The Shining (1997) User Reviews

It all depends on what story you want

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 22 March 2010]

Let's face facts, this miniseries suffers simply by virtue of being a miniseries. It is underbudgeted, underdirected, and to some extent watered down by virtue of the fact that it is intended for TV transmission. Kubrick's version has much greater production values and is more slickly produced.

But Kubrick's version tells Kubrick's story, and that is about a man on the edge of madness, who hates his family, tipped over the edge by the malevolence of the Overlook.

The miniseries tells King's story, the tragedy of a good, sane, but weak man, who loves his family, corrupted into betraying them - possessed, even - by the malevolence of the Overlook.

It is this central relationship between Jack and his family which marks the difference between the two versions, and it is of such vast significance that, quite frankly, the two different versions are actually different stories which share some of the same trimmings.

King's story has a poignant beauty. Kubrick's story is hateful.

No further comment.

For suspense n ambiguity, Kubrick's version is far superior but for the faithful adaptation of the book, this one is good for a warm up before watching Doctor Sleep.

[Fella_shibby · 7/10 · 2 June 2021]

I saw this for the first time recently aft revisiting the 1980 version.

This miniseries is the second adaptation of King's book after the 1980 film by Stanley Kubrick.

Inspite of the 273 mins runtime, this series was not able to get the maximum from certain actors. For example, the wife's character looked very believable in Kubrick's version but here it ain't.

Here she looked too hot to stick with an unemployed, alcoholic, student basher.

But the most horribly done character is the hotel.

In Kubrick's version, the hotel is a character itself n looked so very isolated, creepy and eerie.

The hotel is much more sinister in Kubrick's version compared to the hotel in this miniseries.

While this televisual adaption is very faithful than Kubrick's version and it made it very easy for me to skip the book n directly head for Doctor Sleep, this miniseries is not at all scary n the hotel in this one didn't look isolated at all. The series has cheesy effects n the hedge animals look terrible here n is a big lol.

Now aft watching the miniseries, i am happy that Kubrick did the right thing by not following the book.

There is zero ambiguity in the miniseries while Kubrick's version is still talked about regarding so many ambiguous scenes.

The hotel in Kubrick's version is majestic n so grand that one can easily get lost. The huge empty corridors, the big wide stairs, the ballroom, etc everything is a character themselves.

There is nothing creepy or eerie about the hotel in this tv version.

A solid mini-series with its ups and downs

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 23 June 2011]

When I first saw this mini-series I thought it, despite being more faithful than Kubrick's film, was pointless and nowhere near as atmospheric. Watching it again, I think I was being unfair. I do consider Kubrick's film the superior and more atmospheric film overall(I shall never forget the Here Comes Johnny and Woman in the Bathtub scenes), but aside from being much more faithful to the book, which is excellent by the way but as far as King's works go I prefer It and The Stand, there are improvements made here. Jack's transformation is much more subtle, and his and Wendy's relationship is explored much further here. Rebecca DeMornay also is a far better female lead in my opinion, and Steven Weber brings a more human touch while being quite frightening too. The mini-series does look good, the photography and production values are fine, the sound and music are atmospheric, the story is compelling and the dialogue is mostly good. My complaints however are the overlong length, some of the CGI effects which were sometimes unnecessary and the pace is occasionally a little dull. Overall, it is a solid mini-series and much better the second time of viewing. 7/10 Bethany Cox

When it's Kubrick vs. King...

[kilgres_bloodmoon · 6 July 2000]

A single statement: No film will be done justice if produced for a network. The censorship laws will simply not allow it. This is why I'm so perplexed as to why Stephen King has done two of his most prolific novels ("The Stand" and "The Shining") through network miniseries format. There's also one other reality our dear Mr. King is going to have to realize: While cornering the market on the written word, King's ideas fall as flat as two-day old soda on the big screen. The horrific adaptation of "Pet Sematary" and the cornball delivery of "The Stand" are just testaments that SK's books should remain locked in the binding. "The Green Mile" is the ONLY true-to-book adaptation of a King novel, and that's just because the director and studio deemed it necessary. I have heard an exorbitant amount of comparison between the miniseries "The Shining" and the Kubrick film, or the lack thereof, to be more precise. King has often said that he didn't like the 1980 film, and it should be used as an example of how not to make a horror film. King should realize that Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", while deviating from aspects of the author's story and changing the end, is still better than his own vision of the adaptation. As a King fan, one becomes aware of a certain mystique that makes his books addictive. However, seeing his films make one realize that King has quite a different opinion on the delivery of his work, as opposed to the darker opinions of his readers. In 1980, Stanley Kubrick presented the world with the first epic horror film. The fact that he changed the story and ending are dismissable, simply because Kubrick removed the useless flab from a mass of back story and (forgive me) somewhat cheesy happenings in the Overlook. The Kubrick film is better for two reasons: 1) It's a dark, moody descent into madness. The cinematography in Kubrick's film is revolutionary. King's own brainchild is lumbering and standard fare. 2) The ending of Kubrick's film is simply better. It's incredibly distrubing, whereas King's thoughts on the end of Jack Torrance's odyssey are somewhat... more redeeming. One gets the idea from Kubrick that the Overlook's evil is insurmountable and, indeed, necessary. King's conclusion is the common end of good overcoming evil, etc. End result -- When it's Kubrick vs. King, good ol' Stanley (R.I.P.) comes out on top. Regardless of whether King originated the story, Kubrick delivered it to glory, and made it an instant classic. King merely proved he could make a version of the film himself, and make the effort seem completely unnecessary in the process.

