Rating: 
Summary: Overated
Review: Yes I dig Stephen King books, but I find no reason to make The Shining into a mini-series. Read the book if you want the whole story. Kubrick's version/interpretation is much better and far less winded and certainly better acted and directed...much more atmospheric and spooky.Steven Weber is very good at playing Jack. Rebecca DeMornay is just ok, she has some acting moments that made me whince. Yikes...she can be stiff. But the worse mistake is Courtland Mead as Danny. What a mis-cast! He's downright annoying and terribly bad at acting (which is unusual for a kid actor). I found myself rooting for the spirits to just eat him up or something. He has no charisma and honestly he's kinda scary looking. So, keep your money in your pocket, read the book to get the whole detailed story of The Shining, then rent/buy Kubrick's version.
Rating: 
Summary: A truly excellent adaptation of King's work from Mick Garris
Review: I have long been a fan of Stephen King's work, and this version of The Shining is vastly superior to Stanley Kubrick's film. Steven Weber is excellent as Jack Torrance, the recovering alcoholic who moves with his wife and son to the Overlook Hotel in Colorado for the winter, and who soon finds himself possessed by the hotel's ghosts. Rebecca DeMornay's performance as Wendy Torrance was much better than that of Shelley Duvall in the Kubrick version; Duvall played Wendy as a much weaker character, while DeMornay played her as the strong, fiercely protective mother that she was in the book. Courtland Mead as Danny Torrance was simply terrific--he was far less stiff and wooden than Danny Lloyd in Kubrick's version, and he showed far more range of emotion than Lloyd did. The best surprise of this version was Melvin Van Peebles as Dick Hallorann, the Overlook's cook and the only other person who has any real understanding of "the shining" besides Danny himself. I see his portrayal of Hallorann as a tribute to the late Scatman Crothers, who so ably portrayed the character in the Kubrick version, and whose death was a great loss to acting. Melvin played Hallorann with the same charm and grace that Scatman Crothers did, but with a uniqueness that made the role all his own. The extras on the DVD were pretty good, too; I got a kick out of hearing the commentary from King, Weber, and Mick Garris, and the deleted scenes with the Garris commentary were pretty interesting as well. I was sort of disappointed that they didn't include a "Making Of" featurette like they did with The Stand, but I don't see that as a reason to give this DVD a lower rating than I did. It's definitely worth owning.
Rating:
Summary: Just like the book, unlike Kubrick's version
Review: If you've read the book and want to watch a movie exactly like the book, then you should definetly pick up the Stephen King version of The Shining. Not to say that Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining was bad, it's just that it's great to see different versions and a version that is true to the book. Kubrick's version was pure psychological horror, where this one is pure haunted house horror. The movie is about a family that go up in the mountains of Colorado. The father is the caretaker for the Overlook Hotel for the winter season, which has a bad history of murder and corruption. As the movie progresses we see the hotel starting to take affect in Jack Torrance's life (played by Steven Weber, but not as good as Jack Nicholson), making him see the ghosts of the Overlook Hotel. The ghosts want Jack's son, Danny, who has The Shining. The ghosts are basically using Jack to gain support of this strong boy with his strong powers. The movie is not as scary as Kubrick's version, but you still get a sense of eerie hauntings. But, I have to admit, when Steven Weber wacks down the door with the croquet mallet, that would scare ...me if I was Wendy in that bathroom. So, if you read the novel then you will probably enjoy this version of The Shining and then compare the two. It's a fun movie with interesting sequences and material in it. Enjoy :-)
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, simple as that.
Review: Anyone who blindly says Kubrick's version is "better", needs to take a couple days and read the book. Poor Stanley went for shocks as opposed to that whole road of characterization. Is this version THE "Shining" to see? No. See them both. Kubrick's most memorable moments aren't found in the book or this version (although, I do prefer Stephen Weber's line in place of Jack's "Here's Johnny"). No elevator blood, no twins (even though they were in the book; Grady is childless here), no "All work and no play". What's present with the miniseries is the story. Suffice to say, Jack Torrance was not a weird little guy to begin with. He did not just have a mental breakdown, as Kubrick tried to hint. There's a lot of build up and foreshadowing (the wasp nest, for instance) that was lost in the film version. Jack is a tragic character, a pawn in a battle of supernatural forces. The infamous axe has been dropped in place of its rightful predecessor, the roque (Denver croquet here) mallet. And even with four hours to "fill", some bits and pieces were lost. Jack Nicholson versus Stephen Weber: no contest, right? Wrong. Weber gives ol' Wolf-Grin a run for his money, but what brings Jack back to the top is that when Torrance does lose it, Nicholson is more convincing. The Dick Halloran here is great, but Scatman Crothers seemed more like Dick to me. The rest of the "new" cast is an improvement. Rebecca De Morney is a perfect Wendy, far better from Shelly Duvall's homely, helpless portrayal. The new Danny has a lisp, but it's better than hearing him croak around with his finger saying "redrum". I again prefer this version for its ending. The Kubrick version is soulless and mundane. This ending is touching and has heart. I won't give anything away, but King has added a "Ten Years Later" epilogue not present in the book and it works beautifully. If only Dreamcatcher could've been adapted this well.
