King's original novel: an ingenious ghost story that really only works as a novel Kubrick's adaptation: an ingenious avant-garde psychological horror that really only works as a film
Wonder if anyone ever could or would, or even should, try to make a movie that satisfies both sides of the argument? One that can be both as good as the movie and the book without any of the drawbacks of either one?
The movie is a ghost story too. Even Kubrick himself confirmed in an interview that the hotel was truly haunted. The interview is titled Kubrick Speaks in Regards to The Shining.
Gillian Flynn adapted her story "Gone Girl" for David Fincher's 2014 movie. But, she had help from a director who knew what he was doing and she herself understood that not only did she have to cut some stuff due to time, budget and some of her ideas in her book were not going to work on film.
"I don't care if it doesn't make any sense. At least it's scary!" That's what Critic said, for those who haven't seen this review before TH-cam's copyright muting at the end.
@@gracereads2917 That's what I was thinking. I did see it before it got muted, I just can't remember what the audio was. I'm guessing it's Midnight, the Stars and You, which is came out in 1934, but is still under copyright.
Critic starts writing on the white Board, while muttering... Critic: Deeeerrooob... Deeeerrooob... *writes DEROB* *Rachel enters, and looks at board* She then looks at Mirror. Mirror Board: I AM IN NO WAY ENTERTAINED BY THIS MINI-SERIES AND I DO NOT PARTICULARLY CARE FOR IT WHATSOEVER. "And the award for the best scene under the subcategory of Bait-and-switch goes to..."
Nostalgia Critic! *The sound of branch like limbs imitating applause echoed through the simingly endless room while the clicking sound drowns everything away."
D Vass Believe or not , without knowing what's going to happen next. I scrolled down THE SECOND he said that line and read your comment at the same time. Still no idea how that happened...
Maybe A Dragon Well, how are you going to compare the internet to real life? On the internet, memes are fine, but if you said memes in real life, you would look pretty damn strange, so I don't think your comparison is fair.
Maybe A Dragon Its the internet goddamnit. You know what, people reference these quotes all the time. You know why? Because they found value in that statement. It means more than just something that will be funny for a minute. It's quoted because the statement managed to last so long before becoming a thing of the past.
If I remember correctly Stephen King said he disliked Kubrick’s version of The Shining because Kubrick cut out a lot of the slower dialogue scenes in favor of making it more exciting, Kubrick had the right idea, he knew the movie had a lot of baggage that needed to be cut out in order to make a better movie, as a book those long scenes of talking work, because books are driven by dialogue, movies are different, it’s a medium of show don’t tell, so even though it meant changing up the original story Kubrick sacrificed the dialogue heavy portions for the sake of a better movie
Ben McDonald also the main was he hated how kubrick turn Jack into insane person at start and he hated Wendy and call her one most sexist person in movie She here to scream and make sandwitch that is not woman i wrote
I feel like King has softened his criticism of the Kubrick movie more recently. Basically he just doesn't like it as an adaptation of his work rather than just disliking the movie itself (sorry if that doesn't make sense English is my second language)
@@Melvinshermen I think it's unfair for him to feel Jack was crazy from the start and I really don't get why he disliked the portrayal of Wendy so much, very unfair that she was just stupid and screaming, she wasn't that different from the Wendy from the book (both loved Danny, loved Jack but there was also an element of staying out of desperation that the relationship needed to work).
Axel Nilsson it’s like when you ask your parents for a new iPhone but they tell you that you already got one, but it’s an iPhone 4. The Shining movie is better than the miniseries.
I get it now! The Q-Brick movie was focused on Jack slowly turning insane while the miniseries is focused on letting us turning slowly insane. This is a Masterpiece! Why didn’t I see it?
That's the point the series is VERY much like the book when i read it i found myself becoming impatient and annoyed waiting for the suspense to happen which made it easier to resonate with jack better in the book. That was lost though in the movie since that jack was already nuts
the shining movie and miniseries are a perfect example of "direct translation from page to screen" isn't always a good thing. Kubrick made the right choices for the adaptation. he one of the few directors that understand this.
I think the best choice would be something in the middle of the two. I love Kubrick's adaptation but a lot of it was too far from the source yet the mini series was just... I don't even know how to descrive apart from "ehh"
Yeah, when you have a story jump media, it's always sloppier when they try to copy it point for point. The best case scenario would be the movie adaptation of the comic book Watchmen. And that movie was "ok" I guess. I mean, think of Kubrick adaptation of the Shining, or of some other film adaptations that deviate from the book. Jurassic Park and Jaws stand out because Spielberg did his own thing. If he stuck more closely to the books, you would be rooting for the shark and dinosaurs.
Honestly one of my favorite Nostalgia Critic reviews. The combination of Doug's Nicholson impression, the conscious effort to imitate Kubrick's cinematography, and just the sheer fun that everyone's having with it, makes me giggle no matter how many times I watch. Thanks, everyone.
“What’s important is that we have this fantastic location built on top of a harmless Indian burial ground that rests below the hulking remains of a burnt down insane asylum for schizophrenic homicidal orphans...and vampire puppies” Well...that would explain how NC got this first location so cheap lol
Ever since he said that I sort of think either A I will never look the videos the same again or B How it that place in no way haunted or cursed when it comes to his other videos. I mean I know that line was showing he was basically reenacting the original The Shining from the very beginning to the very end but still
I think the problem with Stephen King making his own version on the shinning is that he has no idea how movies NEED to be made to be interesting. Stephen Kings talent is writing books not directing movies, which is why in his version of the shining he had the characters talk and talk, and do every day average things because in books you can have all those things in them and no one would find it odd, while in movies people always need the charaters to do things that tie to the suspenseful part of story and a real exciting rising action to make it intresting. Personally i think its best that Stephen King sticks to being a author
I get your point but he did the series VERY closely to what was going on in the book (alot of exposition) which is how he wanted it to be portrayed originally in the film and how it should have been portrayed. Steven king is good at making a scary and suspenseful story. The problem with the book itself was that it wasn't very suspenseful. A few jumpscares and creepy moments that lead nowhere all until the explosion. So all in all i think he did a good job bringing his book to life cause it's pretty obvious that's what he wanted
You can almost feel Doug's pure destilated GLEE while acting as Jack Nicholson. He was having so much fun, and actually became scary at some points. Doug...seriously, make a short film or something acting this crazy and stabby. You fit for it...which i don't know if its a compliment or not, but still!
SuperSand1egend I'm pretty sure that "Dale and Tucker vs Evil" has someone drinking beer that's simply labeled 'Beer' near the start. So, y'know, maybe.
Spoiler for the book The book was honestly terrifying. The hedge animals actually weren't supposed to be visible in movement, and could do a hell of a lot of damage to people (probably kill if they had the chance). Tony isn't supposed to be scary, he is Danny's "friend" and is there to help him. The reason that the mini series doesn't work is because it tries to focus so much on dialogue that occurs within characters heads organically within the novel. The novel puts so much focus on inner thoughts, that it seems clumsy and out of place when spoken aloud in a long winded conversational manner. The reason that "Jack" seems to survive so long, is because he is already dead and is being possessed by the hotel. The ghosts "die" because the hotel, the only thing connecting them to this world was destroyed. One of the things that was better about this movie was Wendy. She is supposed to be a sympathetic character, whom the reader relates to and roots for with everything going on.
I don't think anyone here is criticizing the book. The book is a terryfying story. But what everyone here is criticizing is the fact how badly Stephen King adapted his own novel. The book is over 400 pages long, it makes sense that it's full of dialogue heavy moments. But this is a visual media where you can show us what's happening. You don't have to talk about it. That's where King went wrong. He had no experience at all in writing screenplays, he was used to writing books, without realising how diffrent the two are from eachother.
RageJoona I'm criticizing the book. It sucked, imo. It was never scary, went on forever, had plot threads that constantly went nowhere, an overabundance of unnecessary sex scenes that add literally nothing to the plot, boring ideas, and boring character back stories that took too long to show. I think Kubricks master piece is the only good version.
@@dominicthorp3248 Pretty much. I don't care what anyone says, I think his stories are terrible. I respect him as a story creator, but not as a writer.
Nothing Happening to Wendy When She Was in The Elevator Was a Total Missed Opportunity Like Dean Winchester Sitting in Front of a Huge,Long Table That’s Filled With Pies,&,Him Not Eating Them All
You know what is crazy? The book has just as many talks about Wendy's and Jack's marriage as the series does... But since it invested effort into making how terrified Danny is of a divorce early on, those scenes are *actually* suspenseful in the book, because you are invested enough to not *want* them to break up, even though it would have been the more healthy solution by far; just another example of why literally taking a book and plastering it in filmed format doesn't work; the lack of inner dialogue from Danny turns scenes that were gripping in the book into a snorefest in the series.
