Stephen King's The Shining

Rating:
Summary: It Shines.
Review: Forget comparisons between the Kubrick film and the miniseries version of The Shining. They're different movies, and they're both good. I highly recommend the miniseries DVD to Stephen King fans simply because it closely follows the book and includes a cameo appearance by the author (as well as a fascinating outtake of a melting Stephen King). The DVD is worth the money for three reasons: Steven Weber's excelllent portrayal of Jack Torrance, the Stanley Hotel's haunting presence throughout the film, and the full-length commentary featuring comments from King, Weber, director Mick Garris, and other crew members. Most DVDs include director's commentaries that can't hold a viewer's interest for more than a few minutes, but this version of The Shining is a pleasant exception. If you're a fan of moviemaking, King's work, The Shining, or any combination of the three, you'll enjoy the commentary on the disc.

Rating:
Summary: Faithful but not better
Review: It's almost a rule that Stephen King's novels result in horrid adaptations. The debate is still open as to why. Either way, Hollywood has managed to squeeze out a few decent attempts: The Dead Zone, Christine, Carrie, and, like it or not, Stanley Kubricks version of The Shining. But not as far as Stephen King was concerned. King slammed Kubrick's very unsympathetic depiction of Jack Torrance and, ultimately, Kubrick's lack of humanity. So in 1997, Stephen King attempted to correct the situation. And thanks to the mini-series medium, we finally get to see the top-heavy characterization that marked the novel. Unfortunately, "Stephen King's The Shining" is cursed (no pun intended) by acting that is nearly as atrocious as the Overlook's past. Stephen Weber is never Jack Torrance. He is far too detached, too aloof to make any kind of emotional impact. Weber himself acknowledged he refused to get lost in the role. Big mistake. Rebecca De Mornay's Wendy Torrance would never have tolerated Jack, which hammers the films credibility. She's too strong willed. And last but not least, the creepy Courtland Mead. Most of the time, I have no idea what he's saying. Not only that, but Danny from Kubrick's film was so much more realistic with his withdrawn nature.

While the film opens up and explores the novel, after 273 minutes, the pace begins to drag and many scenes become redundant. The result? A horror film that's not really scary. And that's why Kubrick's vision has far more resonance: it's so much more nightmarish. There's a stark, unsettling emptiness to Kubrick's film. Danny rides his tricycle through long, empty hallways. We hear the wheel on the carpet, then the scraping along polished wood. It's empty. So empty. The soundtrack is nothing more than a low, simmering growl. Characters wander alone through the cavernous Overlook Hotel. The isolation is disturbing, the dread is suffocating. As a straight up horror film, Kubrick crafted a classic. No, we really never got to know Jack Torrance in Kubrick's film, but we had Jack Nicholson. And the result was a horror film icon. "Stephen King's The Shining" could have really taken a lesson from Kubrick and injected a far more subtle approach, instead of its hokey, in your face horror. Indeed, if anyone should know that the written word does not necessarily translate well to the screen, it's Stephen King. A good example were the hedges. Kubrick was wise to leave them out. They came across as an utterly hokey, B-movie horror cliche. Which pretty much sums up "Stephen King's The Shining".

Rating:
Summary: one of the few scary movies i actually liked
Review: i usually get scared easily so when a group of my friends had a "scary movie friday night" and u chickened out i got mad that i couldnt put up with scary movies.... so i decided o rent a movie that scared the mess outa errbodi in my famil who'd seen it. since the theatrical version was out of stock at the rental place, i got the mini series one. its REALLY good. thurr were sum parts (like the scene with the rm 217 lady) that were freaky. the makeup was REALLY GOOD. the makeup artists shud get an award!!!!!!! i didnt like how some parts that were suposed to be emotional, ssensitive, or scary turned out funni. and also everybody says that its scarier when "tony" is just a voice. but i really liked this movie and i would recomend it, even if u dont like scary movies... oh yeah, the ending could've been better, but it wasnt bad
overall, the movie was really good

Rating:
Summary: Accurate, but still "made for t.v."
Review: First, the good things. This version of The Shining is pretty much true to the book, not letter for letter, but pretty darn close. I thought Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMornay played the parts of Jack & Wendy very well, and the story was well explained. Jack does not simply plunge into insanity like he does in the Kubrick version.

