Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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

bobbylurch When I found out about this, I was curious to see what this would be like. But when I sat through the whole thing, i took the disc and case and though it away in the garbage, because that's what this is. A bag of s**t!Where do I start? Let's start with the comparison to the source material. Is it faithful to Stephen King's hit novel? Yes, yes it is. Unfortunately, this faithfulness to its source material is what makes this mini series suck so much, because clearly King doesn't understand the differences between literature and film. Film and literature are two completely different mediums and thus, everything that worked in one medium won't have the same effect in the other!I've noticed the reviews praising this mini-series have one thing in common: they all say the mini series is great for being faithful to the novel. If you actually judge this film by the acting, atmosphere, and directing, its no contest that Kubrick's version is the far superior version.First off, the acting. Steven Weber is horrible and completely emotionless. He doesn't act anything like an actual psycho, which makes Jack's descent into madness completely horrible and poorly done. Maybe Jack's mind deteriorated the way King wanted it to, but the guy's bad acting ruined it.Next off, Courtland Mead. I absolutely hated this kid! He's annoying and emotionless. Plus, the way he kept his mouth open the entire time made me think this kid took acting lessons from Kristen Stewart.The next part, the scares. Nothing about this adaption was scary at all! I don't even need to compare them to the Stanley Kubrick version. All the scares here look like they were thought up by a 12 year old! The hose with teeth is just stupid! Unless it snakes into someone's pants and bites off their penis, I'm never gonna be scared by that! The hedge animals were just dumb, plus their bad cgi made it look even worse. The woman in the tub started to make me feel scared, until i heard what she said. "With a little boy here, a little boy there, here a boy, there a boy, everywhere a boy, boy." WHAT? What was going through King's head when he thought of that? It's just stupid!I know some people say it doesn't matter if it isn't scary. But it's HORROR!!! Of course it matters!!!! Especially it it's based off of one of the most horrifying novels ever written!!!This mini-series may be faithful to the novel, but it doesn't stand up to its reputation! If anything, this adaption damages King's novel! Being faithful to the source material doesn't automatically make a film great, because it seems the die hard King fans are too hypnotized by that fact to recognize how horrible it is! Stephen King created this just to satisfy his wounded ego over Kubrick's far superior version!If you hated the Kubrick version, that's fine. But please don't waste your time with this. It will ruin your view of the novel. I watched this and in the process, I lost a good portion of respect for Stephen King.

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.

Harry Wilding One of the worst things I have ever seen committed to film. This, on one level, suffers from Kubrick's version been so good but it is not the only reason. Kubrick's changes made the adaption better and the set design just set it apart.This adaption is certainly more faithful to King's book - King wrote the screenplay, so that comes as no surprise. One particular thing is the topiary animals. I love the book, but I thought they were a bad idea in it (they just don't make sense, not even in the supernatural world created) and an even worse idea on film. Kubrick was clever to replace them with the maze. King, however, kept them - cue 1997 TV CGI...need I say more.The acting and dialogue is awful and, thus, hilarious. Even Elliot Gould in his small role as manager Ullman is surprisingly wooden. Oh, and the way they portray Tony is quite unbelievably bad. And the epilogue...wow...ten years later, Danny sees Jack's ghost at his graduation...Jack blows a kiss...Danny catches it...tears in his eyes, he pulls it to his cheek...'that's what I've missed,' he says. Beautifully bad. So, yes - Genius and hugely entertaining. It is so bad, it is good. Brilliant.

Rueiro I am not going to compare this piece of rubbish to Kubrick's film; too many viewers have already done that.In my opinion, "The shining" is one of King's few novels worth reading. Some parts of it are slow-paced and boring, with the usual long descriptions of the characters' past and misfortunes in which King always likes to indulge himself for dozens of pages. That is the most irritating thing about his books. It is OK if you are writing "War and Peace" or "Gone with the Wind", but not for a horror flick. You should stick to the main story instead of creating sub-plot family melodramas.Anyway, "The Shining" is not an easy book to adapt, and only a very competent screenwriter who knows his trade and a film-maker equally effective can deliver a good movie out of the book. Kubrick, who was both things, did it, and that was it. They could try and make a dozen remakes of the story in the next one hundred years and they wouldn't get it any better. I re-read the novel very recently, and then I watched King's only approved and much blessed official adaptation in order to see how true to its title is. I felt pity. It is more faithful to the book than Kubrick's, I gave it that, but still it is not as faithful as the title and all the publicity initially promise, and that is cheating the spectator. All right, it shows Jack's alcoholic past in flashbacks, but was that really necessary in order to understand what happens later at the hotel? Also it shows Tony, and what for? In the book Danny only sees him once or twice and always from very far away, a blurred shadow. Why turning him into a character that is popping up in the screen every half an hour? He can't help Danny at all but only keeps telling him he shouldn't have come to the hotel, so what's the point? It is bloody irritating, and the actor looks silly!Then, there is the topiary. I laughed at the ignorance and ingenuity of many viewers who rave about this remake and put Kubrick's film down only because it doesn't show the hedge animals... Dear cultured critics: back in 1980 CGI was still sci-fi fantasy, and the only way to have shot that sequence would have been by combining live action with animation (go and check "Mary Poppins" to see what I'm talking about if you don't follow me). So Kubrick did very well by leaving the episode out instead of making a silly thing that would have looked laughable in what is supposed to be a a horror chiller. And that is precisely one of the biggest follies this adaptation has, and even the CGI is cheap and badly done and brings more laughs than shivers because the animals look like bird droppings on the snow!Then the cast is terrible. Someone mentioned that a monkey with a telephone book would have done a better casting, and he is right. The actors seem like they never bothered to read the book in order to understand what the story is about and get to know their characters. The kid was just that, so we can't blame him. But Rebecca de Mornay and the fellow who plays Jack (who is he, by the way?) are as plain as cardboard cut-outs, and the same goes for the guy doing Grady, who instead of looking menacing he is a total duck. And Van Peebles looks like he just popped out of a Busby Berkeley musical, I was expecting him to burst singing and tap-dancing any second. The only one of whom it can be said gives a decent performance is Elliott Gould, who plays Ullmann as the cynical, sarcastic, tight-fist snob who thinks of "his" hotel as the greatest thing on earth, just as described in the book. And as for Stephen King's surprise cameo as the orchestra conductor, I didn't know whether to laugh or to be angry because he looks like a Loony Tunes caricature of Xavier Cugat.And then, the director of this mess seems to have thought himself to be a new Stanley Kubrick and tried to imitate the master's trademark of slow tracking shots that precede key events. Didn't he have any self- respect? And the ending... so happy-ever-after that is laughable, and so overloaded with syrup that it could kill a diabetic just from looking at it. This multi-million dollar egotistic heap made only to satisfy King's ego is just a waste of time, money and celluloid.