Stanley Kubrick's controversial adaptation of a King thriller still manages to chill. 4 Stars

Stanley Kubrick’s examination of the pervasiveness of evil and the disintegration of a family from that evil finally gets its best-ever video release with this UHD presentation of The Shining.

The Shining (1980)
Released: 13 Jun 1980
Rated: R
Runtime: 146 min
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Genre: Drama, Horror
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers
Writer(s): Stephen King (novel), Stanley Kubrick (screenplay), Diane Johnson (screenplay)
Plot: A family heads to an isolated hotel for the winter where a sinister presence influences the father into violence, while his psychic son sees horrific forebodings from both past and future.
IMDB rating: 8.4
MetaScore: 66

Disc Information
Studio: Warner Brothers
Distributed By: N/A
Video Resolution: 2160p HEVC w/HDR
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Audio: English 5.1 DTS-HDMA, Spanish 5.1 DD, French 5.1 DD, Other
Subtitles: English SDH, Spanish, French, Other
Rating: R
Run Time: 2 Hr. 24 Min.
Package Includes: UHD, Blu-ray, Digital Copy
Case Type: keep case in a slipcover
Disc Type: UHD
Region: All
Release Date: 10/01/2019
MSRP: $41.99

The Production: 4/5

Perhaps no modern film generates more heated arguments relative to its merits than Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. Many over the years, including its original author Stephen King, have been irritated about the film’s pacing, its lack of fidelity to the original source book, the out-of-left field casting, but Stanley Kubrick’s films have always been deliberately paced, but the payoffs have almost always been worth it. Lots of movies aren’t faithful to their original novels, but that doesn’t necessarily make them any less entertaining as films. And avant-garde casting is usually one of the most interesting aspects to Kubrick’s filmmaking.

Jack Nicholson stars as former college professor Jack Torrance who takes the job of winter caretaker of a luxury Colorado hotel, The Overlook, in order to have the peace and quiet necessary to write a book. Gradually, winter sets in and long, lonely hours in the large space with only his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) for company begin to take their toll: he becomes possessed by the evil legend associated with the hotel: a former caretaker (Philip Stone) who murdered his wife and two daughters with an ax and then blew his head off with a rifle, only one of several hotel spirits who seem to be on speaking terms with the troubled would-be writer.

The title of the film involves a power which Jack’s son possesses. “Shining” is a type of clairvoyance which enables Danny to see both past and future occurrences as well as read certain thoughts in the minds of others who also have this power. Kubrick uses this power of shining to picture in the child’s mind the grisly murders which took place earlier and which continually haunt Danny’s subconscious. It’s strange, however, that this ability doesn’t seem to be much help in his climactic efforts of escaping from his deranged father. Luck and ingenuity are much more worthwhile commodities when the chips are down. The script by Stanley Kubrick and novelist Diane Johnson has other inconsistencies. The Overlook’s head chef Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) also possesses the ability to shine, but it doesn’t help him when he dashes back to aid the family in its time of crisis. That’s not explained nor are the hotel’s many ghosts, some victims of horrific violence and others just having a good time, who seem to appear to some people some of the time or to everyone at other times. While it’s not always necessary for an audience to be provided with all the answers in a ghost story like The Shining, it does offer ample ammunition for those who want to take potshots at the film for its seeming lack of constancy.

The film’s genius, however, comes in the subtle qualities of terror that director Kubrick gradually has inserted to creep over the viewer during the movie’s lengthy running time (144 minutes). There’s talk about murders and cannibalism early to plant the seeds of potential gruesome happenings to come. An early conversation between Duvall’s Wendy and Crothers’ Hallorann seems banal, but the camera focuses on several long, threatening butcher knives in the background, one of which plays an important part in the later plot. Early warnings about Room 237 prepare us for one of modern cinema’s most grotesque scenes. The eerie music themes by Bella Bartok (along with some Wendy Carlos compositions and themes by other hands), some chilling sound effects by Ivan Sharrock, and the marvelous Steadicam tracking camerawork (used extensively in the hotel corridors where we never know around which corner danger lurks and in a high shrub maze that seems evilly complex in construction) and early-on bird’s eye view shots of the Torrance car twice winding around a mountain road to deliver the family to its possible doom all contribute mightily to the film’s horrific effectiveness.

The casting of the three main characters might be unconventional; it may take more than one viewing to reconcile oneself to Shelley Duvall’s jittery, sputtering, dead-in-the-eyes take on Wendy, and Danny Lloyd isn’t a particularly charismatic young actor (imagine what Haley Joel Osment in his prime could have done with the role). And Jack Nicholson? Well, his over-the-top take on Jack is unusual, and it certainly holds one’s attention. Perhaps under the circumstances, that’s all that one could hope for. To his credit, Nicholson does build his performance from a slightly off kilter man in his initial interview for the job to the manic lunatic we see in the latter third of the picture. It’s actually a thoughtful performance whose extremes are understandable amid the other ghostly happenings at the Overlook Hotel. Pros Scatman Crothers, hotel director Barry Nelson, doctor Anne Jackson, barkeep Joe Turkel, and racist butler Philip Stone all add variety either directly into the story or around its fringes.

