You guys are retarded. This is way better than Stanley Kubrick's. All that movie is, is 2 hours of Jack staring off in the distance. screw the ghosts..this story is about jack's fall from being a loving father to a crazed psychopath. Now THAT'S horror.
you really have to be something of a king fan to even think that this version is better... Screw the respect of the novel ! most of what made shining so horryfing were created by kubrik and a to a smaller extent by nicholson.... Besides King is a writer while Kubrik used to be a photograph his visual sense is not in the same league...
Even though this version is closer to the book i think the 1980 version is a masterpiece because it took the story to a whole new level that went way beyond the book.
i think Steven king's book was amazing but putting that into a movie just wouldnt fit, Kubrick made it into a more realistic horror story, i had read the book first and watched the Kubrick version and yea at first i was dissapionted at how diffrent it was but at the end of the movie it realized how much of a great movie it realy was
the thing that pisses me off about stephen king is that in all of his movies his characters are always your middle town folksy americans, and he always has the cowboy theme in at least one of the characters. Im sorry America but the cowboy is no longer cool or intimidating, get with the 21st century
@LXQUICKJUSTICE I did like the bathroom scene though. I wish I knew what the story was behind that. Out of all the other dead people in the Overlook why did the woman in room 237 come to mind first?
the book said the ghost was unusually strong in that room and even the maids could see it sometime, and they didn't even shine. So I dunno, but bad shit my nigga. bad shizzit
@LXQUICKJUSTICE man thanks a lot for that. I didnt read the book. I thought both Kubrick's and King's version of the bathroom scene were good. I wonder how she died. Im guessing she drowned in the tub but she must have been evil to begin with. Only books I ever read where I saw the movie first were Exorcist and Pet Sematary
King's Shining miniseries looks God awful. I don't care how faithful it is to the book. What that says is that King can't write a scary story, nor direct one. Lord, the acting here looks terrible. The characters unbelievable, the setting does nothing, the cinematography sucks...Kubrick's film is vastly superior. Kubrick just took the basic outline of King's awful book and re-wrote the plot. And I'm glad he did that.
Stephan king DID hate the movie because it wasn't close to the book. The movie DID get more praise than the movie. Stephan king planed for this mini series because he didn't like it. NOW Stephan king thinks the kubrics version is OK. He said it was chilling.
My opinion kubrics version is better, the mini series I like because of how close it is to the book. But I rarely watch miniseries. I don't watch tv movies. So this was the first.
@cantona118 I have to completely disagree with you, Jack Torrence is such a complex character to play and Nicholson's performance was very one-dimensional. He's not just a guy who snaps, he's a father with problems who in the end sacrifices everything for his family. Nicholson had the madness but none of the tenderness that the character requires. Webber pulled off the perfect Jack Torrence, and it's sad that just because he's not as famous that he's not remembered for it.
According to King, apparently not. Stephen King actually had an input into this version. He said he didn't like the movie, he said that Jack Nicholson was the wrong person to play Jack Torrence. he felt that in the novel, it was pivotal that Jack is initially a good man who is slowly overcome by the forces of evil and who is fighting a losing battle against alcoholism. King was of the opinion that due to the casting of Nicholson, who was well known for playing unstable characters
@cantona118 Nicholson may be good at playing (mentally) instable characters, but in miniseries the change in behavior of Jack Torrence is shown much better way than in the original one. And I think the miniseries are scarier, more like a true psychothriller. Anyway, both of them are masterpieces on their own and both of them are worth/a must to watch :)
Wow this looks closer to the book than the 1980 version! The 1980 version wasn't close to the book except like names and the dad going crazy and little things but I hope I can see this movie soon 030
The novel AND the film were both masterpieces. They are masterpieces in their own way. Unfortunately the movie is more well known (and appraised more by the general public than the novel) simply because more of today's population watches movies than those who read novels. I did find it peculiar how the movie had a few added details, when usually movies have to remove things due to a lack of time to include everything.
Well, my oppinion is that Kubrik's movie should be observed as a masterpiece on its own and not compared to the novel. I like the movie better (ofcource), but I must say that the miniseries better show the feeling of the novel. Sincerely yours, a Kubrimaniac.
Stephen King hated Jack Nicholson and felt that the 1980's film adaptation deviated too far from the book. Personally, I loved the movie, but the miniseries follows the pace of the book, explaining all the 'loose ends' and provides a depeper insight into the movie.
@mellie9881 Maybe if the mini series wasn't so hokey it could have been good, the cheesy dialog was laughable. I was laughing the whole way through. What was with the crochet mallet, How is it more threatening compared to an axe LOL!
I have to say this miniseries was so much truer to the actual book. And Stephen Weber did a great job as Jack Torrence, especially when portraying Jack as "Jack/Hotel Jack."
This mini series definitely looks more loyal to the book- I haven't seen it but from this, looks like they payed a bit more attention to wendy's character. Instead of the simpering, weak woman of the film, she looks more like she can stand on her own to feet here, which is one of the main things that annoyed me about the film version, she was never actually meant to annoy us, only jack. On the other hand, it may come across as more cheesy due to its focus on the paranormal side.
Honestly, the book is better. But considering The shining as a horror movie in general. It's a masterpiece. As a adaption. Not so much. But the shining was such a incredible film. Every scene was disturbing. Even the ones that weren't meant to be. The music played in it made it feel like the movie swallowed you whole. It's just a awesome movie. Awesome book. Awesome miniseries. And all together, awesome "Franchise".
I personally think both the movie and miniseries take on the book from different angles, In the movie, you get a better sense of Jack's madness, but you're never really sure WHY he's becoming psychotic. In the miniseries, as well as the book, you get a better understanding of Danny's significance to the Overlook Hotel. I still prefer the movie, but the newer version has a very solid cast. Melvin Van Peebles does an excellent job as Richard Hallorann. My opinion.
The miniseries is way better than the film. I think King wants everyone to see his own vision. The characters are more established which makes the miniseries good. The setting in the Stanley Hotel is more what I pictured when I read the novel. Stephen King is trying to teach the directors a lesson: before you make a film, actually read the novel carefully and ask me if you have any problems. I can see why he made this miniseries.
I've never seen this tv/mini series, but to be honest, it looks awful...
I've read the book, and saw Kubrick's film, and thought they were both amazing, in different ways, because they were so different. This may be more true to the book, but I don't think I'd ever bother watching it.
Hey everybody - I just released my solo album "Mirror Image" that contains ambient songs (and upbeat songs) heavily inspired by Stephen King's novel and movies The Shining, as well as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. If you're interested you can check out the songs on my youtube page, and links to my myspace page and places to download the full album are on my youtube channel as well :) .
