The Shining

I liked the fact that the film was more faithful to the book - one of my all-time favorite books, incidentally.

However, that's about the only thing that was better. This version was long, boring and the acting was absolutely horrid. I've never seen a movie where EVERYONE overacted. Elliot Gould as Stuart Ullman was terrifying- Gould tried way too hard, and his performance was wooden.

In fact, it seemed as if all the actors were reading from cue cards the entire time. If someone without any cinematic skills like me can notice this, couldn't the people involved with the film have noticed too? There's no way they wanted people to act like this.

OH well. I didn't think anything could make me think the original Shining was a great movie once I read the book, but I have to say, I'll take the "unfaithful" version anytime.

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.

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.

This television series was so dreadful, so dull and cheesy, how could any intelligent person possibly endorse it? Sure it was a much more faithful adaptation of King, but, for Christ's sake, it was shot like an after-school special, suffered the WORST miscasting, had some of the most godawful CGI effects (the moving shrubs made our entire roomful of viewers crack up), and lacked any mild attempts at atmosphere or terror. How could anyone EVER be scared by Steven Weber? It's like watching Barney descend into madness. What Kubrick lacked in direct interpretation he so greatly compensated for with a beautiful, disturbing and personal film. Remember people...BASED on the book by Stephen King. There was a reason many things never made it into the original film...they would look absolutely stupid (ie the shrubs) in direct translation and would most certainly detract from the film. Earlier quote - "Kubrick was a bit of a bad director(have i made any one cry just then)" No, you just made me laugh at you!

The 1997 version of The Shining is an excellent adaptation for fans of the book. For everyone else, it is entertaining but overshadowed by the uber-famous 1980 film (though to be honest, it's like comparing apples with Cadillacs). This film is best watched either three days in a row or all at once. Weber delivers a great performance as the haunted and tragic Jack Torrence and DeMornay surpasses Shelly Duvall in the role of Jack's patient but cautious wife, Wendy. Melvin Van Peebles is okay in the role of Hallorann but I found myself missing Scatman Crothers. Courtland Meade as Danny takes some getting used to, and I'll leave it at that. And even though it appeared on network television during sweeps, it contains a surprising amount of violence (especially during Jack's confrontation with Wendy in part three) and gore (especially in part two). Definatly worth a watch.