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

having just recently viewing this film in one four an a half hour sitting(no commercials)I can honestly say I really enjoyed it.apparently it has little to do with the 1980 version and sticks much more closely to the book written by Stephen King.i won't say this was better than the original.they both have their merits.i thought this version was a bit richer in terms of characterization.there is very little symbolism is this version,which I isn't necessarily a bad thing.i thought the acting was good from everyone involved.as an aside,i purchased my copy as a two disc set and discovered that disk two contained part one while disk one contained parts two and three.it's a bit of an annoyance,but only a brief one.now,back to the movie itself. I feel the music played a bigger role here and elevated the film.did I like it as much as the original?i would say yes.just remember it is very long but it is broken up into three ninety minute sections.for me The Shining (1997) is a 10/10

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.

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.