The filmmaking obviously isn't anywhere near Kubrick's level, but I prefer this version's handling of Jack Torrence - here he gets an actual character arc instead of being a crazy-from-the-get-go psychopath. Worth a watch if you're interested in something closer to King's original vision.

Watch this if you doubt why everyone is raving about how great a filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was. This adaptation of 'The Shining' isn't much more than a visualization of the book, which is disruptive to the pacing, tension building and overall impact of the item. It's a typical - if harmless - example of failed remediation.

What ultimately dooms it isn't the actors, or even the effects. King and Garris are so busy Corrrrecting Kubrick that they never manage to tell a story of their own. Say what you want about Kubrick's decisions, at least he made them; Garris just nods and obediently keeps the camera running. Despite occasional scenes of decent family drama, it's slow, unscary, bland. A movie that knows it owes its entire existence to the movie it wants to replace, but just makes the other one look even better.

A must see for any King fan and a definite for horror fans.

I don't usually want the bad guy to succeed, but man, Danny was fucking annoying.

Close adaptation of the book, and that's its biggest problem.

No no no NO NO. And I'm not saying this because of my love for Kubrick's version. I understand that this version was meant to be true to the book. With that being said, some things are better left alone. I know this is what Stephen King wanted but really, look at his film track record. Just because he wanted the film to be like this it truly doesn't mean the film SHOULD be like this. Blah.

In 1997 I was 11 years old, had read the novel and the film was (and is) a favorite of mine (no personal judgments, please). And while this may be more faithful, I knew it had no sense of suspense or terror at all. A perfect example: the moving bushes. Sure, scary. You want to know what's NOT scary?: SEEING the CGI BUSHES MOVE. Every scene fails at arriving at the horror that is intended.

Even as a child I recognized the obvious superiority of the Kubrick version.

Closer adaptation to the book, although I couldn't help but hum the Wings theme.

Has a notable performance from Steven Webber

Although this film has money poured into it, it's boringly too long and full of blood. Jack Nicholson tries hard to seem transformed by madness, but he so overacts. It just adds wasted time to the endless story. The little boy is the only refreshing persona in the film. Shelley Duvall looks and acts like Olive Oil. The whole film is unbelievable.

Not unwatchable but bloated, with third part somehow the worst. Weber wasnt convincing with DeMornay much better. Child was very good.

It's not just the obvious lack of personality that makes this totally bland. It's also because it follows the book so closely -- it isn't even one of King's best, at least for me. I kinda like Weber's overacting -- cast is good, specially Van Peebles -- but fact is this goes nowhere really interesting besides what is in the book -- with the exception of the epilogue, set ten years later the unfortunate events at the Overlook. That's why Kubrick's version is so amazing and timeless.

While it doesn't hold a candle to the Kubrick film, this one did well on its own. It's not scary but as a supernatural character study, it was pretty good.

Definitely an underrated mini-series for sure. Just because the movie is so iconic, people don't care to watch this, but it was a mini-series scripted by Stephen King himself, and it answers so many questions you didn't even know you had about the movie. Jack Torrence, specifically, is so much more relateable in this series, which made me actually care for him and believe the transition. Nicholson was crazy before he even set foot in the Overlook. If you haven't seen this series, definitely do.

I think this movie's main issue is that it just isn't scary. Despite Kubrick's being a classic, this Shining is way more in line with the book, which is just as good as the film. However, there is nothing about this version of the story that is inherently scary and some of it just comes off as a little silly. Acting is ok, but nothing great. All in all, just alright.

A decent TV mini-series adaptation of the Stephen King novel, unfortunately undermined by poor pacing and occasionally hokey scares. The actors do a fine job in what is essentially a character study, and there's some genuinely unsettling and horrific stuff--if only it didn't drag on so much! Special mention goes to the lady in 217!

way better than the kubrick bullshit

Both adaptations, this one and kubrick's, have their pros and cons, and it's hard to decide which one is better. And if you believed this even for a second, you're a complete idiot. did you know that king actually prefers this version? hahaha, such a funny man!

I like the guy who played Jack Torrance, and it was nice to see a film that was a closer adaptation to the book. The kid that plays Danny is annoying though.

This is to Kubrick's film what Overdrawn at the Memory Bank is to Casablanca.

Swing and a miss.

Passable

No, no, no, no. Having the book laid out in front of me might be one thing, but you better make sure that it's going to contain the energy, depth of character and effort towards scene settings as the text. And in many cases - such as this one - that simply doesn't work out. I believe that interpretations of certain elements of written work, within varying levels of accuracy (they don't have to be as far out there as Kubrick) create much more satisfying films.

This mini series is more faithful to King's book than the Stanley Kubrick film - but it never matches the sheer brilliance of the earlier film and looks all the weaker because of it.

Close adaption to an excellent novel. Unfortunately it feels utterly lacking of any sort of emotion.

A completely unnecessary movie.

It is closer to the book than the Kubrick version, but not as good or scary; and not as good or scary as the book and the images it evokes in my own mind. Also, since it is a mini series, the run time is slightly over 4 and a half hours. Still, it is worth a look, though I think it will appeal more strongly to the bigger King fans.

I liked this a lot more than the original. I guess because Tony was seen as an actual figment of Danny's imagination, instead of his finger.

I love this version better than the Jack Nicholson version. I think this is more what Stephen King had in mind.

Som udgangspunkt er Kings novelle altid god - selv som tvserie går det, men den når ikke originalen til haserne..

Oh dear. I hate Steven King. I really do. I keep reading him, but I still hate him personally. And this film sums up why.