Maybe The Shining isn’t all that it could have been, but it does manage in no little way to produce an ample supply of goose pimples even on repeated viewings. That’s no small feat.

Video: 4.5/5

3D Rating: NA

The film’s 1.85:1 original theatrical aspect ratio is faithfully rendered in this 2160p transfer using the HEVC codec and abetted with Dolby Vision. The image features way above average sharpness, very good color levels (the reds in those vibrant chairs in the lounge are rich but never bloom), and solid fine details as in wallpaper textures which are occasionally quite visible. The overall image appears brighter than one remembers and is virtually spotless. The interwoven herringbone, tweed, and corduroy jackets don’t cause the slightest line twitter or flashing in the image. Black levels are appropriately deep but maybe not quite as dark as they might have been while the abundance of white levels due to all the snow is handled beautifully with Dolby Vision not making things look unnaturally bright. Flesh tones are a major improvement in this new UHD transfer, now much more lifelike and less red than in earlier transfers. The movie has been divided into 40 chapters.

Audio: 4.5/5

The only English audio choice is a DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 remixed track. The original theatrical mono is no longer a choice for the listener. While the audio’s mono origins occasionally reveal themselves in scenes where modern mixes would have noticeable surround but this mix doesn’t, the 5.1 soundtrack allows the creepy music and chilling audio effects to greatly enhance the effectiveness of the film’s many shocking moments. Problems in earlier transfers with stifled looped dialogue have been eliminated here, and the dialog in the center channel is clear. There are no age-related problems with hiss or other anomalies.

Special Features: 4/5

Almost all of the bonus features from the last Blu-ray release have been carried over to this 4K release. The theatrical trailer is missing.

Audio Commentary: a combination of comments from Steadicam inventor/operator Garrett Brown and Kubrick biographer John Baxter. It’s an informative though slightly dry recital of information about the making of the film and for fans of the movie is quite an engaging listen. This is available on both the package’s UHD and Blu-ray discs.

All of the other bonus features are only on the enclosed Blu-ray disc.

View from the Overlook: Crafting The Shining (30:22, SD): a standard “making of” featurette featuring comments from the movie’s camera operator, writer, production designer, costumer, producer, and star (Nicholson) looking back on their experiences of working on the movie.

The Visions of Stanley Kubrick (17:17, SD): a discussion of Kubrick’s background as a still photographer and how that influenced his camera eye in the making of his films.

The Making of ‘The Shining’ (34:59, SD): Stanley Kubrick’s daughter Vivian Kubrick’s filmed documentary made during the production of the film. Along with the movie is a running commentary by Ms. Kubrick looking back on her (then) 27-year old effort and making some astute comments on the people involved and her own sometimes clumsy attempts at making this film.

Wendy Carlos, Composer (7:31, SD): the composer plays some music from both The Shining and A Clockwork Orange, most of which didn‘t make it into the final films.

Digital Copy: enclosed in the disc case. Movies Anywhere adaptable.

Overall: 4/5

Stanley Kubrick’s examination of the pervasiveness of evil and the disintegration of a family from that evil finally gets its best-ever video release with this UHD presentation of The Shining. For fans of the movie, it’s a must-buy. It’s never looked or sounded better.

Published by

Matt Hough

editor,member

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
48,429
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Thank you for your review. I'm not sure if I'll buy the disc or the 4K digital. It depends on the pricing between now and Black Friday sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt Hough

Powell&Pressburger

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
1,749
Location
MPLS, MN
Real Name
Jack
Thank you for your review. I'm not sure if I'll buy the disc or the 4K digital. It depends on the pricing between now and Black Friday sales.

Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free

most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast
 

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
48,429
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free

most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast
I saw that earlier this morning and ordered "The Shining" along with two other 4K titles. As to Gremlins, my HD digital that I bought for $4.99 on iTunes has already upgraded to 4K so I'm passing on the disc.
 

Worth

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
3,659
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
It's "incorrect" if you're being pedantic - the disc is opened up very slightly to 1.78 from the theatrical 1.85 ratio. But there's far more variation than that in theatrical projection, especially in 35mm, and I defy anyone to show how the composition is somehow compromised by that added sliver of picture.
 

Robert Crawford

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
48,429
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
It's "incorrect" if you're being pedantic - the disc is opened up very slightly to 1.78 from the theatrical 1.85 ratio. But there's far more variation than that in theatrical projection, especially in 35mm, and I defy anyone to show how the composition is somehow compromised by that added sliver of picture.
Whenever I read somebody griping about 1.78 vs 1.85 ratio, I just shrugged my shoulders and sigh.
 

PMF

Cinematographer
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
4,298
Real Name
Philip
I would imagine that what we've got in terms of ratio has come from the decisions of knowledgeable insiders and the cream of the Kubrick crop. Like "2001" there comes a point where one should just sit back, stop torturing themselves, and simply bask within its beauty.
This 4K of "The Shining" is a wonderful disc; and has further whetted my appetites for a hopeful UHD of "A Clockwork Orange".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Britton and dpippel

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,909
Whenever I read somebody griping about 1.78 vs 1.85 ratio, I just shrugged my shoulders and sigh.
Yeah, that's petty - on both sides. It's also stupid of the studios to make the minor alteration in OAR in the first place.

