Too many fans seem to be blown away

Strong and Moving!

Crappy film

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

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

What in the world was Stephen King thinking when he made this 5 hour travesty? Or better yet, what wasn't he thinking? He threw everything and the kitchen sink in this, yet sadly nothing stuck. I know he openly detested Stanley Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece, a stunning classic of cerebral horror on a grand scale that has yet to ever be equaled. But, was that a reason to defile your own work, Stephen, and try to re- adapt it - and for television at that? The answer is a resounding no!From the start, King and director Mick Garris do everything wrong, from the opening shot of Jack Torrance in the boiler room with Watson, to the horrendous outdoor scene of people still at the hotel playing croquet. So much for creating any sense of isolation. Yes, you can forget any kind of feeling of anyone being isolated, killing any further buildup of feelings of claustrophobia and doom.Oh, and also let me mention how pretty much from the get-go, King butchers his own novel. Yes, he made changes that would even stump Stanley Kubrick, who performed plastic surgery on the novel in his awesome adaptation; and rightly so. Number one, it is mentioned that Grady was at the Overlook alone when he killed himself. That's right. By himself. No wife. No twin girls. No family at all. Just him. Not the way I remember it from the book. And I've read the book so many times over the years, I've lost count. And King wanted to badmouth Kubrick for the changes he made when adapting the novel. OK, makes sense...NOT.Then, if all that isn't bad enough, director Garrison keeps throwing in these senseless flashbacks that do nothing but dumb the story down to the umpteenth degree. You know, like they do on the "CSI" shows, you know, because they feel people are too stupid to follow what's been said, so they have to show you as well as tell you. And it robs the movie of any kind of suspense right off the bat.And, again, as if other things that dumbed down this version wasn't enough, they feel the need to remind you that Jack Torrance is/was an alcoholic, and he had a "problem", and he hurt Danny, and he lost his teaching job because of his drinking problem every chance they get. Which is like every five minutes. Telling the audience one time isn't enough. Oh no. They obviously felt the audience was too dumb to get that, so they felt the need to throw it in as many times as possible so you would, you know, get it. Dreadful.And, I will slightly mention since I'm talking about certain characters/cast members, another heavy criticism I've heard over the years against the Kubrick film I've never understood was against the great Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrance, a role I feel she was simply brilliant in. Well, over the years, I've read negative reviews talk about how she was so wrong for the role, how she was too whiny and too weak, blah blah blah. Well, here's the deal. Sure, Rebecca DeMornay is more like the novel Wendy, however, visually on film, I just don't buy that a woman that strong would be with a man like Jack. Nope. Never. Not in a million years. She would beat the h*ll out of him, set him on fire, cuss him until he cried, and make him her little b**ch. True story.Thus, making her all wrong for the role film-wise. But she's the best actor in the whole thing. Yeah, I said it, and I meant it. And, as for Wendy, I really don't get where people get that Shelley Duvall's Wendy was a weak woman. Sure, she was meek, and a little timid around Jack, but pay attention next time you see it, and notice that any time when it comes to Danny, and Wendy thinks Jack may have (or possibly will) hurt him, she turns into a ferocious protective mother, standing her ground, not afraid of Jack in the least.I really liked Courtland Mead's small part in the movie Go, but he is completely wasted here. I blame it on bad direction. And that goes for the performance of everyone else in this. Awful. Atrocious. And I blame it on bad direction from Garris. Watch anyone of them in something else. Heck, watch something else than this altogether, and you will be better off.Anyways, even though King made some other questionable changes from his novel in this, I will give it two stars for at least being somewhat as close as it can be. I still prefer the Kubrick version. Always have. Always will. Especially after seeing this stinker.

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.

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.