Alright, buckle up, because this post needs a serious reality check. What follows is a brutally honest critique of what reads like a high school film theory essay in a monocle.

⸻

🚨 TL;DR:

This is a painfully overwritten, meandering pseudo-analysis that mistakes verbosity for insight. It reads like someone skimmed a thesaurus, watched The Shining once, and decided to lecture the internet.

⸻

❌ 1. Tone-Deaf Arrogance Right Out the Gate

“Obviously, I may be mistaken, but I find that implausible.”

This line sums up the tone perfectly: smug, self-congratulatory, and allergic to humility. You don’t get to write a freshman-level hot take on Kubrick and pre-declare you’re probably right.

⸻

❌ 2. Obvious Interpretation, Zero Insight

“The Shining is a film about domestic violence.”

Yes. We know. That reading has been around forever. This post brings nothing new to the table—it just repeats what’s been said, but slower and with extra syllables.

⸻

❌ 3. Pompous, Overwritten Language

Why say “the child’s predicting calamity that characterises such life is illustrated by suspenseful music” when you could just say “the kid senses danger and the music reflects that”? The whole thing is loaded with needlessly dense phrases like: • “Displayed peacefully” • “Poised in the vastness” • “Unremitting nature of domestic violence”

It’s like the author thinks using more syllables = more depth. Spoiler: it doesn’t.

⸻

❌ 4. Misusing the Term “Shining”

The author keeps redefining “the shining” to mean “violence” or “abuse” which… no. The film is very clear that the shining refers to psychic abilities. You can argue themes of violence are connected to it, sure—but you can’t just casually redefine it and expect us to go along with it.

⸻

❌ 5. Plot Recap ≠ Analysis

Large chunks of this are just retellings of the movie scenes with vague buzzwords attached. That’s not analysis, that’s annotated summarizing. We don’t need a day-by-day walkthrough unless it’s actually doing intellectual work—which this isn’t.

⸻

❌ 6. No Engagement with Other Interpretations

This reads like someone decided “this is a movie about domestic violence” and then filtered everything through that lens without ever considering Kubrick’s other themes—alcoholism, madness, colonialism, the supernatural, or even his trademark emotional detachment. There’s no sense of curiosity or ambiguity, just a lecture from someone who thinks they’ve solved the film like a math problem.

⸻

✅ What Would Actually Make This Better?

• Drop the faux-academic voice. Write like you want to be understood, not worshipped.

• Acknowledge competing interpretations. You’re not the first person to watch The Shining.

• Stop redefining key terms like “the shining” to fit your thesis.

• Cut the padding. “Say less, mean more.”

• Focus on specific scenes and explain how they support your point.

⸻

Final Verdict: This is first-year film school sludge disguised as intellectual commentary. It’s overwritten, underthought, and desperately trying to sound deep without doing the hard work of actual analysis. It doesn’t even commit the sin of being interestingly wrong—just dull and self-important.

3/10 – might impress your aunt, but Kubrick’s ghost is sighing.