Rating: 
Summary: At Last on DVD! "The Shining" as it SHOULD be!
Review: This version of The Shining blew me away because it was just as I had imagined it when I read the book: Jack, Wendy, Danny and the Overlook itself was picture perfect. This version follows the book, unlike the Stanley Kubrick version, which was a MAJOR disappointment to me "back in the day". (I don't think I'll EVER get over Halloran's murder in his version). Anyway, if you read the book, this is the DVD to watch. Everyone in it is fabulous, the Overlook looks like it should, and the plot is what you're expecting (or scarily anticipating!). I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Are you people nuts?
Review: When I saw this version of "The Shinning" advertised entitled Stephen King's version I was interested. Once I started to watch it I was overcome with how superior Stanley Kubrick's take on this story was in the cinema. This version had so much explanation of everything scary that happens that it lost its ability to scare anyone. Kubrick's version is haunting and primal in the way that it taps into our fears. The novel is great but when making a movie...please lay the book aside and start with scene one in cinema terms as Hitchcock used to say.
Rating: 
Summary: The way King wanted it to be
Review: Although the 1980 Kubrick classic is far superior to this one in may ways (acting, writing) this version of the novel was written by Stephen King himself, and is faithful to the novel in every way. The only things that I had a problem with were as follows: 1. Some of the acting is extremely hokey...Courtland Mead was good, but they should have hired an acting coach to help him. 2. Some of the dialogue was laughable..."Kissin', kissin, that's what I been missin'!" and (Danny speaking of his mother's drawings) "Draw good fruit!" - among other things. Thats about it. Other than that, its a good adaptation of the book, and I enjoyed it. I actually watched this in one sitting-its LONG, clocking in at about four hours and thirty minutes, but its good. Rent it.
Rating:
Summary: True to the Tail
Review: Although I think Jack Nicholson is one of the finest actors ever and Kubrick was in the top ten of all directors, the original movie was an insult to the book. This how ever was true to form, by far one of the truest book to movie projects ever done. I felt that it allowed you to see the true madness that Jack and family were a victim to as well as the power of the hotel with its' gruesome and painful history. If you read the book, this is truly the movie for you. Follow the story as Mr King intended it to be and enjoy the ride.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful
Review: Stanley Kubricks version of The Shining was 100 times better than this one. I mean lets look at it, Jack Nicholson vs. Stephen Weber, Nicholson who is a very scary man with an extensive filmography, and did and excellent job, or Stephen Weber, best know for his performance on Wings...Wings, one f the worst shows ever. Weber performance in this new version of The Shining was not even terrifying. But Nicholson, who brought chills to my spine, terrified the hearts of millions. Overall rating of The Shining (1997)... D-
Rating:
Summary: An Exquisite Alternative
Review: After the Stanley Kubric version of "The Shining", I doubted that the miniseries would be nearly as good. Jack Nicholson was haunting and comical in the movie, and I didn't believe Steven Weber could even compare (although I thought Weber was a good actor). But, I decided to watch anyway, since I loved the book, and I was curious to see if it would be any good. I absolutely loved this version. It is a magnificent alternative version. In my opinion, it's much better than the movie. The miniseries explores the psychological problems that Jack Torrance endures, the alcohol addiction, and the gradual descent into madness. Plus, Wendy (played excellently by Rebecca De Mornay), was a far superior character than the one in the Kubric film. Wendy in this version is loving, caring, and strong, as opposed to the cigarette-smoking one in the miniseries who is simply a doormat. Danny is also a great character, showing what the child is really thinking and going through while he sadly watches his parents struggle and argue. The hotel is beautiful, but inside, the deadly evil awaits. The bath scene was haunting, and much more realistic than the one in the film. All in all, this miniseries made much more sense than the movie, although I still love the movie anyway. I wouldn't say that Jack using a roque malet is cooler than in the movie using an axe, but it's still almost just as scary. The miniseries is true to the book. Almost all the important scenes of the book are present in this version. It is really scary. A true horror. The ending is very sad, but it's also a sensible conclusion. I definately recommend this version for horror and psychological thriller fans! (However, It's ashame they didn't include the part with "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", or "Heeeeeeere's Johnny!")
