Referring to a film as boring can sometimes ignite a heated debate, especially when devoted fans hear about it. This applies even if the film is based on one’s own literary work.
Even acclaimed horror author Stephen King is not immune to criticism.
It might surprise many that King once criticized a film adaptation of his own book, which has since become a cult favorite.
King’s novels have been transformed into more than 100 projects, including well-known titles like Carrie, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and It.
Practically everything the author has created seems to become a success, solidifying his status as a legend in the horror genre.
Nevertheless, there is one film he described as ‘boring,’ and his fans were displeased with his opinion.
According to Far Out Magazine, while King appreciates some film adaptations of his books, others fell short of his expectations.
He remarked, “Several honourable adaptations have come from this 30-year spew of celluloid.
“And the best of those have had few of the elements I’m best known for: science fiction, fantasy, the supernatural, and pure gross-out terror.”
King continued, “The books that do have those elements have, by and large, become films that are either forgettable or outright embarrassing.”
If you’re a fan of The Shining, there’s unfortunate news.
The author commented, “Others, I’m thinking chiefly of Christine and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, should have been good but just, well, they aren’t. They’re actually sort of boring.”
He further stated, “Speaking for myself, I’d rather have bad than boring.”
It seems King’s distaste for Kubrick’s version is not a well-kept secret. Despite The Shining achieving an 83 percent Tomatometer and a 93 percent Popcornmeter score on Rotten Tomatoes, showing it is well-loved, it simply does not resonate with him.
A fan expressed, “One of the best ghost stories and Kubrick’s meticulous recreations of the source material. This movie deserves to be a 99%+. Ignore the ‘official’ critics that give this movie a rotten rating. I’ve read a lot of them and they are pretentious to say the least.”
Another fan added, “This film is absolutely perfect. It perfects the depiction of insanity by amazing performances and intense scenes.”
In a 2016 interview with Deadline, King noted that Jack Nicholson’s character becomes progressively ‘crazier’ over time.
However, the 1980 film seemingly lacks the depth present in the book.
King explained that the novel portrays Nicholson’s character as a struggling individual who ultimately breaks down.
He referred to this as ‘the real tragedy’ of the narrative.
King mentioned, “In the movie, there’s no tragedy because there’s no real change.”
A notable difference between the movie and the book is the ending; in the book, the hotel explodes, whereas in Kubrick’s version, it remains frozen in time.
Nonetheless, King acknowledged, “I met Kubrick and there’s no question he’s a terrifically smart guy.”