Rating: 
Summary: Good alternate version; more faithful to book; no features.
Review: The book is one of his best (the only one of his that I ever recommend to others -- for its outstanding implementation of suspense). This alternate film version is more faithful to the book (e.g., I'm glad they included the topiary, which was very memorable in the book and absent from the first movie), and I enjoyed seeing more of the Estes Park hotel. This mini-series is a bit bland at times, and made-for-TV quality level like most (but not all!) King adaptations. As a reader of the book, I very much enjoyed this mini-series.However, although the DVD is labeled Special Edition, it has no special features. It deserves audio commentaries, featurettes, making-of, deleted scenes, etc. Let's get Stephen King's comments (audio commentary or interview). Since it's Region 1 (US and Canada), it should have full English and French support (audio and subtitles). This is yet another example of a good movie (/mini-series/etc.) with a poor release that doesn't take advantage of the DVD format! I would buy a decent DVD version, but not this one.
Rating: 
Summary: HERERRR's A great version of the book.
Review: I loved the mini-series. Due to in fact that it was fillmed at the actual hotel ( The Stanley in Estes Park, Colo.) that Stephen King wrote the book from. They even used the real room 217 ( the room in witch he wrote the book from, and ladies & gentelman this reviewer has had the pleasure to stay in.)
I loved it when they covered Jack's alcoholism. That happend in the book. In the Stanley Kurbrick version it just has Jack going insaine.
This movie makes me homesick for Colorado again.
Rating: 
Summary: KUBRICK, KUBRICK, KUBRICK!! UUUUGGGHHHHHHHH!!
Review: Why do you people go on ad nausem about the superiority of the Kubrick version of THE SHINING? I read the book years ago when it first came out, and King's television version is alot closer to the original story. Why these directors take such liberties with these books when the rights are sold is way beyond my understanding. I enjoy watching a movie that was originally a book to see the story visualized, not to see how much some clown of a director can change it so that it is not even recognizable. I have seen, and do own, both versions, and I think they both are very good movies. Just enjoy them for what they are: The same story told from two different viewpoints.
Rating: 
Summary: Is this a joke?
Review: I'm actually not suprise that mokst people who reviewed here liked this mini-series, it was a straight forward, laughable, horribly acted, horribly scripted, movie of the week. Anyone who even says this does justice to the book (which was good but not great too begin with) is clearly in need of booking themselves on Dr. Phil. Look deeper in the Kubrick which brims with hidden meanings and themes that this mini series sorely lacks.
Rating: 
Summary: all work and no play makes Shining a dull min-series
Review: Making any kind of film work out of a book must be the toughest of all movie tasks, since it works so infrequently. In this instance, following the book closely didn't make the kind of riveting movie experience one would think. I believe those who really liked this mini-series are re-living the book's tension and excitement. So those who've read the book might enjoy this piece. But taking the mini-series at face value, well, is another story. For me, it was just plodding and uneventful. Kubrick gave us a horror masterpiece, which happened to be based (loosely?) on the book. But since it succeeds so well, I'm forced to believe Kubrick made the right choices. I'm not saying it's impossible to follow a book closely as a film and have success (look at Jackson's wonderful take on LOTR, perhaps the best translation of a book ever). I'm just saying it's really really hard, and if you haven't read The Shining, I'd stick to Kubrick's vision. It's not the book, but it's some kinda amazing work of film! By the way, someone made a comment about all TV movies being bad. I'm guessing they haven't seen "Taken". Hard to believe it was made-for-cable.
Rating:
Summary: 5 stars to Weber
Review: Steven Weber's performace in this movie is what makes it have weight. Although this version of the Stephen King novel is definitely more true to the book than Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation, it is rather dull with its mediocre supporting cast performances and its overly dramatized slow pace. Weber really breathes life into the conceptual character of Jack Torrance and this work is most definitely one of his finest.
Rating:
Summary: 1000% Better Kubrick's Version
Review: I can belive it when i watch this DVD, this version is really bad!!, more than 3 boring hours, if the novel it's about a haunted hotel, this series it's about a funny guy, a very dumb boy , funny ghosts and bad FX, i don't found any scarie moment in any moment of this series. I recommned truly see first the version of Kubrick and after this series, you will notice the difference!!, the movie of Kubrick it's full of thriller, good acting (Jack Nicholson, Danny Lloyd, Shelley Duvall), and too much scarie moments.
Rating:
Summary: So glad DVD is finally here!
Review: Those of you who saw this on TV/ABC are right. It was very difficult watching with the hundreds of commercials and too many interruptions but now it is on DVD. Give it another chance now that there is DVD with some deleted scenes as well. I really enjoyed it even better on the DVD than when I watched on TV over 3 nights. The only thing I didn't like was having to flip the movie over. They should have made 3 discs (for us who have multiple disc players). I saw the 1980 Kubrick version as well and enjoyed it when it came out but was left wondering why it ended with so many unanswered questions and just had some visual spooky stuff but no real reasoning as to what we were watching and WHY. And the kid that kept talking to his finger was ridiculous and Wendy aka:Olive oil in Popeye was also quite mousey with no backbone really bugged me. In the 1980 version, it thought it left out the importance of who Tony really was. I liked the MAZE but the new version of the Topiary animals was even better. If the movie did not have Jack Nicholson, it wouldn't have been as good. I also think Stephen Weber (it is hard to compare to Jack Nicholson) is getting a bad rap here. I am sure he doesn't even try to compare himself to Laker-fan Jack. He did a good job. Give the new version another chance and if you don't like it this time then....who cares! Don't ever watch it again.
Rating:
Summary: No Shine to this Shining...
Review: Uggh. You've got to be kidding. This movie more closely followed the original book... So what, it fails. Kubrick's movie was written, directed and acted with the knowledge that S. King needs to be edited, A LOT, before he stuff is ready for the camera. This movie, like The Stand, fails because the producers didn't have the sense to slice, pare, and whittle King's work down to a managable form that works. Books are a great medium for authors like King because you can wind, meander, and stroll through concepts at your leisure and the fluff is not so obvious. In a movie, you've got to cut out all the ancillary-related stuff and get to the point. This movie fails to do just that. Stick to the Kubrick movie or read the book for the "purist" view of this work, but, at all costs, avoid this bloated corpse of a flick.
Rating:
Summary: care for a good scare?
Review: the woman in the tub scene is definitely one of the most frightening experiences i've ever been privy to while watching a film. it scared the living heck out of me! too disturbing.. overall, a greatly enjoyable flick, and highly scary at times. the main issue i have with this film is the kid. he's got to be one of the most annoying child actors out there, i'm sorry. and his acting was laughable. mainly the reason i give this 4 stars instead of 5, since they could have certainly cast a better suitor for the role. highly worth watching though....definitely recommend.
|
