Rating: 
Summary: Better than Kubrick's version, to my amazement
Review: I bought this DVD out of sheer boredom and found it absolutely riveting, truly one of the best small screen films I've ever seen, genuinely frightening at a number of points, and a much more interesting story that the 1980 film. The Kubrick "original" was fine, great fun, and Jack Nicholson is, well, Jack Nicholson! But side by side this 1997 edition is superior in almost every way. First, Jack's performance was over the top and Shelly Duvall was horribly miscast, a cartoon character. Secondly, while Kubrick's cinematographic sense was as always exquisite and haunting, his storytelling abilities were often suspect. King's version of his own story draws you much, MUCH deeper into the tale. You quickly find yourself a silent guest in the hotel....Weber's performance is perhaps less wildly entertaining but more effective in its subtle shift into madness. All the support cast are excellent, but the shining star (sorry) is Rebecca DeMornay, who plays a strong, intelligent, forceful woman who you really pull for when the going gets tough. A great, multi-layered performance - a sensual, bright woman who loves her husband but regrets the absence of passion in their relationship, a wife who struggles to maintain a positive attitude as she faces the dispair of a disfunctional mate and a bleak low rent future, and a mother who adores her child but is in awe and fear of his powers.... all played by a strikingly beautiful actress who is moving into more mature roles with grace and style. Production values are just as high as in the Kubrick version. The look of the film is rich and textured, you can feel how empty this hotel is, you can hear floorboards creaking under your feet. Even the 11 deleted scenes are excellent. Buy this DVD, turn out the lights on a rainy night, curl up with someone you love, take the phone off the hook and gently allow yourself to get creeped out. Really a fine, fine piece of work.
Rating:
Summary: I Loved This Movie!
Review: The Shining is my favorite Stephen King book, it is very scary but it's so good and is one of those books that you just can't put down! I saw The Jack Nicholson movie which I think is good but I am also disappointed that so many great things from the book were left out like the wasps, the topiary animals etc and also the important fact of the identity of Tony who keeps appearing to Danny and I was disappointed with what they did with the Dick Hallorann character played by the great Scatman Crothers, I liked how he played him but what happened to the character in that movie was just totally unnecessary and did not happen in the book! Yes the maze in that movie was amazing but the topiary animals are even more so I watched Stephen King's mini-series movie remake and I have to say that even though I like The Jack Nicholson movie and thought he gave an amazing performance as Jack I prefer this movie with Steven Weber as it is more scary and parts of the Nicholson version came across as more funny then scary and I have always wondered if the campy humor was intentional or unintentional. If you loved the book and were disappoined with the changes in the first movie then watch this version! Also as much as I like Shelley Duvall, Rebecca De Mornay is a lot more like how Wendy was in the book and I am not just talking about the fact that Wendy had blonde hair in the book, it is also her personality etc. I also think Stephen Weber was really good as Jack and Courtland Mead was a good Danny and just as cute as the little boy who played Danny in the other movie and I highly recommend both movies!
Rating: 
Summary: Stephen King's The Shining
Review: Stephen King is a genius. His imagination is so crystal clear, so vivid, so intense that most of us would probably agree, the guy is simply a genius. This film version of The Shining made me realize more than any other movie I've ever watched that the medium of film is a living, breathing, collaborative form. I think Stephen King was stunned by Stanley Kubrick's original lack of reverence for his early horror masterpiece, and it festered in his mind for so many years he finally got enough money together (some 21 million dollars), hired a director *he* wanted (and had worked with on The Stand), executive produced, chose actors he liked, fought with ABC over what could and couldn't be shown on television, wrestled with censors, et cetera, et cetera. Essentially, King said to himself "I know what I want to see in a movie version of The Shining. I know what audiences like. And I have the power to do it!" Unfortunately, the medium of film is an entity in and of itself and it works at its peak form when it is a collaborative effort and when the people involved in the collaboration aren't all genuflecting to the will of one person. That's what creates tension behind the text, so to speak. And it's what really gives movies a pulse. This version of The Shining lacks that tension. Steven Weber states very plainly in the commentary section "I want to be superficially likable" and goes on to say that he doesn't like to submerge himself in a character because it causes him to have panic attacks. He says he "respects" actors who *can* submerge themselves that way, but it is simply something he'd rather not do. The problem is Weber is the lead actor in this movie. He kind'a sets the tone for the other actors on the set. And the result is a ho-hum version of The Shining -- which, ironically is *not* what Stephen King is all about; he's anything but a ho-hum writer! I'm a young writer (see my "about you" area for a link to my web site) and Lord knows I have dreams about one of my novels being turned into a movie. Hell, I have dreams about them *being published* but the lesson I think I've learned from Kubrick's version, this version, and the original novel by Stephen King is that for a movie adaptation to really stand on its own, the original writer (like a parent letting a kid just be a kid) has to let the movie just be itself, for better or for worse, offering as much input as director and actors ask for, but to realize that like a kid, it has to grow up -- sometimes shaggy haired, sometimes too clean-cut, but ultimately at its best when the novelist stands back and lets the movie be just that. The movie. Stacey
Rating: 
Summary: Right on Line with the Book
Review: First of all, if you have not read the book and are strictly watching this DVD because you believe it will be like Kubrick's edition, don't waste your time! However, if you have read the book or are open-minded about this edition, definitely watch it!
