The Shining (1997)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

having just recently viewing this film in one four an a half hour sitting(no commercials)I can honestly say I really enjoyed it.apparently it has little to do with the 1980 version and sticks much more closely to the book written by Stephen King.i won't say this was better than the original.they both have their merits.i thought this version was a bit richer in terms of characterization.there is very little symbolism is this version,which I isn't necessarily a bad thing.i thought the acting was good from everyone involved.as an aside,i purchased my copy as a two disc set and discovered that disk two contained part one while disk one contained parts two and three.it's a bit of an annoyance,but only a brief one.now,back to the movie itself. I feel the music played a bigger role here and elevated the film.did I like it as much as the original?i would say yes.just remember it is very long but it is broken up into three ninety minute sections.for me The Shining (1997) is a 10/10

This is an excellent movie. It's very scary and entertaining. I loved the animals carved out of plants coming to life scene. That's one of the scariest and best scenes. I also loved the part with the ghost in the bath tub. That was just wildly intense. It doesn't matter how faithful to the book a movie is. It just matters how good the movie is. Both this and the 1980 version are very good. Jack doesn't use an ax in this one when he has gone completely insane. He uses a croquet mallet but the terror is no less. In fact I would say the terror of that is more intensely done. The music in this is very good too. It's very creepy. Watch this. It's entertaining from beginning to end.

I'm a huge fan of Stephen King's novel, it definitely makes the list of my top favorite books, so I was delighted to watch another adaptation, this time with a fair amount of similarities to it. It couldn't be different, seeing that King himself was involved with the script, and it kind of gives the feeling he's answering back to Kubrick: "this is how I imagined my creation to be." I rated it high because it's so much like the novel, and although I absolutely love Kubrick's version, it's also very fulfilling to a fan when the book is adapted the way you want it! Although I rate it highly, I'm aware of its problems. For one, the thing that got on my nerves (all the time) was Courtland Mead's acting. His nasal and annoying voice, his mouth constantly hanging open, his mop top hair, besides, he's too old to be anything like the character in the novel, but that's the least. Danny Torrance is supposed to be a likable character, and to me he is adorable in his 5 year-old naive wisdom and braveness. I didn't get any of it in the mini series, and Danny is basically the main character, without him, it just doesn't work. I wonder why King and etc. chose this boy.Apart from that, Steven Weber is one of the main reasons I liked it so much. I know about his sitcom past, but his work in this saves it from being a total disaster. I'd say his perfect John Doe quality is what made me think of him as the next best thing to the "actual" Jack Torrance. Rebecca DeMornay gives an average performance, I'm sure she is exactly how Stephen King thought Wendy in his head, but if it was any other blonde actress playing her part, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. I was happy with the feature of almost all of the scenes from the novel, especially the (in)famous one-liner: "Come down here and take your medicine!".Budget limitations and the length tend to turn people off. This is the problem with Stephen King's movie adaptations, because certain aspects of his writing are not meant to be watched, only imagined. It's the case of the hedge animals (or the Wendigo in Pet Sematary, I was glad they decided to let it out), they're important to the story, but the terrible special effects just made me cringe. Also, I was OK about that additional epilogue of Danny graduating, but why the "kissing kissing, that's what I've been missing" bit?. It's so cheesy, and it seems it doesn't serve any other purpose than adding some cheap sentimentalism to Jack-Danny's relationship, when it doesn't need any. In my opinion, Jack was redeemed when he stayed in and fought the hotel as hard as he could, and that was what saved his family. Anyway, I guess it comes with the job, you have to have some kind of explicit emotional undertone in order to make it likable for general audiences. Not all of it is made of die-hard fans of the novel like me, ha.

First let me just say I love both versions equally. However thing have to be addressed. First and foremost, the Shining regardless of who you think did better has and will always be Stephen King's baby. It was meant to symbolize his struggle with Alcoholism which was the main theme of the book. When Kubrick did his version, it stopped being "Stephen King's The Shining." And became "Stanley Kubrick's The Shining." The reason Stephen hated it so much because it stopped being his struggle and started being Kubrick's Art. This miniseries was simply stating "Stanley I am gonna take back what's mine." And even though the public was divided by it, he did what he could to do so. The Kubrick version was meant to be ambiguous and keep us guessing and interpreting it till the cows come home. The King version on the other hand, made sense and that's what most hated about it. You can't expect King to be ambiguous unless he wants to be ambiguous, he is Stephen King not Stanley Kubrick. Let the baby have his bottle and find something to like about this.