It's a great movie, just not as great as it's reputation would dictate. The book was far better (though the movie has a better ending)

I love Jack Nicholson's performance in the Kubrick film. One of the best "crazy" performances in cinematic history. However, as an avid reader and a fan of Stephen King's book, the film just doesn't do the book justice. Kubrick took ALOT of liberties with the storyline, but I can understand why he did this.

King wrote about Kubrick's film:

"There's a lot to like about it. But it's a great big beautiful Cadillac with no motor inside, you can sit in it and you can enjoy the smell of the leather upholstery - the only thing you can't do is drive it anywhere. So I would do every thing different. The real problem is that Kubrick set out to make a horror picture with no apparent understanding of the genre. Everything about it screams that from beginning to end, from plot decision to the final scene - which has been used before on the Twilight Zone"

Yep, that was my biggest beef (though I enjoy The Shining): The Overlook just wasn't the monsterous, horrifying dungeon it was described as so beautifully by King.
Plus, even though it may have turned out looking awful, the exclusion of Danny's voyage into the garden of the hedges was a big no-no...one of the books most tense scenes would have made a creepy escape from what starts to get monotonous.

Kubrick made it all his own...it stopped being King's Shining the moment Kubrick's Jack Nicholson alienated Torrance from the audiences.

Granted, the descent into madness was portrayed brilliantly, but we felt one with the character of the book, not the movie.

And of course, the Overlook and its scares werent so scary in the first place. There wasnt much creepiness in it, cept for what Nicholson showed on-screen. All being said, Kubrick made one hell of a movie adaptation, and Nicholson's portrayal still stands as one of the best performances so far.

Excellent...this is getting better and better as we go along...

Speaking of bipolarity, why do many of you feel no love for


Land of the Dead


while some of you speak of it with much fondness?

Bring on your bashings!!

I liked it... John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper in the same movie reminded me of my childhood. (Did anybody get that?)

My favorite part of the movie was Robert Joy, I knew he would kick some ass one day since I saw him on Malcolm In The Middle.

For me, this movie seemed very "rushed." The acting (in general) kinda sucked. And there was not nearly enough character development. I didn't even care if the main characters lived or died. And on top of that, Romero even tried to "humanize" the zombies so we sympathize with them. Blah!

Also, the film did nothing that the previous films hadn't already done.

If Land of the Dead was judged on the basis that it was just another zombie movie it would garnar a lot of praise I think. It's a great zombie film. Unfortuanatly it doesn't live up to the other films in Romero's Dead franchise but maybe it's because we've seen so much with zombies now. I liked it much better than the Dawn remake (which I thought was pretty decent).

Oh, and I love Hopper in this one too, what an ass.

i felt a bit disappointed after watching this movie. it just doesn't feel like a romero. good cast, good story and decent script but not as raw and edgy as the previous installments. i can't put my finger on it but it was just a little hollywood. maybe my expectations were too high.

No scares - none

The other movies had jump-out-of-your-seat scares...this one was dull and uninspired. Sure the subtext is solid, but who goes to see a movie's subtext?

I wanted more Asia and more terror.

Jeepers Creepers
This movie is complete shit. The creature is stupid, the story is stupid, the acting was shit, and I can't believe they made a sequel. :rolleyes:
I DO NOT understand why so many people @ HDC like this waste of time and film.