This edition is almost word for word out of the book. If you are a big fan of the book, you'll love this movie. I love this edition because it is so much like the book, which is my favorite SK book.
Don't get me wrong, Kubrick's The Shining is the scariest movie I've ever seen, but after I read the book the movie was so off in left field compared to the book I couldn't stand it.
The acting is a little iffy but overall the movie is very good. For those of you that say that this edition is stupid, it is likely you haven't read the book, if you'd had, you'd know the story isn't an already crazy father decides to kill his family. Rather, an ex-alcoholic is possessed by a hotel to obtain his son's special power.
This is an excellent companion to the book! I highly recommend it!
Rating: 
Summary: I hated this movie
Review: My sister rented this movie when her friend slept over last night, and they wanted me to watch it with them. I thought that it was supposed to a good, really scary movie, but it wasnt. It was a waste of 4 hours. There were several things that I didn't like about this movie:
1. That Danny kid was so annoying.
2. The mother was so annoying.
3. It was way to long.
4. Walking plants? Come on, come up with something more, interesting..
5. The so called "scarey scenes" were really stupid...
Rating:
Summary: I'll take the original please...
Review: Rebecca De Morany is better looking than Shelley Duvall. Definitely. However, that's about the only way this version of "THE SHINING" is better than the original.
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why is that the original falls under a category of ...oh, something like SCARY!!! Jack Nicholson's maniac performance is brilliant but it is also terrifying. The bathtub scene is unparalleled in its nastiness. And the maze? What happened to the maze? I realize that it wasn't in the original King novel, but they could have left that magnificent sequence in. (Anything was better than those "very, very scary, very, very real-looking" lion-shaped shrubs that came alive!)
The illustrious Stanley Kubrick is rolling in his grave. It makes me quite sad that he lived to see this mockery of his original 1980 masterpiece. (Maybe - with any luck - he missed it.)
Rating: 
Summary: Pointless
Review: Dull, insipid and vapid compared to the Kubrick version. The acting leaves a lot to be desired. Mr Stanley Weber (as Jack Torrance) does not hold a candle to Jack Nicholson as a deranged alcoholic slowly going over the edge under supernatural influences in the original version. The creepy soundtrack , majestic outdoor shots depicting snow capped mountains and gorgeous interior shots portraying a vast expanse of space from the Kubrick version is sorely lacking. The new version tries to build too much on dialogs, lacks bite and is best forgotten. The only thing going for it is that it closely resembles the book. But, that is not necessarily a good thing. If you must watch a Stephen King miniseries, watch Rose Red instead.
Rating:
Summary: Good but not Kubrick
Review: As I sat down and watched this mini-series I was impressed, but not completely. Though it was true to the book, in some ways superior; I still thought Kubrick did it more justice. If your a fan of the novel or of the book I highly reccomend this, otherwise get the classic dvd.
Rating:
Summary: A NEW VERSION TRUE TO KING'S BOOK!
Review: I had been waiting since 1997 for this version of "The Shining" to be released. When I heard that it was coming out, I went and Pre-Ordered it. This story is so much better than the Kubrick version. He seemed to overlook a lot of things in the original version which would have made the movie so much better. Jack Nicholson did a great job in the 1980 version (worthy of an Academy Award) and so did Stephen Weber. Stephen seemed to bring the story to life with his funny comments and great acting. Rebecca DeMornay should have played Wendy in the first place. Shelly Duvall just played as to much of a defensless wuss. Rebecca did an awesome job as Wendy, fighting back. Courtland Mead was great--he knew how Danny in the real story was supposed to act. I also liked Tony, since he wasn't just a talking finger. He plays a crucial part in the story and Kubrick just left that part out in his version. I would have to say if you liked the book, than you should see this version of "The Shining". It's a must buy for any Stephen King fan.
Rating:
Summary: This TV version defines Trash Television...
Review: While this TV version is more faithful to the book in its plotting, that is all it has going for it. This version is not in the least bit effective as a horror tale, while the book is. This TV version is pure trash. The Kubrick version is genius. Kubrick took from the book the elements he liked best and then recreated it into fine art, even though the book was at best a good work of pulp fiction. Kubrick should have called his film by a diferent title so as to not upset those who loved the book in literal terms, but economically he had to keep the same title. Kubricks version is a metaphorical and allegorical masterpiece. The book is great as literal entertainment. The TV version fails completely, except for its execution of the literal from the book.
|
