This remake simply shouldn't have been, there was no need to make it or expand on an already competent original.I'd heard nothing but bad things and I fully understand why. It's not that it's poorly made, it's just so very mundane.Standing at over 4hrs split across 3 episodes this remake misses the point of the original story altogether. Gone are the iconic scenes including the blood filled elevator and creepy twins, gone is the bike down the corridor or dead lady seducing the father. And no there isn't a "Here's Johnny" moment.It's all replaced with lack of originality and mediocrity.The cast do their best but nobody could have turned this around, it simply should never have been.Cliched, boring and I don't mean to be harsh but that kid looks like he ingested the whole ugly tree.Plain and simply bad.The Good:The cast do a decent enough jobThe Bad:Kid is just awfulEnding is far fetchedPoor writingWhole thing is just so unecessaryThings I Learnt From This Movie:The classics need leaving the hell alone

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.

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.

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.