Welcome to the kittyradio.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. Remove these ads when you register. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. | 
11-28-2006, 06:00 PM
|  | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,308
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by welshboyrich this thread is about the stanley kubrick version not the stephen king version. i heard the stephen king version sucked but other people say it stuck more closely to the book and explained the story better | I've seen that version. It didn't come across as creepy as the Kubrick version. Steven Weber isn't Jack Nicholson. | 
11-28-2006, 06:02 PM
| | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: manchester
Posts: 2,262
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by vegyrex I've seen that version. It didn't come across as creepy as the Kubrick version. Steven Weber isn't Jack Nicholson. | yeah people said it wasnt as good?? but did it explain the plot any better? | 
12-04-2006, 12:50 AM
|  | Registered Member | | Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 65
| | | eyes wide shut the critics said it wasn´t a very good movie..but i really , i just think that it was a bad idea to put nicole kidman and tom cruise in that movie.
it was a good move..but cannot be compared with his previous movies..like the shining..a clockwork orange.,paths of glory..
what do u think?.... | 
12-04-2006, 12:57 AM
|  | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 783
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Roxtar the critics said it wasn´t a very good movie..but i really , i just think that it was a bad idea to put nicole kidman and tom cruise in that movie.
it was a good move..but cannot be compared with his previous movies..like the shining..a clockwork orange.,paths of glory..
what do u think?.... | i think kubrick got sick during making that movie, it was kind of like clockwork orange, but about relationships instead of violence. i don't know.. | 
12-04-2006, 06:50 PM
|  | all the best ultra sex | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: in the freak kingdom
Posts: 195
| | | man i wish that the shining didnt leave out so much from the book. like all the playground stuff freaked me, like when hes in the cement tube thing and theres that deep dark dead thing. and also the point of the book seemed entirely different than the point of the movie, and i just dont really get how you can entirely change the point of somehting..
but who i am i kidding? i fucking love the movie. | 
12-04-2006, 07:32 PM
|  | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,308
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Roxtar the critics said it wasn´t a very good movie..but i really , i just think that it was a bad idea to put nicole kidman and tom cruise in that movie.
it was a good move..but cannot be compared with his previous movies..like the shining..a clockwork orange.,paths of glory..
what do u think?.... | I didn't think it was that bad. I bought a used DVD of it. | 
12-05-2006, 01:51 AM
| | Banned | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,151
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by vegyrex I didn't think it was that bad. I bought a used DVD of it. | I just found the book in a garage sale the other day...havent started to read it just yet as im at the end of another book...anyways i've never seen the movie but after I finish the book I intend to...I really dislike Jack Nicholson though,which is mostly why I havent ever watched the film. | 
12-05-2006, 08:13 AM
|  | no lust in this coma | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,909
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Cheshire Cat I didn't find it all that scary, but it is a very very good film. One of my all-time favourites.
I just don't understand why there are two versions of it. I have it on video and it doesn't make a lot of sense - especially since I saw it after I saw a version on TV that had child psychologist scenes and other stuff. In general that version was much easier to follow and understand. I'm a bit miffed that I spent $6 on a version that is shorter and not as good. | I agree with you - I love it to bits, and I understand why psychologically it's scary, and the little girls and old lady are freaky, but I don't actually find it scary. I love Jack Nicholson so much and I think it's a wonderful performance, but then I don't think anyone is less than great in this film.
Actually, thinking about it, I laugh at lots of this film. Once I paused the dvd just as Wendy had hit him with the bat and he was falling backwards, and the look on his face is hilarious. As it his face when he's in the bar and he looks all concerned at her, says "Are you out of your fucking mind?" and then makes another face at her.
I didn't know there was another version of it - I've seen an entirely different sort of HBO version, which scared me lots more, I think because it was more into hallucinations and cheap jump tactics, like having people leap out or just appear.
__________________ nobody here can know how i feel | 
12-06-2006, 05:40 AM
|  | Registered Member | | Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,168
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by ella luciana I agree with you - I love it to bits, and I understand why psychologically it's scary, and the little girls and old lady are freaky, but I don't actually find it scary. I love Jack Nicholson so much and I think it's a wonderful performance, but then I don't think anyone is less than great in this film.
Actually, thinking about it, I laugh at lots of this film. Once I paused the dvd just as Wendy had hit him with the bat and he was falling backwards, and the look on his face is hilarious. As it his face when he's in the bar and he looks all concerned at her, says "Are you out of your fucking mind?" and then makes another face at her.
I didn't know there was another version of it - I've seen an entirely different sort of HBO version, which scared me lots more, I think because it was more into hallucinations and cheap jump tactics, like having people leap out or just appear. | Yes, definitely! The funny moments add to its charm and possibly its disturbingness...i don't think that's a word. however.
but you know what i mean, right? those moments make it a little more real and true to life, therefore making it even more frightening. | 
12-07-2006, 12:43 AM
|  | will bury you in time | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: NJ
Posts: 92
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by daisymum | HAHA, I love that.
By itself, the movie is pretty good. It's scary in a "Holy shit, this guy is crazy!" way; it's not really a horrorfest.
In comparison to the book, I think it falls very, very short. There was a lot more supernatural stuff in the book, it could have been a lot creepier. However, the garden maze > hedge animals.
But I do love Jack Nicholson. "Darling. Light of my life. You didn't let me finish my sentence. I'm not gonna hurt you. I'm gonna bash your brains in." and... "LITTLE PIGS, LITTLE PIGS, LET ME IN." Awesome.
On a side note... I love It. The movie is awesomely campy and scary at the same time. And I think the kids are adorable. I try to work, "KISS ME, FAT BOY!" into conversation whenever possible. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM. |
Forum Stats:
Members: 14,973
Threads: 42,997
Posts: 1,145,163
Welcome to our newest member, lollygag1234 Latest Threads: |