O Iluminado

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.

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.

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

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.

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