Rating: 
Summary: from what I've seen very well done
Review: I have not been able to see the entire movie, but have seen the first couple instalments, and they did an excellent job.Mainly I want to make a point about basing this upon the book. Earlier, someone complained saying that people should not base how good the movie is on the book. They also asked if we base our ranking of books on a movie. WAKE UP! The movie is BASED ON THE NOVEL, so how good the movie is is BASED ON THE NOVEL!!! If you read a book that is based on a movie, then the rating of that book would be based on the movie. If the people making the film are not trying to make a good presentation fo the book, why not write a more orignal work?! In everything that is written the author(s) get ideas from other sources, so why can't they take the few ideas they like in the book, change them, and then create an entirely new story, with a new title. (Which is almost what they do, except for the title.) The moviemakers are trying to make a movie based on a novel. How well someone does something is based on how well they displayed what they were trying to. Therefore, how good of a job they did should be based on how well they copied the novel! One more thing: I hate the way many movies based on King's novels have been inaccurate primarily because they give everyone a bad view of King as a writer. Most people read authors how wrote the basis of one of their favorite movies. I see this happen all the time. I know many people who won't read King, because of what movies have done with his work. Yes, maybe the first was good at being an ORIGINAL movie, but if that is what they wanted to do they should have made their own story. If they base it on a novel they are taking away the opporunity for someone else to give a good presentation of that novel. Which is what this version did fairly well.
Rating: 
Summary: A Lot Like the BOOK!!!!!!!!!!
Review: As much as I like the Kubrick version of this movie I have to admit that I also like this version because it's much more like the book was, I know a couple of reviewers got mad because people have said that this is more like the book and Kubrick's wasn't but it's the truth and I don't understand why this should upset them so much! Both movies are good and I don't see anything wrong with liking both! I bought this movie on DVD and I think it was money well woth spending! Now if only the Kubrick version would come out on DVD in widescreen, but if the rumor I heard that he would not allow any DVD of his version to be released in widescreen is true I'm very disappointed. I would buy that version on DVD so we could have it in our collection of horror movies to watch on Halloween but since it's only Pan and scan I'd personally only buy it in a used DVD store.
Rating:
Summary: A whole new experience!
Review: As someone who has always loved the Stanley Kubrick interpretation of this story, I have to say that I REALLY enjoyed this one. Having never read the book, I never knew that the Kubrick version was so different from Stephen King's original story. The two films are definitely two completely different stories. The charactors in this version are so much more developed and believably realistic. Steven Weber's Jack Torrence is a normal guy that is trying hard to deal with his alcoholism and anger, and also keep his family together, while at the same time being slowly consumed by the forces of the Overlook Hotel. He is much more that just a babbling Psycho. Rebecca De Mornay's Wendy is a more believable, strong wife also struggling to maintain her marriage and protect her son. This is definitely not the whimpering and submissive Wendy of the Kubrick version. I rcommend this film to any fan of Stephen King. This DVD makes a great addition to any good horror library. If you liked the Stanley Kubrick version of this story, I think you will be pleasantly suprised.
Rating: 
Summary: Books, books and books again! Annoying...
Review: Very overrated! The remake is not as good as Stanley 'the master' Kubrick who use more subtility than this mini serie for tv. Hey Folks! Would you stop to base your rates for movies by compare it to books! A film is not a book and it's annoying for cinephile who doesn't past days to read novels! Does your books rated are based on a movies?!! For the movie... go rent/buy the excellent Kubrick classic cause it's much better but stop to mix books and movies, they'll never be the same things and books aren't always better than movies.
Rating:
Summary: Stephen King's The Shining
Review: When I saw the original verson I thought is was good. Not exactly what I was expecting but it was good. Then about a year later I saw King's verson. At first I didn't like it as much as the original but after I saw is again I liked it more. I now like this verson better. From what I hear and read it is true to the book. I haven't read the book yet but I'm hoping to sometime.
Rating:
Summary: Successful adapatation and scary!