The 1980 film was a butchered adaptation at best. I watched both the 1980 and the 1997 adaptations, and this one is a LOT better. The 1980 film was ok (definitely more violent), but the 1997 adaptation is done in a way where you feel like you have known the characters for a long time. It's much more detailed, and, of course, features the Stanley Hotel! How can you beat that? 8D
This is, and will always be my favorite adaptation. Anyone who prefers the 1980 film can have it!
@SouthwesternEagle I'm with you. After seeing the miniseries I could see why SK wanted to do the project where he had more control. If for no OTHER reason, Jack's redemption at the end... a little more uplifting than being frozen. Completely changes the tone.
The mimiseries had a brighter tone than the movie. The movie overused horror, and had poor character development (I mean, you couldn't get attached to the family like you can in the miniseries). Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" was the only awesome part of the movie.
you people just dont have a clue. Both were very good in thier own way. The TV version follows the book more closely than Kubricks horror movie that resembles a Stephen King story. Nicholson was, is, and will always be amazing in his movies. Noone can recreate his "Heres Johnny!!!!!!!" but Steven Weber does an excellant job in the role as well. and as far as the mallet as opposed to the axe......... read the book, that is what he used. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
I'm sorry Stephen King - but please stop fucking up old time classics. How in the shit are you meant to beat the original protagonist Jack Nicholson with this guy? I realize King wrote the book but come on, re-creating The Shining is absolutely ludicrous - it cannot be re-done.
@KidsWithGuns1992 ??????? stephen king "stop fucking up old time classics" are u stupid? im pretty sure that this story came from his mind and he can do whatever the hell he wants to with it. no stephen king = no classic . dumbass
@db212006 Well no shit that's why I mentioned it - but you don't re-make a movie that was done perfectly and by Stanley Kubrick. I mean bloody hell why bother if this is what he's going to produce? And the original shining is a classic because that one ACTUALLY DID WELL. He should stick writing books.
I've seen both of them. The miniseries is okay, but the movie with Jack Nicholson is a masterpiece. Personally, I think King rambles on and on in his books and movies, this miniseries included. But I'm reading the book the Shining, and it's really good.
Love the book! Love the original movie! Love the miniseries! There are enough differences in the three to judge them on their own rather than comparing to one another. They are all based on the same hotel, same characters (with different personalities), and same storyline, but each is strong enough to stand on its own. To me, it is similar to comparing Harry Potter, Merlin, and The Lord of the Ring.
This miniseries is seriously underrated. It is really good and Jack Torrance is amazing. And personally, I prefer a croquet mallet over an axe, it's more unusual and more scary.
i want to see a stephen kings IT which is true to the book and with todays special effects that could be a really good film if someone thought of making it, thats by far kings best novel that i have read...film would probably be illegal tho that book is fuckin twisted lol!!!
The Shining was a great book for it's time, but one of my least favorite King novels (I think his post-sobriety work has far better character development). Making an adaptation that's true to the book is usually a bad idea, because film and literature are such different genres that in most cases, a story that looks great on paper looks terrible on the screen. What I'm trying to say is, Kubrick's film blows this peice of shit out of the fucking water, and in alot of ways is better than the novel.
I think maybe Kubrick changed some things was because he has Jack Nicholson. And the Jack in this movie just wouldn't be a Jack that Nicholson would probably play. Sure, he changed alot in the movie but The Shining (80) was a good movie. The whole atmosphere is different. I think if Kubrick did it like this, then Jack Nicholson wouldn't have been the bast person to play Jack Torrence.
Kubrick's "The Shining" is a creepy and incredible film but a horrendous adaptation. But this version is a great adaptation, but very little made me 'frightened.' Kubrick's use of imagery was just amazing in his version, although it was nothing like the book.
The book is better than both, read it, it's phenomenal.
I just read the book and watched the movie in under 48 hours. I feel that the movie (I have seen it before I read the book also) has left out very important details on Jack, and just make him seem like he went insane, when he really didn't. The hotel took him over. It didn't seem like that in the movie. Not to mention the hedge maze? What happened to the lions and the dog in the playground, hey, what happened to the playground! I like the book better than the movie, and this looks more accurate.
Are you sure the movie was this one ? If you have watched the Kubrick's one, the story is like you say. But the Stephen King's The Shining (in this video) Ist exactly the same as the book.
The miniseries is no good unless you really liked the book. While being more faithful to the original book it is completely different (and in most people's views "inferior") to the original.
i personally like kubrick version his directing is unique. King great writer, subpar directer and the reason for the success of the movie was the way it was handled by kubrick. Sure he didn't go into detail by detail like in the book but he made a movie worth watching. If King had nicholson he still would have made a bad shinning movie, it'll be like the book but will still be a bad movie
of course the best verion is the original book of stephen king ^^ butt for my self i prefer the 80's movie with jack nicholson who is a better jack torrance whith his axe ^^ don't you think?
The series follows the book incredibly well, but is not a cinema masterpiece.
The 1980 movie is incredibly good, but doesn't follow the book so well.
Now imagine a new movie, by a great director (like Kubrick), with a great actor (like Nicholson), being a lot closer to the book, with the right interpretation of Stephen King's horror feeling.
This version is very close to the book. Both I loved the 80's version. Although there were TONS of things the movie missed that was in the book, for example, the black guy does not die in the book, and he is seen to have a bigger role in the book, than him betting butchered by Jack.
For your info. King did both, he said that he liked the version with kubrick, but he wasn't totaly satisfied, thats when the mini series was released, if you read the book, the miniserie is more like it. But i agree, you can´t compare nicholson acting, or the blood coming out of the elevator. But i didn´t like the frozen endind, and lets be honest, we all love rebeca demornay beeing sluty, better than the other actress. (don't know her name). I like the miniseries
What was King's involvement in the 1980 version? It was based on his novel, but I don't think he had any involvement - he didn't write the screenplay.
I think Stephen King's version is better. but thats my opinion. But the movie was also good in it's own way. There were some things that i was disapointed to see changed in the film, but it's still frightening, just in a different way.
I love Kubrick's The Shining. It was so great in every way. And I do understand why King would get mad... but Kubrick made it his own, and he did it with perfection. It was good, and it worked. Plus, Kubrick knew that he wouldn't be able to make good looking effects (Hedge Animals, Telekenisis Stuff), so he had to work around that too. This is why this version is bad. The effects were cheap and actually funny and the acting... well let's just say its "ok."
I agree. I can totally sympathize with King's position, but from the standpoint of a voracious reader and film addict, when I compare King's book to Kubrick's film, the movie wins out. (I have not actually seen the miniseries, so I won't make a judgement here.)