If you've read the book this follows it more than Stanley's version.

[rphanley · 6/10 · 22 October 2020]

Not great in the production department because it was made for tv and the acting is ok. But it follows the book way more than the popular Kubrick version and I appreciate that. King had a huge part in making this version and it shows. It was a little slow at times but overall I enjoyed it.

Are you going to hurt me, daddy?

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 11 April 2019]

While Kubrick's "The Shining" is just based on the famous King's novel, the 1997 adaptation is much more faithful to the source material, as King himself adapted the story for television. Kubrick's version is an objectively better film, but essentially these two movies are not quite comparable, because their approach to the story, techniques and intentions are pretty much different. While Kubrick's film is more a psychological horror drama, mini-series directed by Mick Garris is a typical supernatural horror with an atmosphere distinctive of these two legends of the genre.

Although no one can feign madness as Jack Nicholson (if he fakes it at all), and the fear of Shelley Duvall creeps chills to the bone, the cast is okay for such a TV movie, and it is composed of recognizable and dear faces who gave quite decent performances. Rebecca De Mornay is a sight for sore eyes, Steven Weber is not nearly as intimidating as Nicholson, but his madness is convincing enough, and although it took me some time to get used to the unusual appearance of little Courtland Mead, his performance in some scenes is really striking.

The mini-series consists of three parts for a total of four and a half hours. The first part is a bit slow, which is typical for King, who likes to introduce us to the characters and their backgrounds, and to wait for us to develop a closeness to them, before he leisurely leads us into the main story. In the second part, tension gradually increases and what seemed to be a family drama slowly transforms into supernatural horror, with jump-scares and... visual effects. And I think that is exactly where the biggest drawback of this film lies. What had the potential to be a great psychological horror drama, by decently done (except for the scenes with topiaries, which are an unforgivable failure) but totally unnecessary effects, has been transformed into something similar to the B horrors of the eighties, and for that genre, which is more often ridiculous than terrifying, over four hours is definitely too much, the tension is lost and the whole thing becomes quite unconvincing and even boring. The third part is probably the best done, both visually and story-wise, but it is spoiled by inappropriate and somewhat pathetic ending, that is better suited to melodrama than horror. Not to be perceived as a nag, I just want to praise really extraordinary sound and music.

Although I preferred this version of the story itself over Kubrick's, the movie is terribly over-stretched and the atmosphere is, although I admit that it kept me on the edge of the chair on several occasions, too frivolous to leave an impression that could compete with the Kubrick's masterpiece.

7/10

the shining mini-series

[mda-11 · 7/10 · 30 October 2006]

I saw the movie version of the shining with Jack Nicholson because he is my favorite actor and i thought it was great,so i decided to read the book and when i did i realized that it was totally different from the Stanley Kubrick version.I then decided to see the mini-series with Steven Weber which was like 4 hours long but pretty worth watching. The mini-series was pretty much more like the book and gave you a better explanation of what "shining" means. So if you like Jack Nicholson and Stanley Kubrick I recommend the movie version or if your a fan of the book and want to sit through 4 hours or I guess a fan of Stephen King or maybe Steven Weber I recommend the mini-series. But overall their both great to watch for any shining fan.

Kubrick's version of "The Shinning" may not have followed the book as well, but was a better movie.

[Aaron1375 · 4/10 · 14 July 2009]

The problem with this movie like all other Stephen King television movie adaptations is that it is a watered down and neutered version of the book. You have the basic plot intact, however all the best bloody scenes, all the cussing, the nudity, and all the other stuff present in the novel is taken from the movie and you are left yawning because somehow the edge is gone and so are all the scares. I will be the first to say Kubrick's version was almost an entirely different entity than the novel, but he probably knew some of the stuff in the book just would not fly or look very good. The hedge animals for instance, they look terrible here and you know they would have looked even worse then. These things could work in say a 100 million dollar movie made for the summer, but not a television movie. Jack Nicholson is another thing. Sure he was a bit to crazy early in the movie in the original, but he was perfect near the end. The overlook was much more sinister and you really had the feeling it was isolated, this one not so much. The plot is just like the original version though as a family moves into a house to take care of it in the winter. The cast just does not measure up to the first though, I will say Rebecca De Morney looks more like the gal described in the book then Shelly what's here last name. However, Shelly was much better at showing fear. True in the book Jack did swing around a type of croquette mallet, but I think an ax is far more scary and threatening. Then there is the ending, way to happy and sentimental for my tastes. In the end this movie is just a weak version of the book as far as being sinister and creepy, but it does get more of the basics down as far as the plot and the Kubrick does not even try to follow the book all that often, but it does offer scares so my pick is the Kubrick.

King vs Kubrick - A Comparison

[ARTaylor · 8/10 · 10 December 2006]

Let me say this right off the bat, the Kubrick version is the superior movie while the King/ Garris version is the superior adaptation.

What's wrong with the Kubrick version?

His misses out on certain very important plot elements. Jack seems to be crazy from the beginning. Jack's alcoholism is not as known as it should be. The Overlook only seems to be haunted in one or two scenes, the rest could be cabin fever. The breakdown of the family is not so clear, Jack and Danny don't seem to really love each other as much as they should. Differs greatly from the book.

What's right with Kubrick's version?