It’s challenging overall to adapt a book page for page It’s like anything trying to translate to screen Even the Kubrick version can be punishingly long for most viewers these days who don’t understand building up dread and atmosphere This version pretty much comes off as a vanity project; there’s being 100% faithful then being too faithful Yes books have words and dialogue that is the idea but film has to change most of that it’s a given Showing the terror works more
@@user-dr2yz8um3d " the Kubrick version can be punishingly long for most viewers these days" His films certainly don't cater to those trapped in a post-MTV aesthetic.
I never understood why Stephen King complained about the maze in Kubrick's version because that worked perfectly. The animal sculptures do not work AT ALL. I know it was in the book but you can make changes that actually work.
Subtleblunt Duality in the books they actually work, similar to (like Doug said) the Weeping angels because we can see what Jack's thinking and the real scary bit isn't really the animals but Jack considering the fact he might be going insane. And animated hedge animals just look crap.
The hedge animals in the book were horrifying. The CGI hedge animals are only horrifying if you're drunk and have the imagination of an overly creative 7 year old =D The maze IMO was a good compromise on Kubrick's part, but having read the novel a million times I can honestly say the maze in the novel would have worked (for me, at least) but the hedge animals moving, slowly stalking them, and attacking Mr. Halloran worked so well in the novel.
agreed, i thought the hedge animals worked really well in the book... you'd think they'd be like the balloons in It which is kind of what happens here, i don't know how you make hedge animals look scary
I mean it could've worked, I mean the kid is playing in the snow oblivious to an evil chia pet behind him but just like that elevator scene it was dashed as if nothing happened giving no pay off or purpose. If King wanted this to be more faithful, I understand, but he has to remember it needs to be scary. There's only so many times you put off on the scary payoffs when building up suspense before it gets boring
I just got done reading the novel. I appreciate how King wanted a faithful adaptation of his book, and I sympathize with his wishes to make Jack Torrance a more relateable, sympathetic character, but I think the changes Kubrick made to the film were more out of necessity to make a good horror film than anything. As Critic points out, a lot of the dialogue and moments that made the book scary- don't translate well to a visual adaption. I think Kubrick did a fantastic job in taking a scary book and translating it into a scary, iconic film. And throughout the myriad of changes the film made from the novel, I still think there are plenty of nods to the book in Kubrick's adaption. Btw, Rachel looked so good in this episode.
I think I know why Stephen King's books don't usually translate well into movies: his main style seems to be that he slowly builds up tension throughout a long period of time as his characters maneuver about their everyday lives, gradually punctuating them with events that begin as vaguely bizarre and eventually escalate into bat-shit insane. This kind of storytelling is best done through writing because of the author's freedom to elaborate on backstory, drive the story with third-person insight, and describe scenes in a unique way that would take a seemingly ordinary event and turn it into something chilling or sinister. I don't think a lot of King's ideas work in movies because it's a visual medium, and he can't take advantage of his greatest strength: his narrative voice. So King really isn't to blame here; sometimes a person's work of art is only fitting to one particular medium.
Emberilliance It's also why his constant complaining about the Kubrick adaptation is really baseless. He changed a lot from the novel, but Kubrick made a great film, and King just complained about how inherently different it was. It's pretty clear King couldn't do any better as far as writing the miniseries goes.
That doesn't sound unfilmable. Just make a movie with interesting and well acted characters, add little odd things here and there and then go batcrap crazy at the end. There's plenty of media thats accomplished it.
Stephen King is an amazing writer, without a doubt, but he doesn't seem to understand that film and novel are two completely different things. When reading something, your mind tends to make it scarier and more intense while on film, it can look silly Stanley Kubrick's interpretation, despite King not liking it, was a masterpiece. You can feel the tension as it builds up, something that you need in film
The animal hedges coming to life was something Kubrick tried to implement too, he nixed it because the technology couldn’t make it look scary. So it was replaced with the hedge maze.
I don't think Kubrick's Shining was a masterpiece in any way, as a movie itself. It wasn't particularly scary and the characters had no soul so you didn't care for any of them.
yeah, a lot of stuff can look good on paper but not so great on screen, a better scene to put in that spot would be the one where Danny is in the tunnel under the snow and suddenly gets the feeling he's not alone and runs out, then when he looks back at the hole he sees the hand waving to him, in my opinion that would've been fantastic
The tour in the Kubrick version was also quite long. The difference is Kubrick knew how to make it interesting and it wasn't over an hour into the film.
@@MovieFan1912Kubrick was the master of camera work and cinematography to tell a story. It's what makes 2001 so intriguing in a way almost no director could pull off. It's no surprise he started off as a photographer
In my opinion, the sketches in the NC reviews can be hit-or-miss, but this one is definitely a hit. Doug does a hilarious Jack impression and some of these jokes are comedy gold. The bit with the squeaky hammer gets me every time.
That Danny kid cries at the drop of a hat, my God... Also, the Critic should star in his own horror movie. Those expressions are more horrifying than any recent scary flick.
The more I watch this the more I agree!!!! This particular review keeps me laughing so much at work and at home if and when things are grim and I think the entire cast has talent, particularly Doug and his JN impersonation. Whenever stuff at works gets really mundane I start chanting "DE-ROBBBB" in my head and I crack up and picture chasing the person annoying me with a squeaky mallet and all of a sudden shit isn't so bad. XD
Lilipad Gaming that’s not funny or relevant Rake doesn’t mention teeth Slender doesn’t mention teeth Jeff the Killer is scary and it has huge teeth Thing that stalks the fields doesn’t mention teeth You’re wrong just because you say something is something doesn’t make it a fact dipshit Please give me your list of creepy pastas that aren’t scary and only mention teeth and blood. Fucking idiot
QuiteDaPlayer_ none of those stories are scary though. The whole premise of slender man is just plain silly, it’s extremely hard to take it seriously. The Rake is no different than any other monster story. I suppose that it is a bit scary, but it’s not a particularly good story. Jeff the Killer is basically just Jason from Friday the 13th who talks a lot more. Again, nothing particularly scary about it. I don’t understand why you got so defensive over some silly stories
I feel like this comment set off some "extra intense barely ever goes off" siren at the TH-cam factory. & all the employees put their glasses on & read across the screen like .. "oh ... She's commenting about something another person did one time..."
Hasn't anyone noticed what happened to the audio at the end of this video or is it just me? (Loved this by the way! I have never been a bad review by Doug!)
@@lovemeytbeavisandbutthead2974 That would have muted the whole audio track. The quality of audio goes down a few minutes before, in the scene in the woods, so there must have been some upload problem.
So he was an amazing actor only 3 years ago ?? His talent for sitting on chairs or walking around in presumably a garage and ranting about other people's work really lasted that long ?? Wow...
King himself explained it like this. "The book is hot, and the movie is cold. The book ends in fire, and the movie in ice." And I love them both. But this version was just lukewarm!
@@henrikpersson4698That's what makes it so great, imo. Anybody who ever witnessed or was involved in an abusive relationship can see how terrifying Jack and Shelley's performance is. The genius of Kubrick's version is that it's a not really a ghost story if you think about it. There's something very human about it that makes it so terrifying
Frodo it's probably why no one has attempted to tamper with a lot of classics, and when they do it's a flop. The 1990 version of "It" was a low budget TV series but the movie did great. I like Kubrick's films but I don't worship the ground he walked on, but I can appreciate and understand his following; the guy didn't make careless errors, his casting was terrific and he was meticulous and a very brilliant perfectionist. If someone tried to outdo him, they would most likely fail. And it's not an insult to the actors, writers, screen writers, or directors--sometimes the original is untouchable and unbreakable enough that no one (no matter how talented) will be able to take over the roles played (in a remake) compared to the original. (It's why the cast of Ferris Bueller will always be Matthew Broderick and co. vs. some new up and coming Hollywood star. It's not that no one else on the planet would be unable to play a good Ferris Bueller; it's just that MB did such a great job in the first place that trying to outdo it would be some weird form of taboo. Don't mess with perfection, and if perfection isn't in someone's vocabulary I'd say don't mess with the closest thing to it you'll likely find.) I feel the same way about Kubrick's adaptation--true to the book, not exactly, and I understand why King doesn't like it having wrote the novel, but like Doug pointed out while chugging toilet water, it created such an unsettling and surreal atmosphere and anyone attempting to out-do it would have a serious, serious challenge ahead of them with an audience with so many memories of the original that it would almost guarantee to be a flop.) I like the mini series and think the actors (particularly Webber) did an outstanding job given what they were up against. I like both movie adaptations and I appreciate Doug showing the audience that the atmosphere in Kubrick's version was much more unsettling and confusing and that the actors in that movie were outstanding, yet the actors in the mini-series did a wonderful job at portraying what King wanted to portray in his novel. As fans of both artists I find a lot of value and a lot of depth in both movies, and much more character development in the novel. I like all 3 version of all 3 mediums! Aren't I lucky? JMO of course =D PS: King only fans will hate me but I feel very saddened that Kubrick isn't alive to take on a cinematic adaptation of the novels sequel, "Doctor Sleep." I've love to see this turned into a movie by an experienced director who could dissect the novel and create an adaptation of it!