Now, the bad. I'll start with the most obvious thing...Courtland Mead. Could you have picked an uglier kid who can't act to play the part of Danny Torrance? Horrible casting decision. The part of the movie that my wife and I enjoy the most is laughing at Danny Torrance. That just shouldn't happen, folks.

There are some really bad lines that are meant to be humorous early in the movie, which just come across as stupid. Jack & Wendy spend the 1st hour of the movie not doing much besides cracking bad jokes, and stopping dead in their tracks with a look of horror on their faces and exlaiming "Where's Danny?" or "Doc, you okay?" That stuff got repetitive and made the first hour of the movie monotonous.

Other than Weber & DeMornay, the acting, effects, and movie score are typically subpar "made for t.v." material, without a whole lot of eeriness to it. Still, these things did not detract enough from the movie to stop me from buying the dvd and watching it from time to time.

Rating:
Summary: Easy To "Overlook"
Review: Author Stephen King's The Shining is one of the best books he ever wrote. In 1980 maverick director Stanely Kubrick brought a "unique" vision of that book to the big screen. In the end, King was disappointed with the film version, as were most of the folks who had read the novel. Years later, King was given the chance to adapt the novel himself, this time as a six hour mini series for television. Which version is better? This may sound odd, but I don't see the two projects as better or worse than the other-just different (I'll explain what I mean in a minute).

Jack Torrance (Steven Webber) gets a job as caretaker of the Overlook Hotel for the Winter. Due to severe weather conditions, the hotel is only open 9 months out of the year. With his wife Wendy, (Rebecca De Mornay) and their young son Danny (Courtland Mead), the three of them make their way to the Overlook. Wendy is hopefull that this time together will keep her family intact Jack is fighting his own demons, while Danny, thanks to a departing hotel employee named Dick (Melvin Van Peebles), is discovering just how gifted he is Little does the Torrance family realize the secrets hiding inside the walls of the Overlook

For some it may be easy to dismiss this version of The Shining, thanks in part, to the over the top and devilsh performance given by Jack Nicholson in the theatrical version. While others prefer the mini series, because it follows the novel so much better. This is how I see things-both have their place. When I want to see a true version of the book, I watch this version, if I am looking to watch Nicholson and Shelly Duvall "wig" out, than I watch the film. Having seen both versions, I see the mini series as the definative film on the book, while the feature film is like a "distant cousin-but still one heck of a film

For the mini series, I was quite impressed with Webber's take on Jack Torrance, he lets the the transformation slowly build, and is very effective. On the other hand, De Mornay and Mead in particular are taking overacting to new heights. But thanks to director Mick Garris and some solid effects (for television anyway) the film is very well done

The 2 disc DVD set presents the complete mini series Disc one is double sided and has parts one and two, while disc two features the conclusion and the extras. The audio commentary by Stephen King, who always tells it like it is, cast members Steven Weber, Cynthia Garris, director Mick Garris and select crew, is well done. Having this many folks participate in a commentary can be tricky-but with a long film like this it works well. The 11 deleted scenes can be viewed with or without comments from Garris. They are nice to see, but don't really add much Cast/crew notes round it all out

The Shining Mini Series is recommended

Rating:
Summary: TV vs. Kubrick
Review: The Stanley Kubrick version of this story was a classic in its own right, but IMO should not be considered to be a movie version of the book at all. Stephen King's book, and the miniseries version on this DVD, are a "haunted house" story. Kubrick's film is a psychological thriller. They are not even in the same genre.
That said, the Kubrick film is better in terms of sheer filmmaking - when Kubrick was on, he was really, really good, and it shows in his version of this story. Sadly, that fact is often missed by the legions of fans who get so caught up in "it's not like the book"-itis that they don't enjoy the film for what it is. Jack Nicholson is a far better actor than Steven Weber, and it shows.
The miniseries, however, has one HUGE advantage - with a total of nearly 8 hours of "movie" to work with, they were able to keep the storyline virtually untouched. Although I am typically not a believer - there are just not very many movies made from novels that even remotely resemble their original source material ( "Exit To Eden," originally an erotic novel by Anne Rice, turned into a Dan Aykroyd comedy, just LEAPS to mind for some reason...) - this movie is as close to a perfect conversion of a novel as I've seen.
The creepy moments are really, really creepy - the scene with topiary animals moving closer every time the camera pans away absolutely makes your skin crawl, even if you're prepared for it. Although Steven Weber isn't Jack Nicholson, the character he's playing isn't a "Jack" kind of guy - and Weber fills the role admirably, even though occasionally the touching family scenes teeter RIGHT on the edge of being maudlin.
If you have the patience for it, which I notice at least one other viewer didn't, this is in fact an excellent film. Just don't consider this and the Stanley Kubrick movie to be different versions of the same story - they're not, and the comparison will make both films suffer. You're better off to enjoy them both as distinct, separate entities, with very different agendas.