Superior directing. A very definitive style. Classic scenes ("Here's Johnny!"). Excellent acting. Danny seems to really be his age. Wendy really seems to be scared. Jack really does seem crazy when he's supposed to be. A very good horror movie in general. The hotel is much more imposing. Foreboding music helps to set mood. Differs greatly from the book (I'll explain why it's in both later).

What's wrong with the King/Garris version?

It suffers from many TV-Movie problems. The actors aren't quite as good. They use CGI when puppets, wires, or trick camera shooting could be equally effective. CGI looks out of place. Danny talks like a twenty-year old, although the same problem was in the book. Jack is fine when it comes to being Mr. Every Dad but he doesn't seem to be crazy when he's supposed to be. Jack's transformation doesn't seem so gradual as it should, Wendy says "You're old drinking habits have all come back" when the book shows each one pop up. It's the book, very little is changed so if you've read the book you pretty much know exactly what happens.

What's right with King/Garris' version?

It's not a remake of Kubrick's movie, it's a movie version's of King's book. It's the book, if you loved the book and are a die hard fan you'll love this. Very little is changed. Minor subplots are changed but movie works well without them. You get pretty much everything the Kubrick version left out.

Which one?

It depends. If you loved the book and are a die hard Stephan King fan then watch the Garris TV miniseries. If you are a regular movie fan or a Kubrick fan then watch the Kubrick version. Garris' is for the book fans. Kubrick's is for the non book fans.

Final Thoughts.

It's not really fair to compare the two movies. Each one has their own pros and cons. Kubrick's is more of a movie using the basic premise of the haunted hotel and the father who goes crazy. It's meant to be a movie that's not just a page by page adaptation of the book. Which you got to admire Kubrick for doing that. He did something that even those who memorized the book would be surprised and scared. But Garris did something that the die hard Stephan King fans can love. It depends on who you are. It is definitely not fair to compare the two since they are both very different from each other. Both are good in their own separate ways.

Nope...

[Mr Dread · 6/10 · 4 November 2002]

I am not a big Kubrick fan... I am a big Stephen King fan. But I enjoyed The Shining (1980) more than the mini-series. I know it doesn't follow the book but it's just more effective. I know many other King fans that will agree (many will disagree as well). The book is great, but that doesn't make the mini series great too. See the 1980 version instead.

A decent into madness? No, just a waste of 6 hours.

[otis von zipper · 2/10 · 23 July 2002]

Claiming the TV mini-series of The Shining is better than the 1980 Kubrick film because it's more like the book is like saying the 1976 version of King Kong is better than the 1933 film because the special effects are better. Yes, the mini-series is more like the book, but that doesn't mean it is good.

I loved the book, and was surprised at some of the changes in the 1980 film. But I still loved the movie. Movies are a visual medium , so not every concept from a book will work. Best example is the topiary hedge scene. In King's book, the idea of attacking hedge animals was frightening. Kubrick didn't use the idea and inserted a hedge maze. The hedge animals show up in the mini-series and the scene is laughable. Visually, hedges aren't scary. I'm guessing Kubrick understood this.

Worst of all, the mini-series tries too hard to be a drama. The Shining is a scary story, why not concentrate on that fact? So much time is spent on exposition and character background, that the result is just frustration waiting for something to occur. Basically, the problem is pacing. Usually, people complain that Kubrick's film are long and drawn out, but his Shining is a crack of the whip compared to this adaptation. While the acting and look of the film is decent, I'd have to say that King's adaptation fails mostly because of the fact that it is just like the book. Books work cause they're in your head. Movies show you those images. Kubrick's version worked because he concentrated on the aspects of the story that worked best visually. That scene where Jack is in the empty bar which suddenly is fully stocked with an eager bartender is great stuff, and those moments tell us all we need to know about Jack's drinking problem and the effect the Overlook was having on him.

"The Shining"---A Tale of Yin and Yang

[MovieMarauder · 10/10 · 30 September 2003]

I'm shocked at how vehemently opposed everyone seems to be to whichever version of Stephen King's classic tale they deem less worthy of viewing. The fact is, both interpretations are excellent, but comparing the two seems totally fruitless to me, because as cinematic works, they represent two completely different stylistic and dramatic approaches.

"The Shining" (1980) -------------------- Of course this is a classic, and the cinematography and direction are unmatched. Jack Nicholson defined this role, which is why they had trouble casting someone with the audacity to play the haunted Jack Torrance after Nicholson had stamped such an indellible signature on the character. The music, the lighting, and the general atmosphere all amount to a haunting and marvelously executed movie. But what I felt this version lacked was a coherent storyline. Some of the dialogue and character interactions seem poorly executed at best, and no real background is given to the characters. I can't feel for these characters, they're wooden and two-dimensional. And the character of Danny, integral to the impact of the story, was nothing more than a plot device here. He is totally over the top, and doesn't seem to exhude a true gamut of emotions in a very demanding role.. This doesn't feel like a loving family with real issues, whose henpecked patriarch is battling dark forces to maintain his sanity. I feel like there was no real character development at all, because Jack Torrance seemed almost criminally insane from the beginning. But what Nicholson's portrayal lacked in subtlety and depth, it made up for in intensity and screen presence, albeit a bit hammy at times.