I feel that the film had more style, was scarier, and had a greater atmosphere.
Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King, but I feel he often drops hammers instead of hints.
Im a big fan of kubric's version, but now im reading the book, and i really really like the details. You read 60 pages before get to the Overlook Hotel (when they move of course)
bits of the mini series were creepy but the acting is so awful they cancel them bits out! yes i know it stays more faithful to the book but that doesn't mean it makes a good film, kubrick took what bits he thought would make a great film and did it very well, king was a bit bitter about that and thats how this came about, dany in this is proper annoying!
agree. all the people that like this version do so mainly on the grounds that its more like the book. but its not a book. its a film. the acting is one thing..then theres the script, ouch...it was like watching a hollywood soap or something
I think this is the best version because it disturbs on a more psychological level, rather than the other one that things just jump out at you. I also LOVE the 217 scene in this version!!!
Sure this adaptation was more faithful to the book, but I for one found the execution to be rather poor. Just from this trailer alone, it looks really cheesy and not scary at all (And having actually seen the miniseries, I still stand by this). Then again, that's usually the case for horror movies/shows made to be shown on prime-time TV. Now if this miniseries was made for HBO, it might be another story...
Dude! The Shining was the first Stephen King novel I read and I loved it. I have since become a huge fan of his novels. I was very disappointed with Kubrick's version which was so unfaithful and the characters so unlikable. This version really looks good. I haven't seen it yet, but now I know that I must.
I know I'm probably one out of a hundred-billion here, but in my humble opinion, the miniseries version TROUNCES the Kubrick version in every area except cinematography. The characters are better developed, the acting is better, and even the portrayal of Jack Torrance is more believable.
You're not alone. There are a LOT of people who agree with us. I don't see how people can say the acting is bad! It's extremely believable. The three principles especially are excellent & work well together! Steven Weber's Jack is equally tormented, loving & beloved. His descent is scary because this was once a sane, decent guy.
For a made-4-TV movie it crossed a lot of censors. Just think if they had made it for HBO? Holy crap. The book is a masterpiece, Kubrick's film is just a horrorfest.
The film can't possibly have space for everything that was in the book. thats the difference between a film and a book, so good on kubrick for doing his own thing with it. dont see the point in doing it if u just copy the book. Staggering book but kings film remake looks like a run of the mill horror film and to me the actors are too good looking to give it realism. plus you dont have a cats chance of topping nicholsons lead.
Haven't seen this version yet but I thought Kubrick's version sucked hard. The acting by Shelly Duvall and the boy are awful. Jack Nicholson did an amazing job though. apart from the acting the movie was still very bad. Stanley Kubrick changed things he didn't need to change. It was just a boring, and bad movie. I read the book and it's one of my favorite books. I someone says Kubrick's version is better, then they obliviously haven't read the book.
I loved stanleys one so much that i decided to read the book which is amazing :) but stanleys isnt reali that much like the book :( so i wanna see this one but it prob wont be as good...
This version didn't scare me at all, Kubrick's version did, sure it's unfaithful but it wasn't that great a novel to begin with, but maybe I just don't think horror films of any worth should have somewhat uplifting endings, I can't think of a horror film which I consider classic having a happy ending
I love this movie i recorded it when it first appered on t.v. i took it to my school and my friend watch it on the libary's t.v. which was hooked to all the others so everyone in school was watching it I can't wait to get it on dvd
I haven't seen this version of The Shining yet. I liked the Kubrick version but it wasn't very faithful to the novel. This is probably more faithful since it is made by Steven King himself.
but the actor who plays jack in this version just struck a cord with me. i began to get scared every time i would see him towards the end of the miniseries.
idk why...
its never really happened to me before.
just like the way he smiled and laughed maniacally..
Yeah this version is definately superior over Kubrick's film. The acting in this one was spot on. And in Kubricks version like ExClUr said below: Each character in the family acted like complete strangers towards each other. And this version follows the novel full fucking 100%. UNLIKE Kubrick's version which completely changed the whole plot, character traits, and conclusion.
Stephen King made his own movie because he saw Kubricks film and thought to himself "This isn't my novel at all.."
THANK YOU! Finally someone is talking sense! Stephen King made the mini-series for fans of the book who were disappointed with the movie. No visual medium can replicate each reader's unique imagery but...you know how that goes.
Jack Torrance is not an easy character to do correctly & Steven Weber nails it. Some people also think the book is just about the scary hotel factor. It's not. It's about Jack. And Danny. And Wendy. Three people you don't give a CRAP about in the Kubrick film.
I totally agree with you. The book has much focus in the life before Overlook. The Kubrick's version don't even (just a bit) show the problems that Jack already had.
judging by the fire hose, the caution sign, and the explosion, this is more accurate to king's novel, kubrik's film was amazing, but it was a little inaccurate
Now seriously, while watching Kubrick's version I didn't feel a thing towards the characters - so disgusting they were. "Chop off their arms and legs? Ok, I don't mind". What kind of movie is that?! Steven Weber acts perfectly and fits to his role while Nicholson was like a stranger to his family, like "what the fuck, who the hell are they? oh right, my family according to the script... why am I doing this, anyway?".
I disagree. Kubrick's film is nothing special at all, it's obvious that you like it because you had seen it a long time ago and have nostalgic feelings. Bad acting (even from Jack Nicholson, since the direction was so bad), horrible music score, melancholic camera work and what's more important - it puts me to sleep, a movie that is considered by its fans to be a HORROR MASTERPIECE. A horror alright, the acting alone. Stanley Kubrick's Shining is rubbish, it has no charisma, unlike this movie.
I just realised I've already commented on this before, lol. I have a tendency to forget what I've commented on, but then it has been awhile. Sorry everybody.
But for the record, The Shining mini-series and the Rose Red mini-series are probably my favorite Stephen King movies of all time.
Not to mention that the mini-series was written by Stephen King and filmed at the Stanley Hotel that inspired King to write the book.
I like watching Jack Nicholson in the older film, but I think beyond his performance there wasn't much meat to the movie.
While the mini-series is equally entertaining and has compelling characters all around. Also I think it might more frigthening as well. I have a hard time watching the part with the woman in the bathtub.
The older film is such a different move that it is hard to compare the two accurately.
Obviously Kubrick's movie was more about a man going insane and killing his family, and the mini-series was like the book in that it really was about a normal everyday family that loved eachother but had issues getting stuck in a nasty hotel full of very evil spirits.
The wife was better looking in the miniseries, the family dynamic was more loving and touching, and the woman in 217 was WAY scarier!
I think both version were excellent in their own way!
