Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

adonis98-743-186503 A recovering alcoholic professor ends up taking a job as a winter caretaker for a remote Colorado hotel which he seeks as an opportunity to finish a piece of work. With his wife and son with him, the caretaker settles in, only to see visions of the hotel's long deceased employees and guests. With evil intentions, they manipulate him into his dark side which takes a toll on him and his family. There's nothing worse than remaking a high piece of horror art such as The Shining and basically casting a bunch of low life actor trying to catch Nicholson's perfomance.

BlackEden I've been putting off this series for years... and I wish I still did. It may be close to the book in terms of the full story, but the live-action rendition is god awful. The acting is SO bad that I couldn't even get through it all. I actually laughed at some of the scenes where Jack was supposed to be angry, and Danny was supposed to be crying, because both were completely unconvincing. Don't even get me started on the actress who played Wendy...Please, Mr. King, stick to what you do best: writing. Leave the movie-making to those who are trained to do so.

disdressed12 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

JustineAssad First off: a lot of reviewers here (especially those fans of Kubrick), have said that you shouldn't compare a book to its film adaptation as this is, after all, a site dedicated to moving pictures; while I can see a very vague point to the argument, you do expect some sort of faithfulness when a book is adapted for screen. I think even more so when you have a liking for a certain book, there will always be the hopeful expectation that a film adaptation will remain true because you want to see the story come to life, visually. That's sort of the point, really...But I'm not going to go much deeper into that, as it wasn't the greatest of concerns of mine. Probably my greatest issue was the lack of character development in Kubrick's version; you didn't really know where they came from or what sort of history they shared; none of the characters seemed to have any sort of bond with one another (which is a great deviation from the novel), and any closeness between mother father wife and husband were almost non-existent and at times – even from the get-go – bordered on pure antipathy. Here, with this adaptation, we could see that there was love, perhaps approaching its last throes for Wendy and Jack, but we could see and believe that at some point in time there was a bond that breathed between them, and this makes the break-down of the family ever more poignant. We cared. With the 1980 version we didn't really care. At least I didn't. And that's tragic, when you don't really care about the characters.Stylistically, it would be hard to compare the two films; there was certainly a great genius in Kubrick's cinematography, and I doubt that this film will ever be considered innovative. Having said that, it was nicely-shot and it certainly achieved an invasive creepiness, resulting in a truly frightening atmosphere and I think that this is one of the film's greatest assets. The desolate fear almost gets under your skin and squeezes you from the inside, making you very aware of your ever-escalating heart beat. Also, I much preferred the setting, the filmmakers having used the actual hotel which served as muse to Stephen King when he wrote the novel; and just for the sake of pointing it out: funny how some have commented here that they didn't care much for the hotel (again: mostly Kubrick fans), and have criticised it... do you guys even know that that was the ACTUAL hotel? Get yer facts straight when you want to pontificate... But I digress... Casting: pretty decent all round, though: I am a Jack Nicholson fan, hands down, and I honestly think he is one of the greatest actors in modern film; on the flip-side: I've never much appreciated Steven Weber, though I think his portrayal here of Torrance is probably closer to the mark than Nicholson's psycho playwright. Shelley Duvall vs. Rebecca de Mornay... well, Duvall's Wendy was so poorly developed there wasn't much to go on, which is a shame; again, the character here had a backstory and you could identify and understand her motivations and feelings. The two little Dannys: both I think were equally well-acted and did a fine little job with their roles.So between the two movies? While I definitely enjoyed the visuals of Kubrick, and the incredibly dramatic and foreboding score, the mini-series takes it for me simply because I felt the story was better developed, as were the characters; it also has a slow build-up of dread, a cold chill that quietly slides its way up your body and holds you close, reluctant to let go. And that's what a horror is all about.