sK's objection to Kubrick's Shining hasn't been vitriolic imho, but has simply pointed out an important too fundamental difference between sK's story and Kubrick's personal interpretation of it for sK not to object to. sK wanted the demons which tormented Jack Torrance to be an external reality inhabited by an haunted Overlook, while Kubrick chose for the demons to exist within Torrance himself only. sK has said that while he considers the movie cinematographically beautiful, it differs fundamentally from his story in that his Shining expresses heat while Kubrick's expresses cold.I've always found it odd that SK has been so... vitriolic in his distaste for Kubrick's film. I understand it deviates GREATLY from the novel (which I love) - but as a stand alone film that is "inspired" by the novel I think it works spectacularly. Especially when you put it within the context of the other film adaptations of Mr. King's work, which have mostly been poor if we're being honest. For every Misery and The Dead Zone there are a slew of poorly directed, acted and conceived films that come off as b-quality. There are others that are good, sure - but due to the sheer number of adaptations his work has seen there have been quite a lot of stinkers trotted out to viewers.
Kubrick's film looks, sounds and FEELS absolutely spot on to me and there is a pervasive existential horror about the entire thing that just gets under your skin. Sure, Jack is almost comically larger than life... but that's part of the fun and the draw for me. He isn't a good Jack Torrence, but he's a great Jack. Kubrick's films work on a different level than most filmmaker's do and when considered through the filter of it being a subconscious, psychoanalytic experience the film really... shines.
Just my two cents!