically acclaimed and widely liked.
May 13 - 05:59 PM
The book was great, no King is no Faulkner, Dostoyevsky, or Hemmingway but the man can spin an entertaining yarn. The movie was terrible. A rare misstep. Too bad Carpenter's The Thing hadn't been released then Kubrik could have gotten an idea of how a real horror movie should be made. Hint: Running around with a steady cam and no story aint it.
Aug 29 - 03:57 PM
kevin morrow morrow
U DA MAN!
May 6 - 05:13 PM
It's funny...The book was about ghosts...
Jul 23 - 08:26 AM
No one is denying that. The movie however was not about ghosts. Similarly, Dr Strangelove, one of the greatest comedies of all time was based on a very serious novel. Both Dr Strangelove and The Shining show how Kubrick merely used the books more as the basis for his films rather than copying them directly like some of the trashy book-to-film movies we see today.
Jan 26 - 05:08 AM
Wrong yet again Fatbert.
This film is about a brilliant director who loses his way when he finds a steady cam and decides to piss away a story and just dick around with it,
The only madness is that this terrible script was actually green lit.
Aug 29 - 03:50 PM