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.

I just re-watched what I will call the "real" movie (even though it wasn't the Stephen King authorized version) and then watched the miniseries version the next day. Wow, the miniseries was an amateurish joke with no comparison to SK's version (I don't care that it departed from the book, since we are talking about movies here).The TV version was flat, cheesy, overdone with the ghosts (which took away their effect). The series just seemed like it was going through the paces to get the plot elements on screen as quickly..The ghost in the black tuxedo was pathetic and the one in the white one wasn't much better. The hotel was not spooky in the slightest and the hedge animals were as scary as Jar-Jar Binks. There was no atmosphere to the location and there was no feel or mood to the scenes.. it was just so one-dimensional in comparison.The actors for the two male roles were also not suited to them IMO. I know people complain about Jack Nicolson being too crazy from the outset, and this departs from Stephen King's version, but I am OK with that after having seen it done both ways.. In the TV version, he never gets there and you can tell he isn't capable of getting there. And the boy: OMG so annoying and flat. The conversations between him and mom with dialog like "it's not dad, it's the hotel..." unconvincing and no true fear, just cold and robotic.The Danny Loyd version was chilling and the TV one was annoying and formulaic.Shelly Duval also did an awesome job of conveying the fear and despair of Wendy's predicament- very believable.I could go on, but won't.... suffice it to say, I was embarrassed for the TV miniseries creators after seeing it.

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.

Kubrick's The Shining is better in every way: scenery, actors, music, mountains, ghosts, camera shots, etc.In this miniseries... the actors aren't so good, the scenery is worse, it isn't creepy or scary at all... the hotel is way too well lite and too small for ghosts to be appearing out of the blue. The ghosts and the hotel don't go well together.Mr. Ulmen in the miniseries sucks... Mr. Halleron isn't as good either, neither are the parents or kid.Just avoid the miniseries... only get the King novel and Kubrick's The Shining.