Stephen King's The Shining

Rating:
Summary: Great miniseries now on DVD
Review: Stephen King's 1997 miniseries "The Shining" is an excellent miniseries, telling King's story of Jack Torrance (who secures employment as the off-season caretaker of the haunted Overlook Hotel in the Colorado Rockies), and his wife Wendy and small son Danny. And the haunted Hotel is doubly bad for Jack, because he's a recovering alcoholic, and Danny, because of his psychic gift called "shining." The miniseries follows King's book closely, but with some variations, like the miniseries having Halloran taking the Torrances on the tour of the Hotel, but in the book, Ullman took them on the tour. And Lloyd, the bartender in the book, was left out of the miniseries. Lloyd did appear in the Stanley Kubrick version though. The miniseries goes into all the background information on the characters, that was in the book. It features the little smaller and more quaint Overlook Hotel that was described in the book, instead of the vast and austere Hotel of the Kubrick version. The miniseries also depicts Jack's slow descent into madness (like in the book), as opposed to the Kubrick version (where Jack was bizarre from the beginning), and Jack's increasingly sinister actions, like not telling Wendy and Danny the truth about what he saw in Room 217.
Steven Weber plays Jack this time around, and although he can't match the zaniness of Jack Nicholson in the Kubrick version (no actor can top Nicholson), he still very effectivly brings to the T.V. screen the character described in King's book. Ditto for the rest of the actors. One reviewer thought Weber was too old for the part of Jack. I thought Weber looked young enough for the part, considering that in the book, Jack was 30 years old.
Although it's a suitable-for-regular-T.V. version, it still has some scary scenes, although some of the ghosts are presented in sort of a cartoonish manner (like in the Ballroom), and don't quite have the shrillness of the ghosts in the Kubrick version.
This is a great miniseries, always interesting and never boring.
The 2-disc DVD has deleted scenes and a full-length audio commentary that includes King.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful!
Review: This, unlike the Stanley Kubrick version, actually follows the book it's based on. Yes, it's longer but it's also more intelligent, serious, and emotional. The original version with Jack Nicholson was enjoyable, but it was just a fun over-the-top romp. This is how the movie should have been made in the first place. It may even make you shed a tear or two at the end. And the acting is not horrific as half of the reviewers would like you to believe. Steven Weber does a fantastic job and the Courtland Mead is just a typical child horror movie actor. All of the actors are perfectly fine. The only downside is the laughable killer topiary effects, but it's really not a big deal. The movie really is fantastic for anyone who enjoyed the book and want to see an emotionl, serious movie that follows it to a t. All told, it's definetely one of my favorite movies ever.

Rating:
Summary: Much better than the other one
Review: This movie was the worst Stephen King adaptation I have ever seen. Really the acting was what completely destroyed it. Rebecca DeMornay was okay but really, the guy from "Wings" as the dad just was not good. If Stephen King really wanted to be faithful to his novel, why didn't they get a really young guy to play the part? The worst thing though was Danny and Tony. Another reviewer mentioned Tony being a dorky floating teen and they're right. Also, Danny was so annoying. My friend recognized him from her soap. C'mon, having a soap kid on this? Plus this kid couldn't seem to close his mouth, I think he had a harelip or something. Plus the family kept making a joke out of "Donner Dinner" it just sounded dorky and dumb and they didn't do that in the book so why put that in the movie if King is so concerned about staying true to the book. The hedge animals I thought were the lamest part in the book and they were worse in the movie with the bad special effects. Please, Land of the Lost has better special effects. Anyways if you want to be faithful to the book, read the book, if you want to see some of the worst acting ever and an ugly snot-nosed mouth-breather watch this movie.

Rating:
Summary: NO WAY,MAN!!!
Review: Having attempted unsuccessfully to watch the '97 TV remake of the Shining 3 times...I finally pulled it together and caught it from start to finish. Yes...there were a few high points in the movie that may've favored the book, but with all the bad acting, bad scripting,over-editing and no Jack Nicholson, the remake didn't hold HALF a candle to the original Shining w/t Jack Nicholson. It just wasn't right...and it was too nicey-nice for my taste. Save your money. WE WANT JACK!!!!

Rating:
Summary: Take it from a Stephen King Fan...
Review: ...this is one of the worst movies ever made.

The acting was just horrible, and the setting was plastic...ugh, the whole thing just reeks. I realize King wanted to make a screen version of this story that follows the book, but in my stubborn opinion, film makers should film their interpretation of the story.

We've (most of us, anyways) already read the book, do we really want to sit through the exact thing we just read (but with bad acting)? I for one love the book, and love Kubrick's take on the story. This new version does not compare to either.

Rating:
Summary: What the &*@%??!!
Review: Is it possible to rate 0 statrs? M. Villalobos' review could not have said it better. This version is horrible. King was mad at Kubrick for his version and came back with this?? I actually sat through this whole train wreck and felt dumber afterward. King may be a brilliant author, but his movies are awful. The only one that I liked was "IT" and even then, the end almost brought the whole movie down. Stephen, stick to the books.