Rating:
Summary: Anyone who read the book should see this!
Review: I read the Stephen King book when I was 14, and I loved it. Then I saw the Stanley Kubrick film, and it was godawful. Many key parts of the plot were deleted, while other stuff was just added for the hell of it. For instance, Kubrick took out the scene with the hedge animals and the wasp nest, and while those weren't crucial to the plot, it was nice to see them in the miniseries. Kubrick also added "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" which is a classic line. Too bad it wasn't in the book. Overall, if you read the book, you should have been waiting for years to see a version of The Shining as faithful as this one. This is the best miniseries I've ever seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent alternative version.
Review: I see no reason to denigrate Stanley Kubrick's great film to praise this fine work. At first I couldn't understand why someone would attempt a remake, but after viewing it I realize it's a very different but highly valid well-made interpretation of what seems now to be a universal work of art. This version focuses much more closely (& accurately) on the psychological dynamics of the principals & the ferocious tug & tear of Jack & Wendy with Danny as pawn comes off as all too close to everyday truth. I don't see the hotel as the evil entity. I see the evil entity as Jack & Wendy's relationship. This could be the ultimate statement on the battle of the sexes. One might call this the Freudian Shining & Kubrick's the Jungian Shining. That's OK. The Shining seems to be like a Beethoven symphony - open to multiple interpretations by gifted directors offering viewers shifting & expanding insights. Now, if I could just see it without the commercials!
Rating:
Summary: All work and no play makes this an alright film...
Review: ...too bad they cut out the "all work and no play" bit. But then again, it was never in Stephen King's novel. And that is the biggest strength of this adaptation: this film is a more direct adaptation of the original novel, following the plot line very closely. It lacks the style and horrific psychological implications of Stanley Kubrik's version. But this version does have some better special effects (or at least I think so, but they're a bit low quality - a bit better than the Langoliers, but still low quality). This version also has some better writing, I'd say, because the lines have more wit in some areas, and other lines come directly from the novel. And, the story line is clearer than in Kubrik's version; the spirits of the Overlook Hotel have a stronger connection to the story. The characters are treated differently as well: in this version, there is more background. Overall, there is no telling which is better or worst. This film has the best story line, while the Kubrik version has the best style and cinematography. Either way, you're bound to be scared...
Rating:
Summary: Horrific (in a good way)
Review: To anyone who's a true fan of Stephen King's novels, this is the one we've been waiting for, one of the finest adaptations of what is arguably his finest work. There are many reasons why the original doesn't work for most of us, so I won't get into that, I'll just mention what they did right with the remake. Rebecca De Mornay is perfect as Wendy, this was truly excellent casting, her Wendy was strong, and opinionated, a welcome change from the weak,doormat potrayed by Shelley Duvall in the original. Steven Weber was also very effective, choosing not to channel Jack Nicholson (the 1980 movie and the book are so different they are actually two different characters), but to make Jack Torrance his own, brilliantly conveying his descent into insanity, this is really one of the most underrated television performances of recent memory. In being truer to SK's vision, it is also better illuminated how sinister and evil the hotel truly is, and the remake only benefits from the extended running time. This is the one time i can remember being truly terrified by a television movie, this movie proves that the audience is better served by imagination and creativity that blood and guts (the easy way out). The scenes between Jack and Wendy in the final part are absolutely horrifying, although Jacks wisecracking was a distraction. The main problem with this film is the casting of Danny Torrance, an absolutely pivotal role. The kid is good, but truthfully, his voice and mannerisms just annoyed me. All in all, this is really one of the better SK adaptations out there. If you think you've seen The Shining before, trust that you haven't until you've checked out this version, and if you haven't, give it a try, it might just scare the bejesus out of you.
|