On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?
 

Billy Batson

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
3,526
Location
London
Real Name
Alan
On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?
You could also use that same argument not to put those tiny lines on. The main thing is that we're getting stunning versions of all these classic movies. I've said it before (& will no doubt say it again); we movie fans are spoiled rotten these days.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lark144 and PMF

Scott Merryfield

Film Editor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
15,838
Location
Michigan
Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free

most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast
Thanks for mentioning this. I just ordered The Shining, Apocalypse Now and Avengers: Endgame through the deal. It works out to a little over $18 per UHD title. I wanted to order John Wick 3 in UHD, but it wasn't available for some reason, so I settled for the $5 higher priced Avengers film.
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,608
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Yeah, that's petty - on both sides. It's also stupid of the studios to make the minor alteration in OAR in the first place.

On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?
I know sometimes Warner just does that in general, but it may have been at Vitali’s direction to honor Kubrick’s wishes.

Kubrick did not like the appearance of black bars on a TV screen. There’s documentation which I’ve viewed at the Kubrick archive which confirms this. He shot his later films which spherical lenses not because he hated widescreen, as some have erroneously reported in past years, but rather, so that he had the option to present his films open matte. He felt it was better to have extra height on the image, even if it wasn’t carrying essential information, vs the appearance of black bars on what (in his lifetime) were small TV screens.

While I don’t think there’s a significant difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 (as was noted in an above post, theatrical exhibition is far less precise than that variance), I think this could simply be a matter of honoring the spirit of Kubrick’s request, that when picture information is available, that he’d prefer to open up the matte a little rather than having the television viewer observe dead space on their screen.

It’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that if he had lived up see 60” widescreen televisions become the norm that his views may have changed. But since it doesn’t harm the film to present it at 1.78:1, and since doing so honors both the spirit and the letter of his stated preferences, I don’t see a problem.
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,909
You could also use that same argument not to put those tiny lines on.
The difference is that the tiny bars accurately represent OAR and the tiny bar-free version doesn't.

Again, I don't bunch my panties about 1.78:1 versions of 1.85:1 movies, but I think it's idiotic. Even the most ardent "FILL MY TV!!!" dope is unlikely to care about the thin lines so why not stay true to OAR?
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,909
I know sometimes Warner just does that in general, but it may have been at Vitali’s direction to honor Kubrick’s wishes.

Kubrick did not like the appearance of black bars on a TV screen. There’s documentation which I’ve viewed at the Kubrick archive which confirms this. He shot his later films which spherical lenses not because he hated widescreen, as some have erroneously reported in past years, but rather, so that he had the option to present his films open matte. He felt it was better to have extra height on the image, even if it wasn’t carrying essential information, vs the appearance of black bars on what (in his lifetime) were small TV screens.

While I don’t think there’s a significant difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 (as was noted in an above post, theatrical exhibition is far less precise than that variance), I think this could simply be a matter of honoring the spirit of Kubrick’s request, that when picture information is available, that he’d prefer to open up the matte a little rather than having the television viewer observe dead space on their screen.

It’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that if he had lived up see 60” widescreen televisions become the norm that his views may have changed. But since it doesn’t harm the film to present it at 1.78:1, and since doing so honors both the spirit and the letter of his stated preferences, I don’t see a problem.
I think the TV landscape of 2019 is so different from what Kubrick experienced through his death in 1999 that his "stated preferences" become irrelevant.

He built those preferences around what looked best on 1990s 4X3 tube TVs, sets where the average consumer probably had a 27" set.

No way that can be compared to a world populated by 16X9 sets, TVs where the norm is probably 40+ inches.

So I couldn't possibly care less what Kubrick liked best 20+ years ago. Due to technological changes, his preferences about home video are far too outdated to matter anymore.

25 years ago Cameron endorsed a 4X3 version of "The Abyss" based on the era's technology - you think he'd still do that?
 

Josh Steinberg

Film Editor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,608
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
No, but since it’s a 50/50 shot in the first place as to whether the releasing studio automatically does 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, since the studios/filmmakers already consider that a valid presentation, I don’t see the harm in putting out The Shining in that format which does represent both the intended framing and honors Kubrick’s stated preferences.

I’ve seen 35mm prints of The Shining projected with far more framing variation from one reel to the next than exists going from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. If you watch the actual film projected, particular in a theater doing changeovers, due to the placement of the projectors and the angle of the booth, what hits the screen is far less accurately framed than any disc version has ever been.
 
Last edited:

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,909
No, but since it’s a 50/50 shot in the first place as to whether the releasing studio automatically does 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, since the studios/filmmakers already consider that a valid presentation, I don’t see the harm in putting out The Shining in that format which does represent both the intended framing and honors Kubrick’s stated preferences.
But weren't Kubrick's last "stated preferences" to show "Shining" 1.33:1? If you're gonna make "honoring Stan's wishes" the argument, then it should still be 1.33:1, right?