It did, and the Weeping Angels were probably based on those scenes. Two things the Shining did wrong there was use weak CGI and use hedges instead of statues.
"You've just been drinking toilet water for the past 5 minutes." I literally had to pause the video because I was laughing too hard to hear the review.
Not really relevant o you specifically(and I know I'm responding to a comment 2 years later lol) but I had this review playing through my sound system when I popped open my window to smoke. The neighbor's driveway is right outside my bedroom, so when he came out to his car, he heard the part of the review where Doug was saying "HEY GUYS WE'RE JUDT DOWN HERE BEING HAUNTED, DOING SPOOKY STUFF ON THE JUKEBOX.... UHH.... DON'T MIND US, WE'RE NOT SCARY OR ANYTHING!" My neighbor just happened to barely hear that little bit, and his ears perked up and he started to laugh because he had effectively just heard a ghost speak to him(obviously he looked right up and saw me poking my head out, but it caught him off guard just right it was fucking hilarious and we both started laughing)
When Doug reenacts the scenes from the movie, he actually does a pretty damn good job of it :) I'd love to see him review the movie, I adore that film, but it can be pretty silly at times.
In the book, Jack is chasing Wendy with a knife in his back.This mini-series had the right idea, it just didn't have the creepy atmosphere Kubrick had.
Stephen King really had a scary moment gift-wrapped for him, and he didn’t take advantage of it! That’s like the 3 Stooges looking at a table full of pies and going “WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO???”
Let's not get carried away. Doug is just doing an impression of Jack Nicholson's performance. Steven Weber had to create his own version of Jack Nicholson's character and from what I can tell, most seem to enjoy his more sympathetic and complex portrayal. He's just in a very dull and dragged out miniseries.
I just have to say that The Nostalgia Critic gave a really good impression of Jack Nicholson's character from 'The Shinning'. Also that look at scream he give to Malcom at 37:41.
Kings book is actually superb to both of the movies (never thought i am going to say that) the kubriks version is a good movie, sadly has not much to do with the book the mini series is kinda dull but kings book imho are very poorly possible to make into movies due to his telling style
From what I've seen, King just wrote the book in movie form for this miniseries. There is dialogue straight out of the book and there were a few parts in the book that were too long, like the wasps. I can't believe King actually thought copying his book verbatim would make a good movie.
rockbandinthusiast the problem is that Stephen King lacks the precision and intelligence of Stanley Kubrick's shining Every scary moment has layers of meaning that caused entire video essays to be made about it scares. Every scare sequence gives foreshadowing(the twins and how they were killed by a axe) or revelations(pedaphile relationship between Danny and Jack was hinted by the pedo bear). None of the scares of Stephen Kings version feels like they serve any real purpose beyond fluff. This also applies to the character interactions Compare the typewriter scene from the Kubrick version vs the various conversations of the miniseries.
The Shining is one of the best books I've ever read, and the Kubrick version is one of the best horror movies of all time. They have almost nothing in common. This miniseries was more faithful to the book, but it made all the scary stuff really silly (firehouse, Tony, hedge animals, Danny's stupid face)
20:11- the book described the topiaries as moving closer and closer without them being seen visibly moving whenever you turned away from them - much like the Weeping Angels of Doctor Who. The scares came from whether the onlookers were imaging it or if it was true, what would they do if they caught you. All silent. The mini series very unsubtly hints of their sentience through animal noises long before they start moving like actual animals.
Has Stephen King ever had a good miniseries? They all seem to suck, this is actually the best of the bunch imo yet it still sucks lol. On a side note Doug did an outstanding job in this review, one of his best ones.
Not a miniseries, but I've heard that The Mist wasn't too bad. I know King loved the ending, which was different than his own. Like, to the point where he thought anyone who spoiled it should be killed.
Really? Jack Nicholson was awesome in the movie. He was the essential ingredient. Kubrick never had sympathetic characters. I think maybe his personality resonates more with older generations. People are too nice nowadays to appreciate the psychotic 'fun' in watching his performance. It would be like wanting Alex from A Clockwork Orange to be sympathetic.
29:02 - 29:10 - Love how she locks him in from the outside, where you need the key to lock/unlock the door (which she doesn't have), while he's locked inside the bathroom, where he can lock/unlock at will because his side has the latch. :')
@@FIRSTNAMELASTNAME-zt4kf I'm reading it at the moment and nope, the movie is still a masterpiece. And "people" don't hate it. Some hardcore Stephen King-fans do. Kubricks version is revered as one of the best (horror-)movies ever. The main problem is: King is an amazing writer, but a lot of his writing doesn't translate well to an audiovisual medium without ending up looking silly. I read the part with Danny walking past the firehose today and King did a great job of taking the reader into the imaginative mind of a scared (and psychic) 5-year old, and how something as mundane as a firehose could appear as a threat to him that could come alive to chase him any minute. But in a movie without the luxury of knowing Danny's inner monologue during this scene, it just becomes silly. Because...it's a firehose.
It was a MARQUEE. 😩 The word is written twice so you can see it from 2 different angles. The critic was just joking about the name. (any humor to be found in this shining trainwreck is appreciated!) 😅👍
The kid having this long protracted conversation with Dick Halloran was nowhere near as effective as the cryptic tense conversation between Danny Lloyd and Scatman Crothers
Miss Moxie Actually, I found the Kubric one a bit bland. Imagine if in lord of the rings, when Frodo asks Gandalf about the ring, Gandalf just said '' ... it can corrupt you. End of discussion "
klaus hammer King is much better at writing books than directing films. His versions tend to work better in written form than on the big screen. Just look at the movie Cell. The book is actually quite good whereas the film takes a different approach.
I don’t think it’s jealousy, but the same kind of disgust most writers have voiced over their original creation’s “adaptation to film”. King never said he loved this version, only that it stands closer to the book as an adaptation, but he still wished it had the proper budget to properly adapt the scenes from the book. The lady in the bathtub scene was over half of their entire practical effects budget. Like the difference between the “scares” in the IT tv mini-series, compared to the same ones in the 2 modern movies.
"The movie where Jack Nicholson goes crazy!"
"You'll have to be more specific"
Ah yes, Batman. Oh wait, wrong one?
Yeah, anger management, with Adam Sandler! What do you mean, the other one?
Yeah,
The shining maybe.
@@andreapitre1978 the Joker*
King's original novel: an ingenious ghost story that really only works as a novel
Kubrick's adaptation: an ingenious avant-garde psychological horror that really only works as a film
That's probably the best breakdown on Novel Shining vs Kubrick Shining.
Behold the Take of Takes
Exactly. I love King's book and I love Kubrick's film. The miniseries was....meh.
Wonder if anyone ever could or would, or even should, try to make a movie that satisfies both sides of the argument? One that can be both as good as the movie and the book without any of the drawbacks of either one?
The movie is a ghost story too. Even Kubrick himself confirmed in an interview that the hotel was truly haunted. The interview is titled Kubrick Speaks in Regards to The Shining.
Stephen King: living proof that novel-writing and script-writing do not have as many transferable skills as people think.
And then you have a George R.R. Martin who does, but doesn't seem to have an ounce of King's productivity.
Gillian Flynn adapted her story "Gone Girl" for David Fincher's 2014 movie. But, she had help from a director who knew what he was doing and she herself understood that not only did she have to cut some stuff due to time, budget and some of her ideas in her book were not going to work on film.
And he's bad at both
Mihovil BeckV wo wo wo ... King is a genius
He is a talentless hack that has been writing the same book over and over again for four decades.
"I don't care if it doesn't make any sense. At least it's scary!"
That's what Critic said, for those who haven't seen this review before TH-cam's copyright muting at the end.
Thanks. I had seen the review before, but I couldn't remember what he said at the end and it was driving me nuts. Why did the end have to be muted?
That was scary
@@SunnysFilms they probably used music from the actual movie. Which is copyrighted
@@gracereads2917 That's what I was thinking. I did see it before it got muted, I just can't remember what the audio was. I'm guessing it's Midnight, the Stars and You, which is came out in 1934, but is still under copyright.