!980 version:
Great because it definately conveyed horror with those creepy twins and all the blood from the elevators! The acting was brilliant and i loved the ending. It was very unique to most horror films because the setting,the ending - getting chased through a maze
1997 version:
I loved this one because it was definately like the book and how i imagined it. I was a bit disapointed at the ending but it was still brilliant.
what's this CRAP?? it's really a horror movie ahahahah! dreadful!
supersizemewithlove 4 hours ago
You guys are retarded. This is way better than Stanley Kubrick's. All that movie is, is 2 hours of Jack staring off in the distance. screw the ghosts..this story is about jack's fall from being a loving father to a crazed psychopath. Now THAT'S horror.
americanpsycho93 3 days ago
you really have to be something of a king fan to even think that this version is better... Screw the respect of the novel ! most of what made shining so horryfing were created by kubrik and a to a smaller extent by nicholson.... Besides King is a writer while Kubrik used to be a photograph his visual sense is not in the same league...
georgetapadbol 1 month ago
this might be closer to the book but it sure looks like crap compared to the movie..
Braxl91 1 month ago 3
Even though this version is closer to the book i think the 1980 version is a masterpiece because it took the story to a whole new level that went way beyond the book.
marnsss817 1 month ago
red rum was different, compared to the original, it looked shit
MegaJake619 2 months ago
@MegaJake619 everything in this trailer looks like shit
supersizemewithlove 4 hours ago
This man can't even pull off a Stanley Kubrick face. Jack Nicholson does it best!
LOD122 4 months ago 2
i think Steven king's book was amazing but putting that into a movie just wouldnt fit, Kubrick made it into a more realistic horror story, i had read the book first and watched the Kubrick version and yea at first i was dissapionted at how diffrent it was but at the end of the movie it realized how much of a great movie it realy was
tomhulcelover 4 months ago 2
the thing that pisses me off about stephen king is that in all of his movies his characters are always your middle town folksy americans, and he always has the cowboy theme in at least one of the characters. Im sorry America but the cowboy is no longer cool or intimidating, get with the 21st century
somotastic21 4 months ago
@somotastic21
LOL! Stephen King is just too fucking Scary for you! pussy! lolz
baddickagain 2 months ago in playlist The Shining 1997
@baddickagain lol i dont think so
somotastic21 2 months ago
WORST REMAKE EVER
LXQUICKJUSTICE 4 months ago
@LXQUICKJUSTICE I did like the bathroom scene though. I wish I knew what the story was behind that. Out of all the other dead people in the Overlook why did the woman in room 237 come to mind first?
somotastic21 4 months ago
@somotastic21
the book said the ghost was unusually strong in that room and even the maids could see it sometime, and they didn't even shine. So I dunno, but bad shit my nigga. bad shizzit
LXQUICKJUSTICE 4 months ago
@LXQUICKJUSTICE man thanks a lot for that. I didnt read the book. I thought both Kubrick's and King's version of the bathroom scene were good. I wonder how she died. Im guessing she drowned in the tub but she must have been evil to begin with. Only books I ever read where I saw the movie first were Exorcist and Pet Sematary
somotastic21 4 months ago
@strawberrytoejam83 No they were not in the book, just finished it. it an amazing book
xX7ristanXx 4 months ago
the best movie with best story...
z3r0Day92 4 months ago
King's Shining miniseries looks God awful. I don't care how faithful it is to the book. What that says is that King can't write a scary story, nor direct one. Lord, the acting here looks terrible. The characters unbelievable, the setting does nothing, the cinematography sucks...Kubrick's film is vastly superior. Kubrick just took the basic outline of King's awful book and re-wrote the plot. And I'm glad he did that.
skyduster4 4 months ago
Stephan king DID hate the movie because it wasn't close to the book. The movie DID get more praise than the movie. Stephan king planed for this mini series because he didn't like it. NOW Stephan king thinks the kubrics version is OK. He said it was chilling.
My opinion kubrics version is better, the mini series I like because of how close it is to the book. But I rarely watch miniseries. I don't watch tv movies. So this was the first.
morrisonr4 4 months ago
the miniseries is better and scarier
112nizo 5 months ago
God this jack Torrence sucks... Jack Nicholson will always be the best jack Torrence.
cantona118 6 months ago 13
@cantona118 HUH?! Jeck Nicholson was a comedy act in the shining, with huff and a puff and I'll blow your house in!!
Woreyel 5 months ago
@cantona118 I have to completely disagree with you, Jack Torrence is such a complex character to play and Nicholson's performance was very one-dimensional. He's not just a guy who snaps, he's a father with problems who in the end sacrifices everything for his family. Nicholson had the madness but none of the tenderness that the character requires. Webber pulled off the perfect Jack Torrence, and it's sad that just because he's not as famous that he's not remembered for it.
kidnamedjd 4 months ago
@cantona118
According to King, apparently not. Stephen King actually had an input into this version. He said he didn't like the movie, he said that Jack Nicholson was the wrong person to play Jack Torrence. he felt that in the novel, it was pivotal that Jack is initially a good man who is slowly overcome by the forces of evil and who is fighting a losing battle against alcoholism. King was of the opinion that due to the casting of Nicholson, who was well known for playing unstable characters
williamblakeism 4 months ago
@cantona118 Nicholson may be good at playing (mentally) instable characters, but in miniseries the change in behavior of Jack Torrence is shown much better way than in the original one. And I think the miniseries are scarier, more like a true psychothriller. Anyway, both of them are masterpieces on their own and both of them are worth/a must to watch :)
Shagon89 6 hours ago
"Daddy's mad at mommy!" lol i LOVE this movie (or miniseries)
Stanley Kubrick can kiss my white ass. Stephen King ftw!!
americanpsycho93 6 months ago
this sucked
WunterSlaush 6 months ago
Wow this looks closer to the book than the 1980 version! The 1980 version wasn't close to the book except like names and the dad going crazy and little things but I hope I can see this movie soon 030
smiffymoo123 7 months ago 6
The novel AND the film were both masterpieces. They are masterpieces in their own way. Unfortunately the movie is more well known (and appraised more by the general public than the novel) simply because more of today's population watches movies than those who read novels. I did find it peculiar how the movie had a few added details, when usually movies have to remove things due to a lack of time to include everything.
ShmamanFire 7 months ago
Well, my oppinion is that Kubrik's movie should be observed as a masterpiece on its own and not compared to the novel. I like the movie better (ofcource), but I must say that the miniseries better show the feeling of the novel. Sincerely yours, a Kubrimaniac.