Stephen King's "The Shining" (1997) ----------------------------------- As the title proclaims, this is Stephen King's film. His true vision of a snowbound family at odds with demonic spirits, and eachother. Competently directed, although not as visually breath-taking as the original. As mentioned before, there is some usage of the old hackneyed horror film stand-bys and "shock" devices, but while not as flamboyant as the original, the acting, character development, and narrative structure are far superior. Here is where we finally get depth and dimension. Courtland Mead makes the character of Danny come brilliantly to life. This kid isn't just plodding over stale lines by rote and playing with an imaginary finger-puppet, 70's Bee Gee-esque mullet and all. This little guy is acting! He's actually doing a competent job of performing this role! And as for the role of the ill-fated Jack Torrance, the greatest part that nobody wanted, a richly-textured, complex, and pleasantly surprising piece of work by sitcom actor Steven Weber. An interpretation of the character that matches King's original vision immaculately. We can actually sympathize with his character now. He isn't a psychotic rage-aholic who just grows more psychotic every day, he's a loving father battling his addiction to booze, whose descent into madness is slow, intense, brutally frightening, and completely believable. By the end of part three, he has become the most horrifying appirition one can behold on ABC. And while the picture as a whole could have probably been executed with more pathos on HBO, the dramatic content contained in these 4 1/2 hours far outweighs the obvious censorship and budgetary limitations placed on the show.

Both films have their peaks and valleys, and I'd advise everybody who watches the remake to not go in expecting something like the Kubrick film, but a completely different animal. With an open mind, you may find you love them both.

Much more emotional narrative

[pinkangel014 · 7/10 · 31 July 2022]

I'm a movie buff, but not a movie snob. I've tried to watch and like Kubrick's film several times, but I've never fully gotten it. It feels artsy for the sake of artsy and comes off more like a simplistic urban legend than King's original work. Jack Nicholson is great sure but the story leaves much to interpretation and frankly confusion. This mini series, though obviously less glamorous and pretty cheesy in dialogue, does much more justice to the emotional and character depth of the novel. You care a lot more about the family and, at least for me, the background makes Jack "snapping" far more terrifying. It adds more of an element of reality that it's not just the spirits taking control but perhaps even pent up distain. Would've been amazing to see what Jack Nicholson and Shelley would have done if they had all that to work with!

Incomparable

[dans_junk10 · 4/10 · 20 January 2002]

Most criticisms from people on here about Stanley Kubrick's original film seem to lie with the fact that he deviates from the book. I'm reading the book at the moment and whilst I'm enjoying it, there's a lot of potential American-style schmaltz. Secondly the book is too long and condensing it was really the only option to make it into a mainstream film.

What annoys me more though is people insist the mini-series is better as it's "like the book" - to me this shows absolutely no imagination. If you've read the book you'll know exactly what happens and it really is directing by numbers. All events in the series take place, chronologically as they do in the book. All the director had to do was shoot everything and throw it all together, without any question of how to approach a scene as he obviously just lifted all the ideas straight out of the book.

The idea about a man on the brink of insanity is really the core of the Shining, both in the book and the 1980 film. The whole question of whether supernatural forces are at work is somewhat questionable in the film, but in the mini-series the viewer is given no choice, as the supernatural is signposted at every opportunity. In the movie just one look from Jack Nicholson can send chills down the spine - the mini-series insists on make-up and CGI to say "look, scary movie".

Whether you dislike the 1980 shining because it deviated from the book is largely irrelevant. The fact remains, this mini-series is very badly produced. Steven Weber is far too nicey, nicey to be at all convincing as the film's villain. DeMornay is fine but can't convery Shelley Duval's sense of desperation. Melvin Van Peebles is also okay as Hallorann but cannot hope to achieve what is a beautiful and wistful performance from Scatman Crothers. However what really spoils the film for me is Courtland Meade's performance as Danny. I felt absolutely no sympathy for him and actually found myself rooting for Jack to get hold of him in the end. The kid sound like he has a permananent cold and for some reason seems unable to close his mouth. I lost count the amount of times Danny went off into a trance and his parents asked "Danny are you okay" - wake up lady, staring into the distance with a despaired look on his face is ALL Danny does! I also thought some of Danny's dialogue in the book sounded too advanced for a five year old and hearing it uttered aloud on screen reveals it's true ridiculousness. Danny Lloyd's performance in the movie was beautiful - a kid who clearly wasn't stupid but was fairly confused as to what was going on around him. What a shame we never saw this fine actor again.

Add to the inferior casting are a number of poor production values. The hotel, rather than the imposing, dark Timberline lodge used for the movie, is a rather jaunty looking place which is all too quaint. In the movie, just the sight of the hotel is scary - in the series, the reaction is more of an "oh is that it". Another truly awful thing is the use of moving objects whenever characters leave a room. Oh look the Torrances aren't in the room anymore, lets make the door close by itself, swing swing by itself etc..... Lastly the score is terrible - all jaunty one minute when it is totally inappropriate and should be dark and brooding and at other times clearly trying to copy the original to dreadful effect.

Fair enough, dislike Stanley Kubrick's original for it being too different from the book. I personally prefer the film and it's themes myself. However, don't for once think this is a good mini-series just because "it's like the book". Any old director can take a book and translate it directly to screen. It takes someone like Kubrick to take a source material and develop into something completely his own.

Finally my perception is many people preferred the mini-series as there was little need to think as everything was so clearly spelled out. In Kubrick's film a lot was left open to the viewer to interpret themselves, which in my opinion makes it a much more personal movie. However looking at another comment on here that said "Kubrick's was okay but it wasn't scary - the mini-series had things jumping out at you and stuff" I am beginning to realise that the age of dumbing down is upon us.