@@SunnysFilms Either that or “Ain’t we Got Fun.”
Critic starts writing on the white Board, while muttering...
Critic: Deeeerrooob... Deeeerrooob...
*writes DEROB*
*Rachel enters, and looks at board*
She then looks at Mirror.
Mirror Board: I AM IN NO WAY ENTERTAINED BY THIS MINI-SERIES AND I DO NOT PARTICULARLY CARE FOR IT WHATSOEVER.
"And the award for the best scene under the subcategory of Bait-and-switch goes to..."
TimeTravelinc BORED
Nostalgia Critic!
*The sound of branch like limbs imitating applause echoed through the simingly endless room while the clicking sound drowns everything away."
I thought he was saying D-runk
The fact that your likes are stuck at 599 for me infuriates me I can't like it further
"Knock, knock!"
"Who's there?"
"ZUUL, MUTHAFUCKA!"
***** The mother f*cking T-Rex is also one of the best.
D Vass Believe or not , without knowing what's going to happen next. I scrolled down THE SECOND he said that line and read your comment at the same time.
Still no idea how that happened...
Nice picture
Maybe A Dragon Well, how are you going to compare the internet to real life? On the internet, memes are fine, but if you said memes in real life, you would look pretty damn strange, so I don't think your comparison is fair.
Maybe A Dragon Its the internet goddamnit. You know what, people reference these quotes all the time. You know why? Because they found value in that statement. It means more than just something that will be funny for a minute. It's quoted because the statement managed to last so long before becoming a thing of the past.
If I remember correctly Stephen King said he disliked Kubrick’s version of The Shining because Kubrick cut out a lot of the slower dialogue scenes in favor of making it more exciting, Kubrick had the right idea, he knew the movie had a lot of baggage that needed to be cut out in order to make a better movie, as a book those long scenes of talking work, because books are driven by dialogue, movies are different, it’s a medium of show don’t tell, so even though it meant changing up the original story Kubrick sacrificed the dialogue heavy portions for the sake of a better movie
Ben McDonald also the main was he hated how kubrick turn Jack into insane person at start and he hated Wendy and call her one most sexist person in movie She here to scream and make sandwitch that is not woman i wrote
Stephen King still has absolutely awful taste in movies. I don’t really listen to his opinion on most things
I feel like King has softened his criticism of the Kubrick movie more recently. Basically he just doesn't like it as an adaptation of his work rather than just disliking the movie itself (sorry if that doesn't make sense English is my second language)
@@Melvinshermen I think it's unfair for him to feel Jack was crazy from the start and I really don't get why he disliked the portrayal of Wendy so much, very unfair that she was just stupid and screaming, she wasn't that different from the Wendy from the book (both loved Danny, loved Jack but there was also an element of staying out of desperation that the relationship needed to work).
DO - I listen to him with Jack not being as good as he is in the novel, even though I think the movie is better.
Me: Mom can we get The Shining?
Mom: We have The Shining at home!
*The Shining at home:*
What is this joke? I see similar jokes everywhere
Axel Nilsson it’s like when you ask your parents for a new iPhone but they tell you that you already got one, but it’s an iPhone 4. The Shining movie is better than the miniseries.
Alex Anon I still don’t get the joke
Axel Nilsson the version at home is basically a crappier version of the one said person wants
Wow what originality...
I get it now! The Q-Brick movie was focused on Jack slowly turning insane while the miniseries is focused on letting us turning slowly insane.
This is a Masterpiece! Why didn’t I see it?
So insane that we start using present tenses inappropriately.
That's the point the series is VERY much like the book when i read it i found myself becoming impatient and annoyed waiting for the suspense to happen which made it easier to resonate with jack better in the book. That was lost though in the movie since that jack was already nuts
At least the ending was better, in that it's a good ending. Black guy doesn't die is a bonus
I only know the european cut which is almost 30 minutes shorter in that version Jack goes 100% crazy out of nowhere
I'm talking about the Q-Brick version
"do something scary already!" Chair moves slightly. "Better than that!" Lol!
the shining movie and miniseries are a perfect example of "direct translation from page to screen" isn't always a good thing.
Kubrick made the right choices for the adaptation. he one of the few directors that understand this.
Matthew Smith
I think the best choice would be something in the middle of the two. I love Kubrick's adaptation but a lot of it was too far from the source yet the mini series was just... I don't even know how to descrive apart from "ehh"
hm good point
*coug cough* Peter jackson's Lord of the rings *cough cough*
Yeah, when you have a story jump media, it's always sloppier when they try to copy it point for point. The best case scenario would be the movie adaptation of the comic book Watchmen. And that movie was "ok" I guess. I mean, think of Kubrick adaptation of the Shining, or of some other film adaptations that deviate from the book. Jurassic Park and Jaws stand out because Spielberg did his own thing. If he stuck more closely to the books, you would be rooting for the shark and dinosaurs.
Honestly one of my favorite Nostalgia Critic reviews. The combination of Doug's Nicholson impression, the conscious effort to imitate Kubrick's cinematography, and just the sheer fun that everyone's having with it, makes me giggle no matter how many times I watch. Thanks, everyone.
Good to know people still watch these! This is one of my favorites as well.
His impression of Nicholson was sooo good. Made me lol
Willie: You got the shinning!
Bart: Don't you mean the shining?
Willie: Shh! You wanna get sued?
i get that reference
Ah. Me, a human also gets it.
@@soygato2722 alien in disguise! Don't worry we'll save you from area 51 on September 20th
CraftyCrowGaming whaaaaat?
Noooo
(Tengo no visa)
Editota: no likes. Necesito ayuda. Por favor fngkfieodidxkxkxkxkxkxi
“The little fat boy and his family are in trouble!”
"Can you think of one instance where they took a random object and put blood or teeth on it and it was scary?"
That fucking piano from Mario 64
Alkesta the FUCKING BLOB
The garden produce from the TV horror show Threshold.
this...
Audrey 2?
the movie teeth
I like how, when NC gets locked in a room, the lock is on his side of the door.
To further illustrate how is makes no sense the girl later locks him OUT of the same room. It's a magic door with locks on both sides!
Lol I never noticed that!
What's the matter? Haven't you heard of suspension of disbelief?
illuminati confirmed.
Yeah its meant to be a spoof. This a comedy web series after all.
“What’s important is that we have this fantastic location built on top of a harmless Indian burial ground that rests below the hulking remains of a burnt down insane asylum for schizophrenic homicidal orphans...and vampire puppies”
Well...that would explain how NC got this first location so cheap lol
Ever since he said that I sort of think either A I will never look the videos the same again or B How it that place in no way haunted or cursed when it comes to his other videos. I mean I know that line was showing he was basically reenacting the original The Shining from the very beginning to the very end but still
I think the problem with Stephen King making his own version on the shinning is that he has no idea how movies NEED to be made to be interesting. Stephen Kings talent is writing books not directing movies, which is why in his version of the shining he had the characters talk and talk, and do every day average things because in books you can have all those things in them and no one would find it odd, while in movies people always need the charaters to do things that tie to the suspenseful part of story and a real exciting rising action to make it intresting. Personally i think its best that Stephen King sticks to being a author
January TheWolfAlebrije “Don’t you mean the Shining?”
I get your point but he did the series VERY closely to what was going on in the book (alot of exposition) which is how he wanted it to be portrayed originally in the film and how it should have been portrayed. Steven king is good at making a scary and suspenseful story. The problem with the book itself was that it wasn't very suspenseful. A few jumpscares and creepy moments that lead nowhere all until the explosion. So all in all i think he did a good job bringing his book to life cause it's pretty obvious that's what he wanted
@@GDXdominator "shhh, you wanna get sued?"
Are you saying the shinning because you don’t wanna get sued
cubbleshasreturned exactly
You can almost feel Doug's pure destilated GLEE while acting as Jack Nicholson. He was having so much fun, and actually became scary at some points.
Doug...seriously, make a short film or something acting this crazy and stabby. You fit for it...which i don't know if its a compliment or not, but still!
It is a compliment!! lol Just maybe not the most ordinary one...or the most comforting.
Look up suburban knights.
"Malcoooolm, you know you have to die. It's the law of every scary movieeee!"
what about the guy from event horizon he lived.
Jarod Farrant
“Jurassic Park, Deep Blue Sea, Gremlins,
the list goes on!”
"Well, how about that chick from Alien vs. Predator?"
@@Connor.SG-1Ring THAT CHICK WAS AWESOMEEEE
Connor Kent! Guy not gal..