Review: The Kubrik comparison is inevitable, of course, but this film intentionally steers away from that kind of competition. Instead, Director Mick Garris and Stephen King are concerned with converting the book to the screen, with high fidelity. The result? One of THE best made for TV movies ever. It is stylish and very effective, as the "larger canvas" of the mini-series permits the slow build that is characteristic of a good novel. Characters are built. Suspense is built. A better story is told. Yes, a better story than Kubrik told. I am a veteran King reader, and a veteran viewer of quality horror movies. This film will take its place with the original "The Haunting" and "The Legend of Hell House" as one of the better haunted house movies made yet.
Rating: 
Summary: ps:
Review: the book isn't supposed to be like the movie, if it was, there'd be no purpose, it'd just be dumb, and there would be no purpose in even having a director.
anyone who goes through a movie and picks and says 'that wasn't it in the book!' or 'that wasn't supposed to happen' needs to get a life
Rating:
Summary: THE DVD of the mini series Stephen KIng's The Shining
Review: The dvd was cool! Where else can you hear Stephen King talk about how he came up with the idea for the book in his own words, Steven Weber talk about his Character and scene that he is in.
The dvd format is pure ....! The 3 part mini series is on one tow sided disk and one one sided disk equeling only two disks, in other words Part one is on side A on the frist disk, Part 2 is on side B on the first disk, Part 3 is on the second disk. why couldn't there be 3 disks, Part one is on the first disk, Part 2 is on the second disk, Part 3 is on the third disk. ...
Rating:
Summary: King goes Hollywood, The Shining goes fizzle
Review: If I am ever elected to congress I shall make it a capital offense for Stephen King to have anything to do with bringing one of his stories to video. If anyone objects I shall cite Maximum Overdrive, Sleepwalkers and The Shining mini-series. Although ostensibly an attempt to recreate the novel, SKTS ignores some vital aspects of the book for the sake of Hollywood appeal. The series begins with Jack talking with acting has-been Elliot Gould, doing what amounts to an extended commercial for AA. Now the Jack of the book was too stubborn to seek help, he tried to quit drinking on his own, a major factor in his breakdown. But AA is politically correct, and in Hollywood PC is, ya know, good. Soon we meet Jack's wife, Wendy. Now the Wendy of the book was a plain Jane with self-esteem issues. She stayed with Jack, even when she feared him, because she was afraid of being alone. In SKTS, however, Wendy is a beautiful, strong woman who can take care of herself. Why would such a woman stay with a man like Jack? Who knows, but strong, beautiful women are politically correct, and Hollywood says if its PC it's, ya' know, good. Soon we meet Danny, and Tony. The kid who plays Danny doesn't just need acting lessons, but speech lessons. His garbled lines are barely intelligeble. As for Tony, he hovers over Danny giving lofty advice and directions like some kind of guardian angel. In the book and the Kubrik film, Tony was an unseen presence, as fit his role. Why was he made so ridiculously blatant in SKTS? Because in 1997 angels were a fad, and as Hollywood knows, fads are, ya' know, good. Some reviewers have lauded how SKTS crammed in every little bit of miutia from the book. Yes this was done, from the important details (Jack's special relationship with Danny) to the extraneous (the hornet's nest) and the silly (the killer bushes). But, so what? The foundation of the movie was ruined, making everything that happened afterwards irrelavent! The bottom line is SKTS is not a true work of King, it is a work of Hollywood, and as far as horror movies go, Hollywood is, ya' know, bad.
Rating:
Summary: Just As Good As The Kubrick/Nicholson Movie!
Review: The Shining is my favorite Steven King book it was a page turner that I just totally enjoyed reading, the movie that Stanley Kubrick made in the 80s starring Jack Nicholson is very good but so is Steven King's mini series remake, the acting is very good and I like that it has things that were left out or changed in the Kubrick movie, okay so it doesn't have Jack Nicholson's wonderful manic performance with the great scene with the all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy or the here's Johnny bit but it has so many other great things left out of that movie like the wasps and the advancing attacking hedge animals. I recommend this DVD it's so worth buying and a lot better then what the nay sayers are writing about it!
| 