More of a Reinterpretation than a Remake

[Maeve72 · 27 October 2002]

I have loved Kubrik's interpretation of The Shining since the first time it scared me. But that's what it really is, an interpretation. It's well known how Kubrik did his work and the limited amount of input that King had in the original movie. This new interpretation stays closer to the book and you genuinely get the idea that it's the hotel that is evil, while I've always felt that Kubrik's design made it feel more like the Jack went mad. The final scene of Kubrik's version, where he pans over the photos and you see Jack in all of them, has always felt like an homage to what the true meaning was supposed to be. This new version filled me with chills and goosebumps the whole way through. In one scene, when all the chairs in the dining area slide from their tables to the floor, not only was I shivering but I actually jumped. I've read the book; I knew it was coming but it was so perfectly executed that the creepiness was sustained throughout the entire show. That kind of horror/suspense is so rare nowadays, especially for a television mini-series! I truly feel that both versions stand on their own and applaud King for showing the chutzpah to go back and show us another view of The Overlook.

I like it.

[autiemiller · 7/10 · 17 March 2019]

After reading the book I knew I wanted to watch this version. I feel like it did a service to the book and Steven Weber did a great Jack.

The works of Stephen King: Mick Garris' The Shining.

[Captain_Couth · 7/10 · 2 August 2005]

The Shining (1997) was a Stephen King/ Mick Garris collaboration. Stephen King was dissatisfied with the way Stanley Kubrick adapted his novel for the silver screen. He only retained the bare minimum of the book when he directed the film Several years later, Stephen King jumped at the chance to adapt his novel as a mini-series. The people at A.B.C. let him get away with as much as he could during the production of this series. The results are a more entertaining film that follow's more closely to the source material. But this film is either a love it or hate it kind. People will hate it because they fell in love with the theatrical production or they'll love it because it's almost like the original novel.

What I liked about the mini-series is the way the characters are portrayed in the novel. The father (Steven Weber) is more of a likable character, the kid (Courtland Mead) this time around is a much better actor, the mother's (Rebecca De Mornay) character is better written (and hotter too). The biggest improvement is the character of Dick Halloran (Melvin Van Peebles). His character from the book was sorely missing in the theatrical version. Even though the mini-series wasn't a technical masterpiece of film maker, I enjoyed it more.

Highly recommended for fans of the novel.

It's not Kubrick. But is is King.

[antellis · 7/10 · 15 November 2018]

Didn't hate it, but watched both this and the Kubrick version after reading the book.

Firstly, this is a TV show and not a movie - so lower your expectations slightly and enjoy it for what it is.

No doubt about it, this is a good version of King's vision. Love it or hate it, it's pretty faithful and I gotta say that you needn't overanalyse this to see that Steven Weber and Rebecca de Mornay did a good job playing the very average Torrance spouses, come on, give Weber some credit - those are some ridiculous shoes to fill after Jack Nicholson.

Danny was a miscast for me, but then again so was the kid in the Kubrick version.

So this doesn't get all the stars, but it does get some credit for leaning into the source material and busting a gut to 'rectify' (at least for Stephen King) the many omitted moments from the book in Kubrick's version... which is of course, in a different league.

We all know that - so haters, chill out and enjoy the fact that there are two versions of the story and there's no undoing that.

Boring, Redundant, and Long

[JLRoberson · 1/10 · 28 June 2003]

Proof once again that Stephen King has a tin eye for film and has no idea how to effectively adapt his own work. This version has no mystery, no scares, and explains far, far too much at every twist and turn for fear even one person in the TV audience might be confused. This Danny is butt-faced and far too precocious, in fact making you wonder--given this Wendy(who, unlike the underrated Shelley Duvall version, one cannot see staying with Jack even a moment after he broke their child's arm) believes in Danny's powers--why they ended up going to the Overlook in the first place. The digital effects are laughably cheesy: a fire-hose with fangs that looks like something out of a razor commercial, and the hedge animals; speaking of which, how hard can it be to get the effect of beasts that only move when you're not looking? These look terrible, like blobs of green mercury sliding across the landscape. The ghosts all have blue skin and terrified me about as much as a cloudless sky. And Tony is shown here, and looks like John Denver. OOO, CREEPY! Add to this a diabetes-inducing ending that isn't in the book even, and you have a waste of 6 hrs. you could be doing something more useful, like drinking yourself to death.

It's accurate to the book--except the tunnel scene--but now we see that an accurate adaptation simply doesn't work in this case as a movie. Kubrick's is a masterpiece. This is prosaic, shallow and dumb. Don't see it.

For people who are more fans of King than Nicholson.

[calebforpresident · 9/10 · 3 July 2020]

Sadly, because Kubrick's version is so well known it's difficult to try to review this without comparison, so instead I will simply make some comparisons.

With all due respect to Jack Nicholson, who is a fantastic actor in many rolls, he was a problem for the Kubrick movie, because from the beginning you get the impression that he's losing it.

Kubrick's version of Jack was a man on the edge taking a natural path because he's stuck in isolation. This version is a flawed man who is trying to do better, driven to extreme violence by the forces in the hotel.

It should be the other way around. The Kubrick version glossed over his flaws, and this version laid them bare. Yet this version shows a Jack that you can relate to, and even feel sorry for, while Kubrick simply made him monstrous and a problem to be written into not being a problem any more.

Kubrick's Jack is essentially just keeping the lights on. This Jack is a custodian doing a job.

This version honors both the book and the characters in it in a way that Kubrick didn't even seem to try, and I suspect that the current low rating has more to do with being annoyed that it isn't like the Kubrick movie (WHICH WASN'T THE SOURCE MATERIAL!) than it does with the actual quality of this version, or the story in it.