Oh, and do NOT turn your back on any hedge lions.

Heh.

Rating:
Summary: This Version Shines!!
Review: Yes, the Stanley Kubrick version was very good but so was this mini-series remake! I personally like both versions but I like the mini-series better because it follows the fantastic Stephen King book more faithfully. Jack Nicholson was fantastic as Jack Torrance but so was Steven Weber, and though I liked Shelley Duvall as Wendy I preferred Rebecca Demornay's portrayal of her and though Danny Lloyd was good as Danny I also liked Courtland Meade and thought he did a good job as Danny. I also liked that in this remake that Tony was seen the way he was susposed to be seen and not as a talking finger and I liked that they showed things in this mini-series that were left out of the theatrical movie like the topiary hedge animals and the wasps. Yes the ending was a little hokey but there are so many good things in this version that make up for it and personally I found this version just as scary as Kubricks and I highly recommend it. I purchased the DVD set which has two discs with part one on the A side and part two on the B side and the second disc has only part three which is the last part of the mini-series and I also recently bought the Stanley Kubrick version on DVD because I like both versions very much!

Rating:
Summary: The Shining
Review: Based upon Stephen King's novel - The Shining, will keep you in suspense for all its short 270 minutes! An alcoholic who is trying his very best to recover moves himself and his family into another town when he gets a job to look after and live in a hotel when no one but them is there. Once they set their foot in, things start to get horribly scary as demons start to haunt them all through the alcoholic husband/father.

Stephen King writings can be either very bad or very good. This one is very good indeed and if you're a fan of horror movies - it is a must!

Enjoy

Rating:
Summary: Great movie, great DVD set.
Review: This film is extremely good, extremely scary, and extremely graphic for a TV-movie. This is, with out any doubt, the best Stephen King adapted TV-movie I have ever seen. The atmosphere, even more evident without commercials, is genuinely eerie. It succeeds on both psychological, and visceral levels of terror. The length of the film allowed a very subtle and emotional display of Jack Torrance's descent in to madness. The acting is also very good, especially Steven Weber's performance.
The only problem I had with it was the fact that King terminated any question as to how much of the hauntings were only in Jack's mind. This idea is what made both the novel and the Kubrick version more interesting. It also seemed, and was even mentioned in the commentary, that the filmmakers were trying to avoid any similarities between this and the Kubrick film.
Overall, this film is extremely entertaining, and follows the book very well. This is the version for Stephen King fans.

Rating:
Summary: Easily as good as Kubrick's
Review: Don't be fooled by the naysayers who stuffily proclaim it an "insult" to remake Kubrick's version of one of King's best novels. This version is in some ways better, in some ways not as good, but in all ways different.
Steven Weber lets us inside Jack Torrence's head in ways which Nicholson did not. Nicholson played the character as basically nuts right from the word go. Weber lets the character's plight unravel slowly and much more convincingly than Nicholson's eyebrows ever could.
This version is MUCH more faithful to the novel. Kubrick's version focused on the haunted hotel aspect of the story, but failed to see that the real drama--the REAL thing tearing the family apart--was Jack's struggle with alcoholism. That's what the story is really about. The ghost stuff, although real, serves as more of a metaphor.
There's little touches too, small differences between the two versions which make all the difference. For example, in the novel and in this version of the film, Jack menaces his family not with an axe but with a big croquet mallet. Somehow, this is more scary... Jack's using something he found rather than a gore-related horror movie convention.
Sure, this version has some flaws. It has its share of King's trademark lame dialogue which works on the page but not on the screen. Some of the acting is rather weak. It's also not as ultimately disturbing as Kubrick's version. The scene in which the hedge animals come to life--which should have been one of the creepiest scenes--gets botched. And the ending is so sappy you'll get a toothache.
But if you've got an open mind, check it out. You'll find much to appreciate about King's remake.