Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Raysing But it's boring. It is finally done, so good. There it is. Now, glad it rests, for posterity. Kubrick's version has a timeless quality that this sadly does not. It is a parody of itself, even though it's more faithful to King's book.Kid is awful here. Really bad casting decision. Imo)5 bags of popcorn and a windows 95 boot disk

nuoipter termer 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.

Larissa Pierry (tangietangerine) I'm a huge fan of Stephen King's novel, it definitely makes the list of my top favorite books, so I was delighted to watch another adaptation, this time with a fair amount of similarities to it. It couldn't be different, seeing that King himself was involved with the script, and it kind of gives the feeling he's answering back to Kubrick: "this is how I imagined my creation to be." I rated it high because it's so much like the novel, and although I absolutely love Kubrick's version, it's also very fulfilling to a fan when the book is adapted the way you want it! Although I rate it highly, I'm aware of its problems. For one, the thing that got on my nerves (all the time) was Courtland Mead's acting. His nasal and annoying voice, his mouth constantly hanging open, his mop top hair, besides, he's too old to be anything like the character in the novel, but that's the least. Danny Torrance is supposed to be a likable character, and to me he is adorable in his 5 year-old naive wisdom and braveness. I didn't get any of it in the mini series, and Danny is basically the main character, without him, it just doesn't work. I wonder why King and etc. chose this boy.Apart from that, Steven Weber is one of the main reasons I liked it so much. I know about his sitcom past, but his work in this saves it from being a total disaster. I'd say his perfect John Doe quality is what made me think of him as the next best thing to the "actual" Jack Torrance. Rebecca DeMornay gives an average performance, I'm sure she is exactly how Stephen King thought Wendy in his head, but if it was any other blonde actress playing her part, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. I was happy with the feature of almost all of the scenes from the novel, especially the (in)famous one-liner: "Come down here and take your medicine!".Budget limitations and the length tend to turn people off. This is the problem with Stephen King's movie adaptations, because certain aspects of his writing are not meant to be watched, only imagined. It's the case of the hedge animals (or the Wendigo in Pet Sematary, I was glad they decided to let it out), they're important to the story, but the terrible special effects just made me cringe. Also, I was OK about that additional epilogue of Danny graduating, but why the "kissing kissing, that's what I've been missing" bit?. It's so cheesy, and it seems it doesn't serve any other purpose than adding some cheap sentimentalism to Jack-Danny's relationship, when it doesn't need any. In my opinion, Jack was redeemed when he stayed in and fought the hotel as hard as he could, and that was what saved his family. Anyway, I guess it comes with the job, you have to have some kind of explicit emotional undertone in order to make it likable for general audiences. Not all of it is made of die-hard fans of the novel like me, ha.

star_in_the_zenith_79 In my view this is the superior version of the Shining, not just because its closer to the book but because its a better overall and more compelling story than the Kubrick version. I really think the best way to do this review and let people know what to expect is to address a couple of the complaints with it: First of all many people complain about Steven Weber being to nice to be the villain, they totally miss the point, because the Overlook Hotel, not Jack Torrance, is the true villain of the story. If the final ten minutes or so doesn't convince you of that, then I don't know what would.Second of all, the people that stated that they almost hoped Danny would get caught in this movie, to me that's a reflection on our society just becoming darker and more brutal. When did we enter a state where anything sweet and innocent is irritating? Whats the matter with people? Last of all, they complain about the CGI too. Truthfully this is such a small part of the story I didn't even deem it relevant. I mean, seems to me those who say this is just a watered down story just don't even perceive the deeper more emotional elements. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a flawless adaptation, or that I dislike the Kubrick version I don't. But I fail to see whats so deep about it, to me a flawed but overall nice and loving family being beset by an evil hotel makes for a more compelling story than a dysfunctional family of weirdos having their problems merely enhanced by the evil hotel.