Not how I imagined it

[movieman89-2 · 7/10 · 23 November 2008]

This is my all time favorite horror novel and Stephen King is my favourite horror writer. I love the way it was close to the book, but I thought didn't really work.

Steaven Weber was OK, but with the scenes when he is insane, he was annoying and acted arrogant. He was nowhere near as good as Nicholson, who was a legend.

I don't why they chose the actor for the part of Danny, which definitely didn't work. In the novel, he was a really mind messing, freaky child. But in this he looked and acted like a gormeless idiot who couldn't act.

Best thing about the film was Rebecca De Morney who fitted the part really well as Wendy. Her character was very close to the novel which was good.

Good filming and OK special effects, but you can tell its CGI.

The rest of the cast were OK. A lot of the seemed too colourful and jolly, I imagined it as dark and covered in shadows.

Sorry Stephen King, but I didn't think it really worked

flat

[geolot1256 · 2/10 · 11 June 2015]

I just re-watched what I will call the "real" movie (even though it wasn't the Stephen King authorized version) and then watched the miniseries version the next day. Wow, the miniseries was an amateurish joke with no comparison to SK's version (I don't care that it departed from the book, since we are talking about movies here).

The TV version was flat, cheesy, overdone with the ghosts (which took away their effect). The series just seemed like it was going through the paces to get the plot elements on screen as quickly..

The ghost in the black tuxedo was pathetic and the one in the white one wasn't much better. The hotel was not spooky in the slightest and the hedge animals were as scary as Jar-Jar Binks. There was no atmosphere to the location and there was no feel or mood to the scenes.. it was just so one-dimensional in comparison.

The actors for the two male roles were also not suited to them IMO. I know people complain about Jack Nicolson being too crazy from the outset, and this departs from Stephen King's version, but I am OK with that after having seen it done both ways.. In the TV version, he never gets there and you can tell he isn't capable of getting there. And the boy: OMG so annoying and flat. The conversations between him and mom with dialog like "it's not dad, it's the hotel..." unconvincing and no true fear, just cold and robotic.

The Danny Loyd version was chilling and the TV one was annoying and formulaic.

Shelly Duval also did an awesome job of conveying the fear and despair of Wendy's predicament- very believable.

I could go on, but won't.... suffice it to say, I was embarrassed for the TV miniseries creators after seeing it.

severely underrated

[addict123 · 8/10 · 26 July 2006]

Okay, its not Stanley Kubrick and it isn't Jack Nicholson, but I seriously think that this is a decent adaptation of one of the greatest stories ever. The Kubrick movie is by far superior obviously but its great to see the entire book brought to life in this adaptation. And though some would disagree I did find some of this genuinely creepy. It started out too slow for my liking, and having the occasional door or window close by itself is a bit of a cheesy way of building suspense, but when you reach part two we're repaid for the tedious waiting they've made us go through in part one. The woman in 217 was handled in a slightly less disgusting way that Kubrick did it in the original but lack of nudity and the fact the woman's face was only on screen for about thirty seconds is great, its creepier to leave more to the imagination. Not that I'm flaming Kubrick's way of handling the scene, its just this is what we can see without it mentally traumatising us for life. The living topiary were handled really well in this, I think if they had tried the full on moving effect it would have looked a bit too cheesy. The Kubrick version shows the best example of how you can be scared by gross things happening. This version shows how your imagination can be just as terrifying. As for casting, of course following in the footsteps of Jack Nicholson is near enough impossible. And sometimes its hard to believe that Steven Webber is actually going insane, but I admire him for attempting to go up against Jack Nicholson in playing Mr Torrance. Rebbecca de Mornay was a great choice for Wendy even though her acting style isn't exactly the same as Shelly Duvall, she plays the loving caring mother very well, and unlike Steven Webber we can always tell how scared she really is. I'm not going to say anything about the Courtland Mead except he was probably the most annoying child actor ever. Overall, its not as good as the Kubrick version but I say it comes pretty damn close.

shining 80 vs shining 97

[marlowe_is_dead · 6/10 · 23 December 2000]

quite frankly, i am disturbed. after having posted my own comments on this film, i then went back to read other comments. that is why i am disturbed. so many people saying how super this mini-series was, and at the same claiming it to be far superior to the Kubrick version!

let us draw comparisons between the two. first we have the directors. 1980 version - Kubrick - perhaps the most consistently brilliant (and therefore misunderstood) director and cinematic visionary of the last half of the 20th century. 1997 version - Mick Garris, director of a number of other King adaptations and a few episodes of watered-down horror TV series. of course, he also wrote The Fly II and Critters II -- these hardly stand up against The Killing and Full Metal Jacket. Now we know that King wrote the teleplay himself, but frankly his involvement with the film industry has been rather more bitter than sweet. We all remember that terrible bad-film classic he directed Maximum Overdrive, and the screenplays for his films such as The Langoliers (another classic bad-film which i love) and Sleepwalkers. But it is funny how all the best adaptations of King's work were NOT adapted by King himself -- Stand By Me, Salems Lot, Carrie, The Dead Zone et al -- taken on by other people. and in recent years i have noticed his literary standard drop - pure opinion, but i am sure there are people who agree. the only two King books i have enjoyed from the 90s are Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia. he has always had a chip on his shoulder from his college days when he wasn't taken serious, and it has manifested itself more and more as the years go by. and of course, why do almost all his lead characters have to be writers?? i know it is easiest to write what you know, but honestly after 25 years, it's getting a bit ridiculous. so when he wrote the teleplay twenty years after he wrote the book, his approach was different - always mistaking length for suspense. Kubrick of course contributed to the writing in more or less every film he directed, each one a masterpiece. he is completely OF film. he is the beethoven of film, making rhythmic, complex masterpieces, each one demanding multiple viewings. there are few of King's works which demand second reading. the irony is, The Shining was one of king's best, earliest, and re-readable works.