Rating:
Summary: Setting the Record Straight
Review: Alrighty folks... Let's make this clear right off the bat. Kubrick's was an interpretation. Nothing more. It had a few moments, but other than that, it was a C film. Period. Every body says that Jack N's acting was amazing and over the top, and that's all fine and dandy, but it relied on sight scares. King's rendition delves into the psychological terrors experienced inside the Overlook, and plays not on the fears of the eye, but the fears of the mind-the unseen. It is not simply an excellent film because it follows the book, rather it unravels the characters and the history of the hotel as never before, giving motives and flaws to its characters, not simply being crazy. It is more about the struggle to remain a family than a man going nuts and trying to kill that family. In conclusion, best horror film ever (well, at least top 10).
Rating: 
Summary: Deron, you are wrong.
Review: This version very closely follows King's intent and storyline. In the novel, Jack Torrance DID NOT freeze to death in the maze like the Kubrick/Nicholson version but DID die when the boiler-room blew up, which is exactly what this newer version shows, correctly. Plus, Jack Torrance DID carry around a croquet mallet towards the end, not an axe, like the Kubrick version falsely showed. Finally, Jack Torrance DID NOT say "Here's Johnny", no matter how good Nicholson did it in the Kubrick version. Whenever one tries to make a movie or mini-series out of a novel, they should keep as close to the original storyline, and thus, the author's intent, as possible. Therefore, I'll take this 4 hour Stephen King certified version over the 2 hour 20 min Kubrick version any day. I own both versions and this version is the one that I refer as the novel's companion.
Rating:
Summary: Much better than Kubrick's travesty
Review: I first saw The Shining about ten years ago, and was not impressed. The acting was awful, and it lurched from scene to scene without any transition or even resemblence to a plot. It made me run out and purchase the book, because it had to be better than this lousy excuse for a movie. And I was right. It is, without question, the most terrifying novel I have ever read. No longer did I dismiss the film as just another bad Kubrick film (and let's face it, he made quite a few); I now saw it as an abomination. This mini-series, however, does a much better job of adapting Stephen King's classic tale. It isn't perfect, but it is scarier (and more violent!) than the 1980 turkey that disgraced movie screens.
Rating:
Summary: Not even close
Review: This was a big mistake! The only thing this had to do with The Shinning was Stephen King's name. The characters have the same name but the story is totally off the wall. First they tried to take an hour long movie and turn it into a mini-series. It doesn't work. Second the cast is second rate compared to the first, not to say they can't act becuase they are all fine actors, they just didn't fit the roles. They replace Jack's axe with a crocket mallet and in the end he dies saving the lives he once threatened. Maybe it is just that I was such a fan of the first one that ruined this one for me, but I don't think so.
Rating:
Summary: Better the Second Time Around
Review: Definitely preferred this to Scatman Crothers taking an axe in the chest. Horror in this is more subtle and sophisticated than the first. A little long, but it moves, unlike some. You can watch this one more than once and still find things you missed the first time.
Rating: 
Summary: Painful
Review: Yeah, this one is faithful to the book, but does that mean it's better than the Kubrick version? The answer in this case, is no. I mean, how can Steven Weber's Jack Torrance compare to Jack Nicholson's amazingly over the top performance in the original? And how can those [fake] looking hedge animals compare with the hedge maze from the original, which worked wonders for the first film, being the setting for the climatic chase and the demise of the lead. How much faster can an axe chop down a door than a damned croquet mallet?? If you want Steven King's The Shining, then go and read the book, but if you want a film version, then I would say that Kubrick's version is the only way to go. Steven King isn't that great at getting involved with the film versions of his novels (remember Maximum Overdrive?). Yes, Kubrick's version may not be faithful, but it's better than this made for TV [stuff].
|