TraianThorinTorun 7 months ago
Comment removed
jmurch68 7 months ago
Stephen King hated Jack Nicholson and felt that the 1980's film adaptation deviated too far from the book. Personally, I loved the movie, but the miniseries follows the pace of the book, explaining all the 'loose ends' and provides a depeper insight into the movie.
mellie9881 8 months ago
@mellie9881 Maybe if the mini series wasn't so hokey it could have been good, the cheesy dialog was laughable. I was laughing the whole way through. What was with the crochet mallet, How is it more threatening compared to an axe LOL!
junkyturd 7 months ago
@junkyturd it was a roque mallet and that's what Jack used in the book. the mini series was wayyy more closer to the book!
evilcupcake83 7 months ago 2
@mellie9881 Yeah, i read the book but i'm saying it doesn't look very menacing on the screen
junkyturd 7 months ago
Oh I also have to say: Shelly Duvall's voice gives me the creeps.
laisydaisy30 9 months ago
I have to say this miniseries was so much truer to the actual book. And Stephen Weber did a great job as Jack Torrence, especially when portraying Jack as "Jack/Hotel Jack."
laisydaisy30 9 months ago
This episode of Wings was really WEIRD.
Fmaack 9 months ago
This mini series definitely looks more loyal to the book- I haven't seen it but from this, looks like they payed a bit more attention to wendy's character. Instead of the simpering, weak woman of the film, she looks more like she can stand on her own to feet here, which is one of the main things that annoyed me about the film version, she was never actually meant to annoy us, only jack. On the other hand, it may come across as more cheesy due to its focus on the paranormal side.
xpledgeturnprestigex 9 months ago
Honestly, the book is better. But considering The shining as a horror movie in general. It's a masterpiece. As a adaption. Not so much. But the shining was such a incredible film. Every scene was disturbing. Even the ones that weren't meant to be. The music played in it made it feel like the movie swallowed you whole. It's just a awesome movie. Awesome book. Awesome miniseries. And all together, awesome "Franchise".
WarOfSalvation 11 months ago
i watch this when i was kid . the mini series is best
snow640 11 months ago 2
Whats the point? SK's movie is a masterpiece.
Franchise70 11 months ago
I personally think both the movie and miniseries take on the book from different angles, In the movie, you get a better sense of Jack's madness, but you're never really sure WHY he's becoming psychotic. In the miniseries, as well as the book, you get a better understanding of Danny's significance to the Overlook Hotel. I still prefer the movie, but the newer version has a very solid cast. Melvin Van Peebles does an excellent job as Richard Hallorann. My opinion.
augustandjune 1 year ago
cant even finish this trailer, it looks horrible.
The only thing king did right was replacing the ugly, annoying wife.
lexmark136 1 year ago
The miniseries is way better than the film. I think King wants everyone to see his own vision. The characters are more established which makes the miniseries good. The setting in the Stanley Hotel is more what I pictured when I read the novel. Stephen King is trying to teach the directors a lesson: before you make a film, actually read the novel carefully and ask me if you have any problems. I can see why he made this miniseries.
hughsyz 1 year ago 2
@hughsyz You don't know much about Kubrick.
DreamVisionFilms 5 months ago
Jack Nicholson's better.
Relesy 1 year ago 2
I've never seen this tv/mini series, but to be honest, it looks awful...
I've read the book, and saw Kubrick's film, and thought they were both amazing, in different ways, because they were so different. This may be more true to the book, but I don't think I'd ever bother watching it.
paulmul1995 1 year ago
I loved that movie. Back then i didn't know it was a tv serie.
brazdamnit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everybody - I just released my solo album "Mirror Image" that contains ambient songs (and upbeat songs) heavily inspired by Stephen King's novel and movies The Shining, as well as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. If you're interested you can check out the songs on my youtube page, and links to my myspace page and places to download the full album are on my youtube channel as well :) .
ORTmusic 1 year ago
how DARE this movie be made
okcomputer1016 1 year ago
The 1980 film was a butchered adaptation at best. I watched both the 1980 and the 1997 adaptations, and this one is a LOT better. The 1980 film was ok (definitely more violent), but the 1997 adaptation is done in a way where you feel like you have known the characters for a long time. It's much more detailed, and, of course, features the Stanley Hotel! How can you beat that? 8D
This is, and will always be my favorite adaptation. Anyone who prefers the 1980 film can have it!
SouthwesternEagle 1 year ago
@SouthwesternEagle I'm with you. After seeing the miniseries I could see why SK wanted to do the project where he had more control. If for no OTHER reason, Jack's redemption at the end... a little more uplifting than being frozen. Completely changes the tone.
nhawks33 1 year ago
@nhawks33 Definitely! :3
The mimiseries had a brighter tone than the movie. The movie overused horror, and had poor character development (I mean, you couldn't get attached to the family like you can in the miniseries). Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" was the only awesome part of the movie.
SouthwesternEagle 1 year ago
you people just dont have a clue. Both were very good in thier own way. The TV version follows the book more closely than Kubricks horror movie that resembles a Stephen King story. Nicholson was, is, and will always be amazing in his movies. Noone can recreate his "Heres Johnny!!!!!!!" but Steven Weber does an excellant job in the role as well. and as far as the mallet as opposed to the axe......... read the book, that is what he used. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
rjone61 1 year ago
I'm sorry Stephen King - but please stop fucking up old time classics. How in the shit are you meant to beat the original protagonist Jack Nicholson with this guy? I realize King wrote the book but come on, re-creating The Shining is absolutely ludicrous - it cannot be re-done.
KidsWithGuns1992 1 year ago
@KidsWithGuns1992 lol, Jack Nicholson definitely was not the protagonist
Ju87s 1 year ago
@Ju87s Well the bloody kid then. Pretty much same shit.
KidsWithGuns1992 1 year ago
@KidsWithGuns1992 ??????? stephen king "stop fucking up old time classics" are u stupid? im pretty sure that this story came from his mind and he can do whatever the hell he wants to with it. no stephen king = no classic . dumbass
db212006 1 year ago
@db212006 Well no shit that's why I mentioned it - but you don't re-make a movie that was done perfectly and by Stanley Kubrick. I mean bloody hell why bother if this is what he's going to produce? And the original shining is a classic because that one ACTUALLY DID WELL. He should stick writing books.
KidsWithGuns1992 1 year ago
steven king and his childish whineing.
the movie was great. the movie was better then the book. king should shut his mouth and apperciate kubricks horror masterpeice
itom85 1 year ago
LMAO This is so fucking bad.
TheDM75 1 year ago
I've seen both of them. The miniseries is okay, but the movie with Jack Nicholson is a masterpiece. Personally, I think King rambles on and on in his books and movies, this miniseries included. But I'm reading the book the Shining, and it's really good.
wikiwuki 1 year ago
oh good that looked like shit, Kubrick's version wins.