The kid sounds like he’s got a really bad cold
Tails from the Sonic OVA didn't sound as nasally as this kid.
You would too if you were always accompanied by an awkwardly hovering version of the encyclopedia britanica kid
hahahahaha, he is very nasally for sure!
For all we know, he did have a cold
That awful mushroom cap haircut didn’t help either!
Jack's famous quote in the novel:
*Take your medicine!*
Jack's famous quote in Kubrick's movie:
*HERE'SSSSSSSSS JOHNYYYY*
The Tavern Tavern. I wonder if they serve Beer Beer there.
HSMediaNerd No, it was Burger Burger.
In his most recent review of Osmosis Jones, there was Fried Chicken Fried Chicken.
HSMediaNerd Ah...but still, burger burger.
Beer Beer's my brand!
SuperSand1egend I'm pretty sure that "Dale and Tucker vs Evil" has someone drinking beer that's simply labeled 'Beer' near the start.
So, y'know, maybe.
Spoiler for the book
The book was honestly terrifying. The hedge animals actually weren't supposed to be visible in movement, and could do a hell of a lot of damage to people (probably kill if they had the chance). Tony isn't supposed to be scary, he is Danny's "friend" and is there to help him. The reason that the mini series doesn't work is because it tries to focus so much on dialogue that occurs within characters heads organically within the novel. The novel puts so much focus on inner thoughts, that it seems clumsy and out of place when spoken aloud in a long winded conversational manner. The reason that "Jack" seems to survive so long, is because he is already dead and is being possessed by the hotel. The ghosts "die" because the hotel, the only thing connecting them to this world was destroyed. One of the things that was better about this movie was Wendy. She is supposed to be a sympathetic character, whom the reader relates to and roots for with everything going on.
Nick Shortridge Nice
I don't think anyone here is criticizing the book. The book is a terryfying story. But what everyone here is criticizing is the fact how badly Stephen King adapted his own novel. The book is over 400 pages long, it makes sense that it's full of dialogue heavy moments. But this is a visual media where you can show us what's happening. You don't have to talk about it. That's where King went wrong. He had no experience at all in writing screenplays, he was used to writing books, without realising how diffrent the two are from eachother.
RageJoona I'm criticizing the book. It sucked, imo. It was never scary, went on forever, had plot threads that constantly went nowhere, an overabundance of unnecessary sex scenes that add literally nothing to the plot, boring ideas, and boring character back stories that took too long to show. I think Kubricks master piece is the only good version.
@@haydens.2755 Isn't that the plot of most Stephen King books?
@@dominicthorp3248 Pretty much. I don't care what anyone says, I think his stories are terrible. I respect him as a story creator, but not as a writer.
Nothing Happening to Wendy When She Was in The Elevator Was a Total Missed Opportunity Like Dean Winchester Sitting in Front of a Huge,Long Table That’s Filled With Pies,&,Him Not Eating Them All
What a specific yet accurate reference
@CipherRage0909 Totally
@Zachariah Waylon that seems toxic and abusive but whatever works for u
@@LOEKASH I Don’t do it on Purpose
@@jacobzboyan5465 I Know,Right?That’s What You Get From Somebody Who’s a Proud Part of The SPN Family Like Myself
When Critic is more terrifying than the movie he's reviewing. LOL
yeah LOL
LOL
Pixie Bubbles I don't know I think the shining mini series is so much better!
@Owen Richmond - Definitely. It's even my favorite Nostalgia Critic review.
Yeah he plays the mad man really well
You know what is crazy? The book has just as many talks about Wendy's and Jack's marriage as the series does... But since it invested effort into making how terrified Danny is of a divorce early on, those scenes are *actually* suspenseful in the book, because you are invested enough to not *want* them to break up, even though it would have been the more healthy solution by far; just another example of why literally taking a book and plastering it in filmed format doesn't work; the lack of inner dialogue from Danny turns scenes that were gripping in the book into a snorefest in the series.
It’s challenging overall to adapt a book page for page
It’s like anything trying to translate to screen
Even the Kubrick version can be punishingly long for most viewers these days who don’t understand building up dread and atmosphere
This version pretty much comes off as a vanity project; there’s being 100% faithful then being too faithful
Yes books have words and dialogue that is the idea but film has to change most of that it’s a given
Showing the terror works more
@@user-dr2yz8um3d " the Kubrick version can be punishingly long for most viewers these days"
His films certainly don't cater to those trapped in a post-MTV aesthetic.
I never understood why Stephen King complained about the maze in Kubrick's version because that worked perfectly. The animal sculptures do not work AT ALL. I know it was in the book but you can make changes that actually work.
Subtleblunt Duality in the books they actually work, similar to (like Doug said) the Weeping angels because we can see what Jack's thinking and the real scary bit isn't really the animals but Jack considering the fact he might be going insane. And animated hedge animals just look crap.
thank you someone agrees and also the animals going towards look like michael bay transfromres took slimy shit
The hedge animals in the book were horrifying.
The CGI hedge animals are only horrifying if you're drunk and have the imagination of an overly creative 7 year old =D
The maze IMO was a good compromise on Kubrick's part, but having read the novel a million times I can honestly say the maze in the novel would have worked (for me, at least) but the hedge animals moving, slowly stalking them, and attacking Mr. Halloran worked so well in the novel.
agreed, i thought the hedge animals worked really well in the book... you'd think they'd be like the balloons in It which is kind of what happens here, i don't know how you make hedge animals look scary
I mean it could've worked, I mean the kid is playing in the snow oblivious to an evil chia pet behind him but just like that elevator scene it was dashed as if nothing happened giving no pay off or purpose. If King wanted this to be more faithful, I understand, but he has to remember it needs to be scary. There's only so many times you put off on the scary payoffs when building up suspense before it gets boring
This is actually closer to what the book was like. This is a great example of the dangers of following the book too much.
So true. Kubrick knew what to cut out.
No beer and tv makes homer go something something...
"Go crazy?"
DON'T MIND IF I DO!
Best Shining Parody Ever
Nicole Marquis
“It’s ‘Shinning’-do you want to get sued?!”
Gimme the bat, common gimme the bat GIMME THE BABABOOO BALOALOOLEH!!!!
I love your profile picture.
@@legoking6165 thank you
The Critic's failed attempt at the "Here's Johnny!" scene never ceases to make me laugh.
Which is ironic seeing as though that's the scene he chose to parody in his thumbnail picture.
Yes, that is pretty ironic.
That is not "ironic".
SpartanWarrior76 My Mom thought it was so real that she told me "Turn that shit off! Don't be watching that!" I asked "Don't you hear the squeaking?"
SpartanWarrior76 s
I just got done reading the novel. I appreciate how King wanted a faithful adaptation of his book, and I sympathize with his wishes to make Jack Torrance a more relateable, sympathetic character, but I think the changes Kubrick made to the film were more out of necessity to make a good horror film than anything. As Critic points out, a lot of the dialogue and moments that made the book scary- don't translate well to a visual adaption. I think Kubrick did a fantastic job in taking a scary book and translating it into a scary, iconic film. And throughout the myriad of changes the film made from the novel, I still think there are plenty of nods to the book in Kubrick's adaption.
Btw, Rachel looked so good in this episode.
Rachel 'freaking out' is almost as funny as that damn toy mallet making a squeak with every hit. Actually, scratch that, it's even funnier
I know it’s comedy, but Doug could be terrifying in the right context. Would love to see him so horror.
Yup. Put him in a horror film!
@@Tavdogg11 Have you seen Kickassia...jk
he did, it's called the Not So Awesome document
Naah
@@Skiriwowi That was more his brother and the other guy.
I think I know why Stephen King's books don't usually translate well into movies: his main style seems to be that he slowly builds up tension throughout a long period of time as his characters maneuver about their everyday lives, gradually punctuating them with events that begin as vaguely bizarre and eventually escalate into bat-shit insane. This kind of storytelling is best done through writing because of the author's freedom to elaborate on backstory, drive the story with third-person insight, and describe scenes in a unique way that would take a seemingly ordinary event and turn it into something chilling or sinister. I don't think a lot of King's ideas work in movies because it's a visual medium, and he can't take advantage of his greatest strength: his narrative voice. So King really isn't to blame here; sometimes a person's work of art is only fitting to one particular medium.
Emberilliance
It's also why his constant complaining about the Kubrick adaptation is really baseless. He changed a lot from the novel, but Kubrick made a great film, and King just complained about how inherently different it was. It's pretty clear King couldn't do any better as far as writing the miniseries goes.
Emberilliance yes
you hit the nail right on the head my friend
That doesn't sound unfilmable. Just make a movie with interesting and well acted characters, add little odd things here and there and then go batcrap crazy at the end. There's plenty of media thats accomplished it.
