चमकता हुआ

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 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 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.

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!