Battery20678 1 year ago
This one looks soo bad. Jack Nicholson FTW! They need to use a axe....not a hammer thing. FAIL.
theusedechelongirl94 1 year ago
@theusedechelongirl94 you need to read the book
troz43 1 year ago
@theusedechelongirl94 coming from a 16 year old girl that never read Stephen King's novel.
Ju87s 1 year ago
@Ju87s I read it like a week ago. Thank you very much. I still like Jack Nicholson in it better. So...screw you.
theusedechelongirl94 1 year ago
Love the book! Love the original movie! Love the miniseries! There are enough differences in the three to judge them on their own rather than comparing to one another. They are all based on the same hotel, same characters (with different personalities), and same storyline, but each is strong enough to stand on its own. To me, it is similar to comparing Harry Potter, Merlin, and The Lord of the Ring.
SteffRutter 1 year ago
puuuuhlease, who could possibly be better than Jack Nicohlson? :-/
the other version is WAY better than this sorry excuse of a film
PianoMan53100 1 year ago
this looks unimaginably bad. thanks but ill just stick with Kubricks masterpiece.
ovalitsme 1 year ago
glad they used the stanley in this one. I had a blast stayin the night there, totally felt a spiritual presence
burymeindiaboli 1 year ago
Steven webber: hunk !!!!!!!
klutzfan334 1 year ago
So much better than the 1980 'adaptation'.
MrsPennywise96 1 year ago 2
thats uh huh from lil raskalsz
totaLybeetLeJuice 1 year ago
This miniseries is seriously underrated. It is really good and Jack Torrance is amazing. And personally, I prefer a croquet mallet over an axe, it's more unusual and more scary.
Pumpmos 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Pumpmos 1 year ago
Kubricks version was very very creepy and disturbing, maybe it didn't stay true to the book, but it's now considered a classic of the horror genre.
This mini series looks like crap.
foook111 1 year ago
I hate the kid who plays danny. If he didnt have a fucking lisp and a normal mouth this would be bearable. : /
residentevilnerd 1 year ago 2
This is good but kubricks version is better in my opinion.
sparse23 1 year ago
i want to see a stephen kings IT which is true to the book and with todays special effects that could be a really good film if someone thought of making it, thats by far kings best novel that i have read...film would probably be illegal tho that book is fuckin twisted lol!!!
dnbheaduk 1 year ago 2
The Shining was a great book for it's time, but one of my least favorite King novels (I think his post-sobriety work has far better character development). Making an adaptation that's true to the book is usually a bad idea, because film and literature are such different genres that in most cases, a story that looks great on paper looks terrible on the screen. What I'm trying to say is, Kubrick's film blows this peice of shit out of the fucking water, and in alot of ways is better than the novel.
HardforJesus 1 year ago
I think maybe Kubrick changed some things was because he has Jack Nicholson. And the Jack in this movie just wouldn't be a Jack that Nicholson would probably play. Sure, he changed alot in the movie but The Shining (80) was a good movie. The whole atmosphere is different. I think if Kubrick did it like this, then Jack Nicholson wouldn't have been the bast person to play Jack Torrence.
MosesSlitsWrists 1 year ago
k. croquet mallet is nowhere near as scary as an axe.
just my two cents.
that aside, i like both versions just as much.
thewerecactus 1 year ago
@thewerecactus u have to read the book or watch the miniseries to understand y the mallet is scary
TheJackster5000 1 year ago
this movie was actually better then the 1980 one. 1. it was done by stephen king. 2. they blew up the hotel.
3Jack Turrance turns good in the end.
Lucas464748 1 year ago
redrum
mathewjohn5174 1 year ago
The miniseries had a more faithful (arguably better) screenplay, but I think the direction and the cast of Kubrick's film were definitely better.
SPRLDR 1 year ago
Kubrick's "The Shining" is a creepy and incredible film but a horrendous adaptation. But this version is a great adaptation, but very little made me 'frightened.' Kubrick's use of imagery was just amazing in his version, although it was nothing like the book.
The book is better than both, read it, it's phenomenal.
TommyBoy249r 2 years ago 2
I just read the book and watched the movie in under 48 hours. I feel that the movie (I have seen it before I read the book also) has left out very important details on Jack, and just make him seem like he went insane, when he really didn't. The hotel took him over. It didn't seem like that in the movie. Not to mention the hedge maze? What happened to the lions and the dog in the playground, hey, what happened to the playground! I like the book better than the movie, and this looks more accurate.
iluvnirvana13 2 years ago
Are you sure the movie was this one ? If you have watched the Kubrick's one, the story is like you say. But the Stephen King's The Shining (in this video) Ist exactly the same as the book.
Dan76430 2 years ago
@iluvnirvana13 couldnt agree more the book was much better am gonna watch this in a minute i think
dnbheaduk 1 year ago
I never watched the miniseries or read the book. I love Kubricks 1980 movie so:
-Should I watch the miniseries?
-Should I read the book?
SonnyCorleone100 2 years ago
The miniseries is no good unless you really liked the book. While being more faithful to the original book it is completely different (and in most people's views "inferior") to the original.
joshyhurly 2 years ago
Read the book
PunkAttitude8V 2 years ago 38
@PunkAttitude8V way tooo little reps to be a "masterpiece"...
jutubaeh 1 year ago
LMFAO This looks like shit compared to Kubrick's Version, seriously
TheDM75 2 years ago
It's actually far better.
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
Maybe for you, far better?? LOL
TheDM75 2 years ago
The miniseries was more enjoyable to watch than Kubricks movie. Kubrick could suck my dick.
SirChickenClubber 2 years ago
i personally like kubrick version his directing is unique. King great writer, subpar directer and the reason for the success of the movie was the way it was handled by kubrick. Sure he didn't go into detail by detail like in the book but he made a movie worth watching. If King had nicholson he still would have made a bad shinning movie, it'll be like the book but will still be a bad movie
agarrmela 2 years ago
of course the best verion is the original book of stephen king ^^ butt for my self i prefer the 80's movie with jack nicholson who is a better jack torrance whith his axe ^^ don't you think?
batenkaitosfan 2 years ago
For general understanding:
The book is a literature masterpiece.
The 1980 movie is a cinema masterpiece.
The series follows the book incredibly well, but is not a cinema masterpiece.
The 1980 movie is incredibly good, but doesn't follow the book so well.
Now imagine a new movie, by a great director (like Kubrick), with a great actor (like Nicholson), being a lot closer to the book, with the right interpretation of Stephen King's horror feeling.
