AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

newocj I was more disappointed with the first one more than mr king was if you didn't read the book you had no idea what was going on the first 20 minutes of the second one is already better. The boy acts more like the book the wife looks more like the book describes her. The second one I hope is better but so far it appears to be. I have seen 40 minutes of this one and I think it is a 10 so far! He is the best author I have been reading his books for about 45 years have not read all of them yet

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.

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.