Just to elaborate: I often hear people discredit "The Shining" because it didn't scare them enough, or because they think King's book is better, or because they find Duvall's and Nicholson's performances over-the-top. In my opinion, "Shining" is Kubrick's masterpiece. It is arguably deeper than 2001, has a very high artistic quality (some scenes are staged like a ballet) and at the same time, the movie is constantly entertaining and thrilling (which is a quality 2001 clearly lacks, as I have experienced again and again when I tried to watch it with friends who were unfamiliar with Kubrick's work).
If you want to go down the rabbit hole of "The Shining" interpretations, you should start with the Wikipedia article [1] and end with the shot-by-shot-analysis [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_237
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shining_(film)#Social_inte...
[2] http://idyllopuspress.com/idyllopus/film/shining_toc.htm
> “I stood staring at all that stuff for weeks while we were shooting in that room. It’s a downhill skier. It’s a downhill skier. It’s not a Minotaur.”
Etc, etc. Room 237 is not only the ravings of madmen, it has a bit right st the start where a guy is talking over The Shining shots, a baby starts crying on the background (of the guy talking) and they stop and discuss that. I turned it off in disgust after that.