Emberilliance Well said.
P.S You're one of the last people I'd expect to see commenting on a Nostalgia Critic review.
Stephen King is an amazing writer, without a doubt, but he doesn't seem to understand that film and novel are two completely different things. When reading something, your mind tends to make it scarier and more intense while on film, it can look silly
Stanley Kubrick's interpretation, despite King not liking it, was a masterpiece. You can feel the tension as it builds up, something that you need in film
Yeah dude has horrible taste in movies. Just look up all the movies he’s praised over the years
Guess it was too much to ask for Kubrick to include any substance amongst his admittedly impressive style.
The animal hedges coming to life was something Kubrick tried to implement too, he nixed it because the technology couldn’t make it look scary. So it was replaced with the hedge maze.
My thoughts exactly
I don't think Kubrick's Shining was a masterpiece in any way, as a movie itself. It wasn't particularly scary and the characters had no soul so you didn't care for any of them.
Kubrick's The shining=Unfaithful masterpiece.
Shining miniseries=faithful garbage.
The original book=just pure masterpiece
I’m sorry but I can’t like your comment. You understand
It's not even that. The miniseries is even more unfaithful to the book than the Kubrick movie.
@@mariadocarmosobreira8323 you obviously didn't read the book
@@mariadocarmosobreira8323 King had to condense and consolidate things to fit 6 hrs of television, but it is more faithful to the book,
To be fair the hedges were a lot scarier in the book
everything was scary in the book lol it made you reaaaaaally feel every moment. personally speaking anyway.
I mean, it may have been better the way he wrote it, but it clearly didn't translate well to screen, at least not on the way they were portrayed.
yeah, a lot of stuff can look good on paper but not so great on screen, a better scene to put in that spot would be the one where Danny is in the tunnel under the snow and suddenly gets the feeling he's not alone and runs out, then when he looks back at the hole he sees the hand waving to him, in my opinion that would've been fantastic
dude that just gave me chills
The Shining was a book?
Doug should be cast as the next adaptation's Jack Torrance.
Woo Haw! Woo Haw! Woo Haw!
Kestrel raptorial I second that nomination.
I second this ^^
Yes that would be great but no just no because the original 1980 Kubrick version is perfect!
Y E S
So when we need to kill a hotel of ghosts, who ya gonna call?
Michael Bay.
Thanks!
It was an honest joke. (at this time, I haven't read the book(s) But that makes sense.
got it.
lolz
=/
The tour in the Kubrick version was also quite long. The difference is Kubrick knew how to make it interesting and it wasn't over an hour into the film.
And he used Steady Cam to show off the rooms instead of cutting between shots
@@gracereads2917 The very definition of “show don’t tell.” Which this miniseries has the other way around.
@@MovieFan1912Kubrick was the master of camera work and cinematography to tell a story. It's what makes 2001 so intriguing in a way almost no director could pull off. It's no surprise he started off as a photographer
In my opinion, the sketches in the NC reviews can be hit-or-miss, but this one is definitely a hit. Doug does a hilarious Jack impression and some of these jokes are comedy gold. The bit with the squeaky hammer gets me every time.
I couldn't agree more this is one I actually watched all the way through! :D
nuitari k "This is the one I actually watched all the way through", LOL!
j ho lol, yeah...
I love his Maximum Overdrive skit.
Josh Petticrew me to I loved it the first time
"and over there is the kitchen where old Mary. Mcreed cooked her husband."
"AAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!"
"PIPE DOWN he was delicious..."
LMAO
Who cares?!
He was such a pig, he even tasted like one!
Wait.
One of my favorite parts of this review.
Honestly me. I would be that one guy who was like "shut up he was delicious"
That part was great. 😂
Critic: Or as the british say, "Q-brick"
Rachel: *Keeps saying q-brick*
Yeah, the British say "q-brick". We also say "duty", instead of "doodie".
Gavinmation *jewdie
@@thegavinside Heh, doodie.
Surprisingly Doug actually does a pretty impressive Nicholson Jack Torrance impression
That Danny kid cries at the drop of a hat, my God...
Also, the Critic should star in his own horror movie. Those expressions are more horrifying than any recent scary flick.
MsTheCommentator you need to watch better horror movies
It's normal for abused kids to either not cry or cry at everything.
Doug does a very good Jack Nicholson it's actually kind of scary how good it is
right
Ericka Turner actually more of a fun parody, better than anything on SNL.
The more I watch this the more I agree!!!!
This particular review keeps me laughing so much at work and at home if and when things are grim and I think the entire cast has talent, particularly Doug and his JN impersonation. Whenever stuff at works gets really mundane I start chanting "DE-ROBBBB" in my head and I crack up and picture chasing the person annoying me with a squeaky mallet and all of a sudden shit isn't so bad. XD
Niaaah
Joseph Van Buren even a VaN DowN by ThE RIVER! ?
"Just because you put blood or teeth on something that doesn't make it scary"
now if only the creepy pasta writers could figure that out
Lilipad Gaming that’s not funny or relevant
Rake doesn’t mention teeth
Slender doesn’t mention teeth
Jeff the Killer is scary and it has huge teeth
Thing that stalks the fields doesn’t mention teeth
You’re wrong just because you say something is something doesn’t make it a fact dipshit
Please give me your list of creepy pastas that aren’t scary and only mention teeth and blood.
Fucking idiot
QuiteDaPlayer_ none of those stories are scary though. The whole premise of slender man is just plain silly, it’s extremely hard to take it seriously. The Rake is no different than any other monster story. I suppose that it is a bit scary, but it’s not a particularly good story. Jeff the Killer is basically just Jason from Friday the 13th who talks a lot more. Again, nothing particularly scary about it. I don’t understand why you got so defensive over some silly stories
Jeff the Killer's scary? What bollocks.
Lilipad Gaming Creepypastas are awesome and all, but are we all overlooking the fucking piano from Super Mario 64?
QuiteDaPlayer_ you know that is only 3 stories
10:45 you can kind of see Danny force his head into the toilet. So really Jack did nothing and it was Danny's fault.
To be fair, wouldn’t you want to throw that little shits Stupid face into the toilet as well?
Jack at the beginning of the movie: I don’t wanna kill child
Jack at the end of the movie:I will kill a child I will kill a child
Character development.
@@Legendary_Detective-Wobbuffet Its bad character development though
All 3 of you were wrong Jack is possessed by the hotel
Have you never watched/read the Shining before?
I feel like this comment set off some "extra intense barely ever goes off" siren at the TH-cam factory. & all the employees put their glasses on & read across the screen like .. "oh ... She's commenting about something another person did one time..."
Hasn't anyone noticed what happened to the audio at the end of this video or is it just me? (Loved this by the way! I have never been a bad review by Doug!)
@@lovemeytbeavisandbutthead2974 That would have muted the whole audio track. The quality of audio goes down a few minutes before, in the scene in the woods, so there must have been some upload problem.
@@piotrmil Maybe they got claimed but it didn't cover a lot?
I noticed the audio cutout too, I wanna know what Critic said or what anyone said during the cutout audio
@@KatOwO2235 Critic said something along the lines of "I don't care if it doesn't make sense! At least it's scary!"
@@RobynAnimal thanks
The skit was scarier then the miniseries
More scarier and entertaining .
Kind of sad but true
It's actually amazing how well the Critic emulates Jack Nicholson in this video. Well done!
Even better than when he spoofed the raven
"And over there is the kitchen where old Mary McCreed cooked here husband."
"AHHH!"
"Pipe down; he was DELICIOUS."
5:26.
omonom
JawsKid wrong time 2:26
How good do you think he tasted?
DRCROC 123 he was a little to salty
For me I have to say I prefer black meat
Killer Kirby lol
I'm not trying to sound mean to a kid actor, but Danny's inability to keeps his lips closed bothers me.
+Chris Westergaard hes a kid, when I was little I did that too
Cave Johnson Had too many combustible lemons as a kid?
Chris Westergaard Lemons were my favorite food, before I started making money I was just a dreamer with a lemonade stand
I hate it...so much.
+GroovyGreaser It triggers my non existent OCD
Its sad what happened to Shelly Duvall
Kubrick was frequently mean to her on set.
Stephanie aubel went mad
Everyone was a huge ass to her during filming
She had to be in therapy for a long time after that
Kubrick: Shelly, it's time for your mental breakdown!
Shelly: Screams like she does in every scene.
The "MY CABBAGES!" moment is the bit I keep returning for.
me too
And @35:30 "fiery" CGI Jack Torrance "flying" away as the Overlook explodes.