Channel23tv 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well the book was a hunk of shit.... and so was this mini series.
The movie was better than both.... easily.
CodeOuch 2 years ago
This version is very close to the book. Both I loved the 80's version. Although there were TONS of things the movie missed that was in the book, for example, the black guy does not die in the book, and he is seen to have a bigger role in the book, than him betting butchered by Jack.
donscrizz 2 years ago
This looks a bit gimicky but i'll might check it out sometime.
DjMontana42X 2 years ago
Book>Movie>Miniseries
The miniseries obviously follows the book more but is just not as well as the unfaithful Kubrick.
TheGreatAnarchist 2 years ago
For your info. King did both, he said that he liked the version with kubrick, but he wasn't totaly satisfied, thats when the mini series was released, if you read the book, the miniserie is more like it. But i agree, you can´t compare nicholson acting, or the blood coming out of the elevator. But i didn´t like the frozen endind, and lets be honest, we all love rebeca demornay beeing sluty, better than the other actress. (don't know her name). I like the miniseries
rixo86 2 years ago
What was King's involvement in the 1980 version? It was based on his novel, but I don't think he had any involvement - he didn't write the screenplay.
Me - I much prefer the 1980 movie.
Gwyka 2 years ago 2
This was the biggest piece of dogshit! Kubrick's version is THE version.
Dreaklock 2 years ago 2
The minisieries is much better then the movie don't get me wrong I liked the movie but this has a few hilarious moments.
donnakayt1 2 years ago
I think Stephen King's version is better. but thats my opinion. But the movie was also good in it's own way. There were some things that i was disapointed to see changed in the film, but it's still frightening, just in a different way.
zapperman101 2 years ago
This was a great miniseries along with It.
theemceemurdah 2 years ago
when jack nicholson played in the movie it sucked
trevorloveskatie54 2 years ago
I love Kubrick's The Shining. It was so great in every way. And I do understand why King would get mad... but Kubrick made it his own, and he did it with perfection. It was good, and it worked. Plus, Kubrick knew that he wouldn't be able to make good looking effects (Hedge Animals, Telekenisis Stuff), so he had to work around that too. This is why this version is bad. The effects were cheap and actually funny and the acting... well let's just say its "ok."
Stynch13 2 years ago
I agree. I can totally sympathize with King's position, but from the standpoint of a voracious reader and film addict, when I compare King's book to Kubrick's film, the movie wins out. (I have not actually seen the miniseries, so I won't make a judgement here.)
I feel that the film had more style, was scarier, and had a greater atmosphere.
Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King, but I feel he often drops hammers instead of hints.
Scardy 2 years ago 16
Unlike many remakes, this one was justified. Contrary to Stanley Kubrick's version it tells the story just the way Stephen King did in his novel.
Sanderus 2 years ago
This is it's own kind like more paranormal things ghosts and stuff, but really scariest is classic Stanley Kubrick version.
shamif 2 years ago
both versions are great!
tiiito1988 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wat the fuck is this. this is rape
GoOcHaSsAsSiN187 2 years ago
Im a big fan of kubric's version, but now im reading the book, and i really really like the details. You read 60 pages before get to the Overlook Hotel (when they move of course)
Want see this movie too.
sukitaaa 2 years ago
Does anyone know the soundtrack theme score that is in this, its i think the opening theme and reacurres, any help would be appreciated..
btw, I love the reacurring refrences to the donner party :P
BigSmoke2222 2 years ago
bits of the mini series were creepy but the acting is so awful they cancel them bits out! yes i know it stays more faithful to the book but that doesn't mean it makes a good film, kubrick took what bits he thought would make a great film and did it very well, king was a bit bitter about that and thats how this came about, dany in this is proper annoying!
dossidosser 2 years ago
agree. all the people that like this version do so mainly on the grounds that its more like the book. but its not a book. its a film. the acting is one thing..then theres the script, ouch...it was like watching a hollywood soap or something
howdycaptain63 2 years ago
I think this is the best version because it disturbs on a more psychological level, rather than the other one that things just jump out at you. I also LOVE the 217 scene in this version!!!
lilrowyravenclaw 2 years ago
I thought this 1997 version was more scarier (I saw this version before the original).
CAvideoFAN 2 years ago
"More scarier"?!
TehAsploder 2 years ago
Sure this adaptation was more faithful to the book, but I for one found the execution to be rather poor. Just from this trailer alone, it looks really cheesy and not scary at all (And having actually seen the miniseries, I still stand by this). Then again, that's usually the case for horror movies/shows made to be shown on prime-time TV. Now if this miniseries was made for HBO, it might be another story...
jocebox 2 years ago
Dude! The Shining was the first Stephen King novel I read and I loved it. I have since become a huge fan of his novels. I was very disappointed with Kubrick's version which was so unfaithful and the characters so unlikable. This version really looks good. I haven't seen it yet, but now I know that I must.
plaguehater13 2 years ago
I still need to see this version.
Staying at the Stanley Hotel is highly recommended. And if you do, ask for the fourth floor.
Strange713 2 years ago
I know I'm probably one out of a hundred-billion here, but in my humble opinion, the miniseries version TROUNCES the Kubrick version in every area except cinematography. The characters are better developed, the acting is better, and even the portrayal of Jack Torrance is more believable.
RationalDischarge 2 years ago
You're not alone. There are a LOT of people who agree with us. I don't see how people can say the acting is bad! It's extremely believable. The three principles especially are excellent & work well together! Steven Weber's Jack is equally tormented, loving & beloved. His descent is scary because this was once a sane, decent guy.
For a made-4-TV movie it crossed a lot of censors. Just think if they had made it for HBO? Holy crap. The book is a masterpiece, Kubrick's film is just a horrorfest.
thesilvershining 2 years ago 2
hahaha... no one will ever play a psychopath character better than Jack Nicholson... :))
Amy66654 2 years ago
Jack Torrance isn't a psychopath. It's more the hotel's energy being channeled through him.
facelesspenman 2 years ago
The film can't possibly have space for everything that was in the book. thats the difference between a film and a book, so good on kubrick for doing his own thing with it. dont see the point in doing it if u just copy the book. Staggering book but kings film remake looks like a run of the mill horror film and to me the actors are too good looking to give it realism. plus you dont have a cats chance of topping nicholsons lead.
howdycaptain63 2 years ago
While I enjoy the book, I find Kubrick's adaption more interesting.