and of course, The Shining 1997 is 4 hours long. i read that this is so the story can breathe! the novel is one of King's short novels, and frankly, the story had stopped breathing far before the end -- it had expired. Kubrick's film relentlessly builds the tension over a short space of time -- brimming with iconographic images (blood slamming thru the elevator doors, danny's silent scream, the truly creepy twin girls, the photograph at the end, danny's cycling thru the corridors, the tracking shots thru the maze, the panoramic sweep at the beginning, the zoom into the typewriter --- FULL of memories). The Shining 1997? hmmm, let me see --- oh yeah! some geeky spectacled floating teen (reminiscent of a slightly bad teen TV series) called "tony"! don't make me laugh! and danny himself! a snot-nosed nasal cretin - i feel more compassion for a snail than him! and since this is a modern remake, mrs torrance had to have more "spunk" and more spirit. and weber? well ok, he's good at acting drunk, but i noticed him copying some of nicholson's mannerisms and facial expressions! A 2nd rate cast complete!

so when i read comments lauding The Shining 1997 and panning The Shining 1980, i truly find myself feeling disturbed. i know that society as a whole is being dumbed-down, but this? this is ridiculous! are we gonna see a lame remake of Taxi Driver The Miniseries hailed as a true masterpiece and the original deemed a "waste of space"??

when an unknown 2nd-rate horror director is hailed above stanley kubrick, that leaves a lot of room for disquieted meditation.

The Fall of a Masterpiece; The Death of a God

[FiendishDramaturgy · 1/10 · 27 August 2003]

.: Major Spoilers :.

The "Authorized" Version of The Shining :. Was a "Made-For-TV" movie done in 1997 to appease Stephen King's wounded ego over Stanley Kubrick's "unauthorized" movie version of his book, also entitled, "The Shining."

While faithful to the book, the remake was puerile and under-dramatized. It lacked... everything. Compared to Kubrick's adaptation, this remake had about as many "scare you" and "edge of the seat" moments as an episode of "Welcome Back Kotter." Don't get me wrong. I have been an ardent Stephen King fan most of my life. I was the 9-year old with the t-shirt that read, "Stephen King Rules." But that fact does not redeem this movie as the WORST piece of drivel ever made!!!

Other than to have an "official, authorized" version of his work, I cannot see any reason whatsoever for remaking this movie. It was a tremendous waste of time and resources, if you ask me.

Ah, the movie review. Where do I begin?

Let's start with the casting. Although Rebecca DeMornay was a believable Wendy, her portrayal was as anorexic as the bare bones skeltal remains of Queen Nefertiti. But in all fairness, that's in comparison to Shelly Duvall's brilliant performance in the Kubrick adaptation.

Steve Webber. Steve Webber vs. Jack Nicholson. Steve Webber?! I don't think I need to go here. I mean...have you seen "Wings?" He's NOT my idea of an even...competent screen presence in a movie like...well, in ANY movie. His acting ... "talents ... ?" are much better geared for the "small screen" where he can enjoy the juvenile humor and poor emotional control; be given short, easily remembered lines, with two weeks to film a 24-minute/4-segment sit-com episode.

Danny Lloyd (now a mid-western school teacher without the slightest of aspirations towards an acting career *what a loss to the movie industry!*) was so very good in the role of Danny Torrence that I don't know who they could have hired to take his place and stand in his little shoes.

However, Courtland Mead (- "Young and the Restless, The" (1973) TV Series .... Phillip Chancellor IV (1993-1995) -) CERTAINLY wasn't it. This child is a capable actor who probably followed the direction he was given, but his performance was sadly lacking. His character was hollow and as whiny as was Ms. DeMornay's but on a much more annoying scale. We'll blame that on the director.

Who was the director? Mick Garris. The same Mick Garris who also directed Stephen King's The Stand, Sleepwalkers, Tales From the Crypt and Amazing Stories, among others. So now that we know he CAN do good work, we have to stop and ask, "What happened here?"

Sorry Stephen King fans everywhere, but that leads us to Mr. King's teleplay. It was faithful to his original work and sanctioned by Mr. King, himself; therefore was dubbed the "Authorized" version. There now. I do hope you feel better, Mr. King. I, as a fan, do not.

We had the book. We read the book. We knew the book, and loved Kubrick's adaptation anyway.

The Setting and the Scenes: A Comparison of the Authorized

Version Against The Kubrick Adaptation...

Kubrick's version: the motel was an impressive piece of architecture and staging. It lent to the atmosphere, by having atmosphere itself. The furnishings and furniture was all period, and while the Torrences were becoming acquainted on that first day, they were told the motel was on an ancient Indian burial ground.

The Authorized Version: the motel was a modernized prefabricated-looking piece of crap. The front lawn was small-ish and not very scenic. Also, there is no mention of a burial ground.

There is mention -at great length- of a form of croquet which was developed by the man who built the hotel. Who CARES? It had NOTHING to do with the story and nothing whatSOever to do with the plot. It was best left out, as in the Kubrick Adaptation.