@@shaft9000 certified 🤣 moment. Still not sure if its even real or edited in for comedic effect. But thats the genius of NC.
@@shaft9000 Danny: Goodbye, Daddy.
Jack: *GOODBYYYYYEEEEE!!!!!!!*
And the classic, "ZUUL MOTHAFUCKA, ZUUL!"
No TV and no beer makes homer something something
go... crazy?
DONT MIND IF I DO!
Addghijklmnodefsgp Whoa wha who bloo!
HE HO HE HO
Something I would prefer very much to watch before this mini-series.
Critic you’re the friggin’ best. Those jokes though. 😂😂
@Mai Nyigguh OMG go away! We like his acting! Get over it!
@Mai Nyigguh AND WE LOVE IT!!! 😅😛😛😛😛 suffer!!
@Mai Nyigguh awww you still want attention?? 🙄 what's up? What you want to talk about? What's on your mind?
Mai Nyigguh you’re a perfect case of jealousy over people’s success
Critic is an amazing actor. He played pretending Jack so well.
He was pretending?
Dr. Redrum yeah. He was pretending to be Jack. Recreating the shining
@@epicc1o1official smh
So he was an amazing actor only 3 years ago ?? His talent for sitting on chairs or walking around in presumably a garage and ranting about other people's work really lasted that long ?? Wow...
King himself explained it like this.
"The book is hot, and the movie is cold. The book ends in fire, and the movie in ice." And I love them both. But this version was just lukewarm!
that's it really. the movie is cold, harsh and unforgiving. there's is no human warmth in it, esp. not in how jack is portrayed.
@@henrikpersson4698That's what makes it so great, imo. Anybody who ever witnessed or was involved in an abusive relationship can see how terrifying Jack and Shelley's performance is. The genius of Kubrick's version is that it's a not really a ghost story if you think about it. There's something very human about it that makes it so terrifying
I would say it's very unnerving overall. The only thing I'd omit is the stupid corpse room!
But blood elevator? Bravo.
Can we have a Shining remake with Doug Walker as Jack? I'd pay good money to see that.
I want a Shining remake with David Lynch as Jack.
Josey Kaiser no, Kubrick Shining is a perfect piece of classic cinema that mustn't be tainted by a poor adaption
me too but instead this shit
FrodoBaggins1926 Okay, but can we have a new movie based on the Shining, that has nothing to do with Kubrick, so we can have Doug as Jack?
Frodo it's probably why no one has attempted to tamper with a lot of classics, and when they do it's a flop. The 1990 version of "It" was a low budget TV series but the movie did great. I like Kubrick's films but I don't worship the ground he walked on, but I can appreciate and understand his following; the guy didn't make careless errors, his casting was terrific and he was meticulous and a very brilliant perfectionist. If someone tried to outdo him, they would most likely fail. And it's not an insult to the actors, writers, screen writers, or directors--sometimes the original is untouchable and unbreakable enough that no one (no matter how talented) will be able to take over the roles played (in a remake) compared to the original. (It's why the cast of Ferris Bueller will always be Matthew Broderick and co. vs. some new up and coming Hollywood star. It's not that no one else on the planet would be unable to play a good Ferris Bueller; it's just that MB did such a great job in the first place that trying to outdo it would be some weird form of taboo. Don't mess with perfection, and if perfection isn't in someone's vocabulary I'd say don't mess with the closest thing to it you'll likely find.) I feel the same way about Kubrick's adaptation--true to the book, not exactly, and I understand why King doesn't like it having wrote the novel, but like Doug pointed out while chugging toilet water, it created such an unsettling and surreal atmosphere and anyone attempting to out-do it would have a serious, serious challenge ahead of them with an audience with so many memories of the original that it would almost guarantee to be a flop.)
I like the mini series and think the actors (particularly Webber) did an outstanding job given what they were up against. I like both movie adaptations and I appreciate Doug showing the audience that the atmosphere in Kubrick's version was much more unsettling and confusing and that the actors in that movie were outstanding, yet the actors in the mini-series did a wonderful job at portraying what King wanted to portray in his novel. As fans of both artists I find a lot of value and a lot of depth in both movies, and much more character development in the novel. I like all 3 version of all 3 mediums! Aren't I lucky?
JMO of course =D
PS: King only fans will hate me but I feel very saddened that Kubrick isn't alive to take on a cinematic adaptation of the novels sequel, "Doctor Sleep." I've love to see this turned into a movie by an experienced director who could dissect the novel and create an adaptation of it!
That hose with teeth literally looks like something out of Son of The Mask
Bella Tocci Holy crap! I thought the same thing!
hahaha you are right
Bella Tocci Except not as scary.
Bella Tocci except son of the mask was a kids movie, and this was supposed to be scary
Phantom Menace looks like gold compared to these effects and that was 2 years before
Attack of the Killer Chia Pets
TRUE
+Nate J. Yeah at least the Angels had that in their favour.
It did, and the Weeping Angels were probably based on those scenes. Two things the Shining did wrong there was use weak CGI and use hedges instead of statues.
bu-bu-bu-bullshit! ;)
orlock20 yeah but the weeping Angels are not cgi , there real people who have to hold that position, and not move.
can i just say Malcom's distress about not getting to try the McDonald's pumpkin burger sounded so genuine it cracked me up
"You've just been drinking toilet water for the past 5 minutes."
I literally had to pause the video because I was laughing too hard to hear the review.
Not really relevant o you specifically(and I know I'm responding to a comment 2 years later lol) but I had this review playing through my sound system when I popped open my window to smoke.
The neighbor's driveway is right outside my bedroom, so when he came out to his car, he heard the part of the review where Doug was saying "HEY GUYS WE'RE JUDT DOWN HERE BEING HAUNTED, DOING SPOOKY STUFF ON THE JUKEBOX.... UHH.... DON'T MIND US, WE'RE NOT SCARY OR ANYTHING!"
My neighbor just happened to barely hear that little bit, and his ears perked up and he started to laugh because he had effectively just heard a ghost speak to him(obviously he looked right up and saw me poking my head out, but it caught him off guard just right it was fucking hilarious and we both started laughing)
@@mutt9779 xDDD
That bit about AVP is too true.
Brady Slimepoop I think it was pretty good.
People are dying, we need guns
Its more of an excuse to see two franchises fighting each other and it is a pretty good one
The first AVP is good. The chick in it was definitely awesome in the movie. Actually, she's still awesome.
Now AVPR. That's a whole other story.
l...um... fuk.
When Doug reenacts the scenes from the movie, he actually does a pretty damn good job of it :)
I'd love to see him review the movie, I adore that film, but it can be pretty silly at times.
the "go check it out!" scene was brilliant!!!
In the book, Jack is chasing Wendy with a knife in his back.This mini-series had the right idea, it just didn't have the creepy atmosphere Kubrick had.
Fun Fact: The Shining is set in Colorado because The Stanley Hotel (the hotel that inspired King to write the book) is is located in Estes Park.
Hi! I had to cut poverty in the school gymnasium But, Colorado is not scary. Except for all weed smokers. Hey moved to Michigan so we are all doomed.
Colorado sucks.
Stephen King really had a scary moment gift-wrapped for him, and he didn’t take advantage of it!
That’s like the 3 Stooges looking at a table full of pies and going “WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO???”
Scare us you master of horror and suspense.
The fact that the Nostalgia Crtic gave a better "Jack Torrance" performance than the actor in the miniseries just shows how fucking bad it is
Ryan Williams Yep.
Well, to be fair, Doug is a good actor. The Nostalgia Critic is simply a character that Doug has played as for years.
Yeah, Jack is too pretty to be crazy anyway! Well, I guess Harley Quinn proved that statement wrong....
Ryan Williams To be Honest, he was doing a personification of Nicholson playing Torrance, instead of the actual Jack Torrance
Let's not get carried away. Doug is just doing an impression of Jack Nicholson's performance.
Steven Weber had to create his own version of Jack Nicholson's character and from what I can tell, most seem to enjoy his more sympathetic and complex portrayal. He's just in a very dull and dragged out miniseries.
Malcolm: "Pumpkin guacamole?"
Crazed Critic: "Aaaauuggghhhh!!!!"
Malcolm: *Runs Away*
@@AustinBlack28 look, some people are nuts about pumpkin stuff
Ben Rogers i was hoping that you would play as Crazed Critic
Rachel: Critic? ::opens the door:: Critic? Helloooo?
I think the critic's jokes can be hit or miss, but using "The Stand" to have the kid stand higher was clever.
I just have to say that The Nostalgia Critic gave a really good impression of Jack Nicholson's character from 'The Shinning'. Also that look at scream he give to Malcom at 37:41.