Danathema 2 years ago
Haven't seen this version yet but I thought Kubrick's version sucked hard. The acting by Shelly Duvall and the boy are awful. Jack Nicholson did an amazing job though. apart from the acting the movie was still very bad. Stanley Kubrick changed things he didn't need to change. It was just a boring, and bad movie. I read the book and it's one of my favorite books. I someone says Kubrick's version is better, then they obliviously haven't read the book.
bobb328 2 years ago
I respect oyur opinion but about the movie, but Shelley Duvall did an amazing job acting as a shy weak woman
mariana52 2 years ago 2
personnally shelley did a poor job, but danny did a good job. i would have prefered a different woman in general
nintendobeatleman14 2 years ago
I know that this film is worse than Kubrick's, anyway this version scared me much more than the other one.
sillyfool37 2 years ago
I loved stanleys one so much that i decided to read the book which is amazing :) but stanleys isnt reali that much like the book :( so i wanna see this one but it prob wont be as good...
reaperchickxxx 2 years ago
This version didn't scare me at all, Kubrick's version did, sure it's unfaithful but it wasn't that great a novel to begin with, but maybe I just don't think horror films of any worth should have somewhat uplifting endings, I can't think of a horror film which I consider classic having a happy ending
igotnospit 2 years ago
Happy endings not for horror sories?? Pssh who wants variety. =\
nightsmoke3337 2 years ago
I love this movie i recorded it when it first appered on t.v. i took it to my school and my friend watch it on the libary's t.v. which was hooked to all the others so everyone in school was watching it I can't wait to get it on dvd
CampieH 2 years ago
I haven't seen this version of The Shining yet. I liked the Kubrick version but it wasn't very faithful to the novel. This is probably more faithful since it is made by Steven King himself.
dubcantgetrite 2 years ago
i don't know about anyone else,
but the actor who plays jack in this version just struck a cord with me. i began to get scared every time i would see him towards the end of the miniseries.
idk why...
its never really happened to me before.
just like the way he smiled and laughed maniacally..
hatsuneh 2 years ago
Yeah this version is definately superior over Kubrick's film. The acting in this one was spot on. And in Kubricks version like ExClUr said below: Each character in the family acted like complete strangers towards each other. And this version follows the novel full fucking 100%. UNLIKE Kubrick's version which completely changed the whole plot, character traits, and conclusion.
Stephen King made his own movie because he saw Kubricks film and thought to himself "This isn't my novel at all.."
thedudeabides43 2 years ago 3
THANK YOU! Finally someone is talking sense! Stephen King made the mini-series for fans of the book who were disappointed with the movie. No visual medium can replicate each reader's unique imagery but...you know how that goes.
Jack Torrance is not an easy character to do correctly & Steven Weber nails it. Some people also think the book is just about the scary hotel factor. It's not. It's about Jack. And Danny. And Wendy. Three people you don't give a CRAP about in the Kubrick film.
thesilvershining 2 years ago
I totally agree with you. The book has much focus in the life before Overlook. The Kubrick's version don't even (just a bit) show the problems that Jack already had.
sukitaaa 2 years ago
judging by the fire hose, the caution sign, and the explosion, this is more accurate to king's novel, kubrik's film was amazing, but it was a little inaccurate
ShadowChaosControl 2 years ago 3
00:48 that zombie bit was the money shot.
zufgh 2 years ago
Now seriously, while watching Kubrick's version I didn't feel a thing towards the characters - so disgusting they were. "Chop off their arms and legs? Ok, I don't mind". What kind of movie is that?! Steven Weber acts perfectly and fits to his role while Nicholson was like a stranger to his family, like "what the fuck, who the hell are they? oh right, my family according to the script... why am I doing this, anyway?".
ExClUr 2 years ago
Couldn't agree more. The acting in Kubrick's version was awfull and it didn't even come close to touching the novel.
thedudeabides43 2 years ago
I disagree. Kubrick's film is nothing special at all, it's obvious that you like it because you had seen it a long time ago and have nostalgic feelings. Bad acting (even from Jack Nicholson, since the direction was so bad), horrible music score, melancholic camera work and what's more important - it puts me to sleep, a movie that is considered by its fans to be a HORROR MASTERPIECE. A horror alright, the acting alone. Stanley Kubrick's Shining is rubbish, it has no charisma, unlike this movie.
ExClUr 2 years ago
this movie is remake from the original shining.
squidwardandspongbob 2 years ago
NO!!!!!!!!!!
It was made by the original author!
I like this one better you could give Stanly Kubrick's a new name its so different.
greenmen522 2 years ago
I have to agree with obesehariydog. The shining mini-series WAS good, the book was even BETTER but I LOVED Kubrick's 'The Shining'.
"Hereeee's Johnny!"
MissClariceStarling 2 years ago
LOL, yeah. I Love what Jack says in this one. Boo.. instead of Here's Johnny
Luke5119 2 years ago
@MissClariceStarling wendy, im home! XD
jas1234321 1 year ago
Whats the name of the theme in the mini series?
RealJablan 3 years ago
Have you ever see it? Or have you read the Book?
Leuchtturm666 3 years ago
I just realised I've already commented on this before, lol. I have a tendency to forget what I've commented on, but then it has been awhile. Sorry everybody.
But for the record, The Shining mini-series and the Rose Red mini-series are probably my favorite Stephen King movies of all time.
KaraStarbuckNY 3 years ago
Not to mention that the mini-series was written by Stephen King and filmed at the Stanley Hotel that inspired King to write the book.
I like watching Jack Nicholson in the older film, but I think beyond his performance there wasn't much meat to the movie.
While the mini-series is equally entertaining and has compelling characters all around. Also I think it might more frigthening as well. I have a hard time watching the part with the woman in the bathtub.
Here a boy, there a boy. :O
KaraStarbuckNY 3 years ago
The older film is such a different move that it is hard to compare the two accurately.
Obviously Kubrick's movie was more about a man going insane and killing his family, and the mini-series was like the book in that it really was about a normal everyday family that loved eachother but had issues getting stuck in a nasty hotel full of very evil spirits.
The wife was better looking in the miniseries, the family dynamic was more loving and touching, and the woman in 217 was WAY scarier!
KaraStarbuckNY 3 years ago
This version of the Shining is more scarier and more to that of the book. There are other supernatural inhabitants of the hotel.
waddleduckie1 3 years ago 3
@waddleduckie1 More faithful to the book doesn't necessarily equal a better film. ;)
systematic11 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I think both version were excellent in their own way!
!980 version:
Great because it definately conveyed horror with those creepy twins and all the blood from the elevators! The acting was brilliant and i loved the ending. It was very unique to most horror films because the setting,the ending - getting chased through a maze
1997 version:
I loved this one because it was definately like the book and how i imagined it. I was a bit disapointed at the ending but it was still brilliant.
5 stars!
bumface100000 3 years ago