Rating: 
Summary: King's vision realized on DVD.....
Review: When this first premeired on ABC I was captivated by it. I saw the Kubrick version after reading the book and I was disgusted with the way Kubrick had butchered one of Stephen King's best works. So naturally I was interested in the mini-series. It didn't disappoint. Like the book, this movie strives for more psychological horror as opposed to an all out gore-fest. There are no ridiculous scenes of blood rushing down the halls or a silly and contrived lawn maze as in Kubrick's version. Rather than weilding an axe, Jack instead uses an enlarged croquet mallet. His stalking through the hotel floors while slamming the bloody mallet against the walls is far more scary. The most important difference and advantage that this version has over Kubrick's is the fact that it fully displays the struggle that Jack goes through throughout the movie and maintains that emotional hook that is so common in almost all of King's books. Jack loved his family. Thats what it all boils down to. Try and gather that from the Kubrick movie. If you like a gorefilled shock-fest try the Kubrick version, but if you want a more psychological thriller with an emotional twist that stays true to it's roots then watch this one.
Rating:
Summary: A long-awaited DVD!
Review: The only version of this miniseries I had was one I taped from its original TV broadcast back in 1997. I missed parts of it because my new baby (at that time) was sick and fussy. I caught these parts upon re-viewing, but I actually missed the last ten minutes of the movie, because my VCR ran out of tape!
Anyway, I thought this was a far-superior version of the book and holds up better in every way than the Kubrick theatrical release. I was surprised at the skill and depth that Steven Webber brought to the role of Jack Torrance. I also feel (as a prior reviewer has mentioned) that the woman-in-the-bathtub scene is one of the scariest I've seen on any screen, in a theater or on TV. Just the whole look and feel of this miniseries is far superior than the movie and clearly follows King's original vision much better.
I was never able to see the last ten minutes (I don't think this was ever released on video; if so, I couldn't locate it). I have hoped for a DVD version for quite some time.
If you've never seen this miniseries, you've never seen a good, faithful adaptation of Stephen King's "The Shining".
Rating: 
Summary: Unbelieveable?!?
Review: Were to begin???? 1. HORRIBLE ACTING 2. Poor Cast for Characters. 3. Poor setting 4. No Mood 5. No atmosphere
6. Disgrace to Stanley Kubricks brilliant vision of the story. Thats just to name a few. This remake is bad, and I mean bad, no matter how you slice it. Do not listen to the Hype. One step closer and this could almost be a Disney or a Dr. Suess movie. However, I don't mean to take anything from the story it self, just the 1997 remake. This is a Brilliantly Crafted Ghost story and remarkable story. Stephen Kings book and Stanley Kubrick's version of the film are all you need to understand the horror of this story. The 1997 remake is a joke. I highly recommend watching Kubricks 1980 version with Jack Nicholson and then reading the novel by Stephen King, and thats all you need.
Rating:
Summary: For the True Stephen King Fan Only
Review: For the average horror movie watcher, there is nothing like Jack Nicholson chopping through a door with a large axe to the screams of Shelly Duvall. However, as a fan of Mr. King's imagination, vision, and writing, I found this version to be a true study of the influence of evil and triumph of love that the novel itself is. Steven Webber is amazing as Jack Torrence (I had no idea that this wacky guy from "Wings" actually has great acting chops), and plays the role far differently and more "human-ly" than Nicholson. I must say, it is a pleasure to watch this version of The Shining, and not have to listen to the screaming histrionics or watch the bug-eyed panic of Shelly Duvall. The character of "Danny" is much deeper, and unlike the Kubrick version where Scatman Caruthers is needlessly killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook, Dick Hallorann is the surrogate father for a brilliant and misunderstood Danny. I have both versions in my library, as they truly are two completely different movies.
Rating:
Summary: Finally!!!
Review: Having been an avid Stephen King fan for as long as I could remember, I was thrilled to see a portrayal of "The Shining" that was true to the book. Kubricks vision, while decent, was nothing like King had it in the novel. It just seemed that Kubrick just added random bits and pieces in there to amuse himself. The mini-series was far better than the Kubrick version as it follows the book. The acting is great in the film and granted, there is no Jack, it's pretty unfair to compare Steven Weber with Nicholson as they are two totally different actors. Jack did a good job with the character in the film (who i guess you could call Jack Torrance, but wasn't really like Jack in the book), but Weber does an amazing job as Jack Torrance. You see him progressively get taken by the hotel whereas in the Kubrick version, you know Nicholson wasn't quite right before they even get to the Overlook. In closing, there will always be that group of people who say that the Kubrick version is better, but those are obviously ones who haven't read the book. If you enjoyed the novel, then you'll definately love this version of the film. It's Stephen Kings' vision of what he wanted on screen. Enjoy! cheers!!
Rating: 
Summary: Definately better than Kubrick's version!
Review: To be honest, I loved both, King's and Kubrick's versions of this movie. Ofcourse, King's version followed the story line of his book much closer than Kubrick, however, Kubrick didn't write the book, and in my opinion, he had every right to tell the story as he wanted. Jack Nicholson is perfect for the part, in Kubrick's version, the same as Steven Weber was great in the King version. Nicholson was crazy from the start, and Webber was wacko after he drank and saw a few ghosts. This movie kept me on the edge of my seat in both versions.. but this version is definately better than the first!
Rating:
Summary: C'mon, was there ever a good T.V. miniseries?
Review: Simply one of the most awefully boring movies I've had the displeasure of laying my eyes on. Sure it follows the book more closly than Kubrick's version, but that doesnt make it better. Stale acting and unbelievable situations are all you'll get out of this movie, trust me, see Kubrick's or none. This movie is STUPID.
Rating: 
Summary: Who caught the Sam Raimi cameo?
Review: Hey, if it's good enough for Sam Raimi to play a small
role in, then it's good enough for me! Yes, that's the
same Sam Raimi who directed that film you may have heard
about called 'Spiderman.' However, Kubrick's vision can't
be denied.
Rating:
Summary: Not for the ignorant
Review: Anyone who would put this movie down over the Kubrick version should have their head examined, or at the very least read the book, for it is there that the truth comes out, Kubrick's version is a butchery of one of Stephen Kings most personal tales. Stephen King finally did right by doing it himself. Yes, Kubrick was a great director, and yes Nicholson is one of the greatest actors of all time, but the book was thrown out when they made that movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor
Review: This is direly hamstrung by the network's prurience over bad language or violence. Rebecca De Mornay's Wendy is more like a post-feminist 90s female crusader than a teacher's wife, a scripting decision patently done 'by the board'. Webber, an actor who I like, is inadequate for the Jack Torrance role - he simply hasn't got the depth. A sugary confection best-avoided and by no means a definitive version of the excellent book. That said the dead woman in the bath is one of the most frightening things I've ever seen rendered on screen, and knocks even Kubrick's creepy version of the scene into a cocked hat. Neither is faithful to the book.
|