Bobman9420 *The Shining
Bobm
Bobman9420 it’s not difficult
Bobman9420 the shinning is my favorite shoe store
Sh... wanna get sued?
The terrifying thingh about this mini series. The kid's mouth. WTF?
Nothing. It's just....someone forgot to close his garage door. That's all. Happens to the best :p
he later grew up to become the guy in 13 cameras
Its more open then a feather pillow during a pillow fight
He's got a mouth like those rat-people in the Nutcracker Tale 😨
. .
O
*Stuart: "May I be frank?"*
*Steven: "Okay, Frank."*
Missed opportunity, NC, because I'd really have loved to have some Naked Gun humor in my Shining.
Am I the only one who thinks Critic's content has become much better ever since his return?
You're not alone...
Kubric's stylistic adaptation > king's accurate yet piss poor excuse for a miniseries
Kings book is actually superb to both of the movies (never thought i am going to say that)
the kubriks version is a good movie, sadly has not much to do with the book
the mini series is kinda dull
but kings book imho are very poorly possible to make into movies
due to his telling style
@@Blackeye1987 learn how speak
@@kfcandpepsigood8038 < lulz
@@Blackeye1987 lulz
@@Blackeye1987 and by the way i do know how speak it's just meme how cave men used to talk
Critic: “DEROB... DEROB...”
Me: DEROB...? Wait a minute...
Oh. He’s BORED.
Good going, King. You broke Critic!
Rachel and Doug actually do an amazing job reenacting scenes from Kubrick's shining!
So entertaining while at the same time I was actually fearing for Rachel in that moment
From what I've seen, King just wrote the book in movie form for this miniseries. There is dialogue straight out of the book and there were a few parts in the book that were too long, like the wasps. I can't believe King actually thought copying his book verbatim would make a good movie.
Also, Mr. King, HEDGES ARE NOT SCARY!
rockbandinthusiast
XD
rockbandinthusiast the problem is that Stephen King lacks the precision and intelligence of Stanley Kubrick's shining
Every scary moment has layers of meaning that caused entire video essays to be made about it scares. Every scare sequence gives foreshadowing(the twins and how they were killed by a axe) or revelations(pedaphile relationship between Danny and Jack was hinted by the pedo bear). None of the scares of Stephen Kings version feels like they serve any real purpose beyond fluff. This also applies to the character interactions Compare the typewriter scene from the Kubrick version vs the various conversations of the miniseries.
Weird how they got a gopher to play the kid.
I thought it was cgi but i forget that it was from 1990s
"We'll show him won't we Pennywise?"
"OH YES!!!!!"
They all float
The Shining is one of the best books I've ever read, and the Kubrick version is one of the best horror movies of all time. They have almost nothing in common. This miniseries was more faithful to the book, but it made all the scary stuff really silly (firehouse, Tony, hedge animals, Danny's stupid face)
Critic: my soul for just a shot of cupcake vodka
Bartender: *pours Jameson*
Dominic is one of my favorite characters. I've started watching the segment he's featured in
Critic is scarcely good at acting like a nutjob.
I suspect he already is one, just not the right kind of nutjob for this particular review.
Dis Lexic well he has had some time to perfect it.
My thoughts are that Doug has a severe case of.... Dissociate Identity Disorder.
Dis Lexic hes not acting.
I think critic will make a good Batman villain....
Hey guys, you wanna hear something truly terrifying?
*the door closed*
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Boo. 👻
ah.
aaa
Shut that door
20:11- the book described the topiaries as moving closer and closer without them being seen visibly moving whenever you turned away from them - much like the Weeping Angels of Doctor Who. The scares came from whether the onlookers were imaging it or if it was true, what would they do if they caught you. All silent.
The mini series very unsubtly hints of their sentience through animal noises long before they start moving like actual animals.
Has Stephen King ever had a good miniseries? They all seem to suck, this is actually the best of the bunch imo yet it still sucks lol.
On a side note Doug did an outstanding job in this review, one of his best ones.
The Stand is pretty dope
So is Salem's Lot
The Stand is the only one I can... Stand!
11/22/63 was great
Not a miniseries, but I've heard that The Mist wasn't too bad. I know King loved the ending, which was different than his own. Like, to the point where he thought anyone who spoiled it should be killed.
I wouldn't mind a more sympathetic Jack Torrance combined with kubricks's atmosphere
*Q-brick
That would be a interesting combination.
Honestly same
Really? Jack Nicholson was awesome in the movie. He was the essential ingredient. Kubrick never had sympathetic characters. I think maybe his personality resonates more with older generations. People are too nice nowadays to appreciate the psychotic 'fun' in watching his performance. It would be like wanting Alex from A Clockwork Orange to be sympathetic.
His own clips were scarier than anything in the movie 😂
i know
29:02 - 29:10 - Love how she locks him in from the outside, where you need the key to lock/unlock the door (which she doesn't have), while he's locked inside the bathroom, where he can lock/unlock at will because his side has the latch. :')
Lol yeah, nice catch
Does that kid ever close his freaking mouth?
And not talk through his nose (and sound like he had cotton balls shoved in his mouth)?!?!?
He's bugs bunny as a child
He is the reason I can’t watch this movie
This just makes me appreciate Kubrick’s version even more. It’s a masterpiece.
Not really. Hate to say it but read the book. You'll understand why people hate q-bricks version.
@@FIRSTNAMELASTNAME-zt4kf It's still great
@@FIRSTNAMELASTNAME-zt4kf I'm reading it at the moment and nope, the movie is still a masterpiece. And "people" don't hate it. Some hardcore Stephen King-fans do. Kubricks version is revered as one of the best (horror-)movies ever. The main problem is: King is an amazing writer, but a lot of his writing doesn't translate well to an audiovisual medium without ending up looking silly. I read the part with Danny walking past the firehose today and King did a great job of taking the reader into the imaginative mind of a scared (and psychic) 5-year old, and how something as mundane as a firehose could appear as a threat to him that could come alive to chase him any minute. But in a movie without the luxury of knowing Danny's inner monologue during this scene, it just becomes silly. Because...it's a firehose.
@pink sticky notes If it won't they will bring dragons then
The Tavern Tavern?
Wow, that is like a whole new level of laziness
Ben McDonald that’s lazy lazy
Maybe maybe they they serve serve beer beer beer beer
*woody woodpecker laugh*
Didn’t Didn’t you you already already talk talk about about this this?
It was a MARQUEE. 😩
The word is written twice so you can see it from 2 different angles.
The critic was just joking about the name. (any humor to be found in this shining trainwreck is appreciated!) 😅👍
13:40
"Whats next, you gonna mildly tamper with the thermostat!?!?!?!"
* Dads everywhere: cringe
Reminds me of the Spongebob episode about the thermostat in the Krysty Krab
My mom: ITS SOOO COLD, IM DYING!!
Don't kid yourself critic! I'm the best fucking thing in Kubrick's shining!
Yeah!!!!!
Jack Torrance All hail The Plaid Shirt King!
All hail!
Actually, your wife is better she went through much it caused her so much distress but she persevered for your son +JackTorrance
I've been meaning to ask you Mr. Torrance; is your wife by chance related to Peter Lorre and/or Steve Buscemi?
The kid having this long protracted conversation with Dick Halloran was nowhere near as effective as the cryptic tense conversation between Danny Lloyd and Scatman Crothers
yea scatman crothers steals every scene in everything he's in
Miss Moxie Actually, I found the Kubric one a bit bland. Imagine if in lord of the rings, when Frodo asks Gandalf about the ring, Gandalf just said '' ... it can corrupt you. End of discussion "
Miss Moxie name something 1980 shining did worse.
Miss Moxie I think I prefer dick halloran lives then died!
Pennywise: Hua Hua Hua Hua
Me: well at least the movie aduptation was good.
Rainbow Paper Yoshi except it wasn't
@@birdie327 i liked it
And this is the Stephen king approved rendition. At this point I assume he's jealous of Stanley Kubrick's take.
klaus hammer absolutely. The only reason this turd is still around is because of people’s blind obedience to King.
klaus hammer Can you blame him?
klaus hammer King is much better at writing books than directing films. His versions tend to work better in written form than on the big screen. Just look at the movie Cell. The book is actually quite good whereas the film takes a different approach.
That’s pretty much the case.
I don’t think it’s jealousy, but the same kind of disgust most writers have voiced over their original creation’s “adaptation to film”.
King never said he loved this version, only that it stands closer to the book as an adaptation, but he still wished it had the proper budget to properly adapt the scenes from the book. The lady in the bathtub scene was over half of their entire practical effects budget.
Like the difference between the “scares” in the IT tv mini-series, compared to the same ones in the 2 modern movies.