K: The maze was a magnificent touch, reminiscent of the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur of Crete was Guardian. When Jack Nicholson stands at the scaled model of the maze and stares into the center, seeing Wendy and Danny entering, it's a magickal moment; one that tells you right away, there are heavy energies i that house; there's something seriously wrong, already starting.

A: Instead of the magickal maze, we got topiary beasties who wouldn't (couldn't?) move if you were looking at them. This was NOT scary, either. The only feeling of "wrongness" achieved from these scenes, was in the writing of them.

K: The several pan scans of the hotel itself, with the mountains looming behind, the cold air swirling about, mist coming up from the warm roof of the hotel, all adds so MUCH to the atmosphere of the movie.

A: We got very little feel for the actual hotel itself from Garris's version. It appears as though he tried to not show the full hotel. Did they even HAVE an actual building? or just a series of set-built rooms? It felt as though the whole episodic monstrosity was filmed in a row of badly positioned office cubicles.

K: The ghosts of the two butchered daughters of Delbert Grady were icons with which Danny could identify, and at the same time, be afraid of. They were hauntingly beautiful, and showed Danny how they were killed, in a rather graphic and material way.

A: There were no little girls.

K: The visions Danny had concerning the house gave you a feeling for what he was feeling and the things that had happened previously there.

A: Danny's visions weren't enough to scare us. They didn't give us the history of the place. They didn't give us ... anything.

K: Tony was an attendant spirit, like a spirit guide which he acquired as a result of his arm nearly being wrenched off his body by his own father. He was..."the little boy who lives in my mouth."

He would manifest in the end of Danny's finger and physically spoke through Danny in order to speak TO Danny.

A: Tony, Tony, Tony. Wow. To go from being an attendant spirit that Danny could not see, to a rather sloppy form of CGI, imposed over the landscape; from "little boy" to teenaged-almost-man-boy...what a metamorphosis! A disappointing one. While loyal to the book, in that King's Tony was the projection of an older Danny, sent back in a vain attempt to save his father, the idea of Danny going back in time to his younger self wasn't...scary. Instead, it seemed a bulimic attempt to bestow the tale with a haunting new-agey quality. It didn't work.

K: The "Woman in the Shower" scene. It was dramatic, and frightening. Disgusting and scary. This is the pivotal moment when Jack...cracks. When Nicholson looks into the mirror and sees her decomposing flesh beneath his hands; the look of sheer terror on his face was so complete and REAL!

A: The "Woman in the Shower" scene...didn't exist. That, too, was Kubrick's genius at work.

K: When Wendy find's Jack's "screenplay" is nothing more than page after page of the same line typed over and over...when he asks from the shadows, "How do you like it?" and Wendy whirls and screams, the baseball bat in her hands...is so poignant. It's the point where she realizes how messed up the whole situation is...how messed up Jack is. It's very scary, dramatic and delivers a strong presence. That coupled with Danny's visions of the hotel lobby filling with blood, imposed over the scene between Jack and Wendy make that the strongest and most telling scene in Kubrick's version.

A: Webber's Jack Torrence talked about a screenplay, but never wrote a word.

K: The "REDRUM" scene. Wow. What do I say? What mother would not be totally freaked to awaken finding their young, troubled son standing over them with a huge knife, talking in that freaky little voice, saying REDRUM over and over? It was something everyone could and has remembered.

A: The REDRUM scene. What REDRUM scene? There wasn't one. There wasn't even a sorry REPLACEMENT scene for it, and if there was, it was SO sorry that I missed it. Wait! Could it POSSIBLY Have been that lame scene where Danny was attacked by the "dead" wasps? Not possible. No WAY! Talk about creative impairment!

K: Speaking of memorable scenes... Nicholson's final assault on his family with an axe was perhaps one of the scariest scenes of movie history. His ad-libbed line, "Heeeeere's Johnny!" was a stroke of brilliance and is one of the most memorable scenes in the history of horror.

A: Webber's final assault was confused, weak and NOT SCARY!

The weapon Webber uses (a CROQUET MALLET?!?) was NOT scary! I wasn't scared. *l* It IS however a memorable scene. I'll always remember it as the lamest climaxial scene in horror history.

K: The ending.. The ending..? Kubrick's ending was perfection. I felt it ended beautifully. No smarm, no platitudinous whining, no tearfully idiotic ending for THIS movie. Just epitomized perfection.

That's all I'll say on the subject of the ending.

A: The ending was just as lame as the rest of the movie. It doesn't even deserve being commented upon, further, so I won't.

I have two questions, Mr. King. Did you completely fail to notice that the TV version was NOT scary? Do you fail to realize it is the most puerile piece of garbage I've seen on film! "Howard the Duck" was "Casablanca" compared to this movie!

The Kubrick version, while unauthorized, was and IS about the scariest thing ever put on film, in the name of King and yet, because it wasn't YOUR version, you bastardized one of he greatest masterpieces of horror on film to date!! Was it worth disappointing your millions of fans just to uplift your own ego?

Frankly, had I the money to invest, I would back a multi-million-dollar budgeted Dean Koontz film. Perhaps "Dark Rivers of the Heart," "Night Chills," or "Darkfall." But NOT a toned-down weak-ass version of one of the greatest movies ever made. Remakes are supposed to BETTER the attempt, not lessen it.

This movie rates a -0- from the Fiend because it is the most grotesque, atrocious, despicable piece of garbage EVER MADE!! :.