![Stephen King's The Shining [DVD] [1997]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/613ANKod80L.jpg)

110 Empty hotel rooms, filled with horror! > > > > > Jack Torrance (Steven Weber) and his family (Rebecca De Mornay and Courtland Mead) move into the sprawling, vacant Overlook Hotel to get away from it all. Away from the alcoholism that derails Jack’s writing career. Away from the violent outbursts that mar Jack’s past. But Jack’s young son Danny knows better. He possesses a psychic gift called the shining – a gift the hotel’s vile spirits desperately want... In the hands of Stephen King, the “dead” Overlook comes horrifyingly alive. Phantoms lurk, the message “redrum” appears with scary frequency, and even garden topiary lurches into macabre existence in this atmospheric shocker scripted by King from his own novel and directed by ace King screen adaptor Mick Garris (Sleepwalkers, The Stand)… Review: Good - Good Review: Not... quite... there. - I first saw the Kubrick version about 15 years ago and must have seen it at least 10 times by now. I remember being shocked by this film and almost too scared to continue watching! For me, it remains one of the most frightening horror movies of all time, and I don't scare easy. I have read the book, once, about 7 years ago and I loved it. I couldn't believe how different the original film was from the book. I'm a massive Stephen King fan and love all his books. The book fascinated me as it was full of good ideas, including the wasp's nest and the topiary animals. This was completely unexpected and I found the ideas refreshing. So, when I heard about this tv remake I was very curious and excited to watch it. (I appreciate the lower budget and tv censorship, but I can look past those things.) I sat down to watch this remake with a very open mind and no expectations with comparison to the original. I must say I was very impressed with new version. I really liked all the actors and I loved the fact this this version was so faithful to the book; very satisfying. What let it down, for me I think, was the essential element which I found to be largely missing - the horror. Don't get me wrong, I thought it rather creepy in places but I must admit it could have been delivered better. I thought they way they did the hedge animals was very good - except for when the animals began to move on their own, for all to see. I think this was a mistake. I liked the camera angles and the use of shadows, but when they used the CGI to make the animals actually move, I just thought 'oh no, there wasn't any need for that' and the effect was lost. Another scene which I thought was a tad over-done was the woman in the bathtub. When Danny first sees her - the make up effects were stunning. However, the close-up on her face wasn't necessary and I think it went on for a little too long. I think that should have been cut straight to the next shot, which was a zoomed out one of her beginning to move and with that horrible insane grin on her face and those staring eyes, which freaked me out somewhat! I think the hotel itself could have been a bit darker, scarier. It was too clean and well-lit. There were some good moments though, in the way that it comes to life on its own. I think that to give 4 stars is to be fair. It was a very good effort and conveyed the events of the book superbly. Obviously, it lacked the pure sensationalism of the original movie but it has to be said that Kubrick was a master director, and, whilst he strayed from the book and the chararcters were rather dumbed down, he did make a great horrow film. That aside, I was very pleased with this version and enjoyed the slower pace. I watched this film in three seperate instalments; I thought Part 1 was easily the best. Part 2 was good, but I thought Part 3 was the most lacking.I would certainly recommend it however, especially to King fans, although I warn that it should be taken on its own merits and not held in the same lofty reverance as the original film. Both are good in their own way.
| Contributor | Christine Carrie, Dolores Claiborne, Ellen Rimbauer, Elliott Gould, Melvin Van Peebles, Rebecca De Mornay, Sam Raimi, Shawnee Smith, Steven Weber, Wil Horneff Contributor Christine Carrie, Dolores Claiborne, Ellen Rimbauer, Elliott Gould, Melvin Van Peebles, Rebecca De Mornay, Sam Raimi, Shawnee Smith, Steven Weber, Wil Horneff See more |
| Customer Reviews | 4.3 out of 5 stars 1,771 Reviews |
| Format | PAL |
| Language | English |
| Number of discs | 2 |
| Runtime | 4 hours and 19 minutes |
C**U
Good
Good
L**S
Not... quite... there.
I first saw the Kubrick version about 15 years ago and must have seen it at least 10 times by now. I remember being shocked by this film and almost too scared to continue watching! For me, it remains one of the most frightening horror movies of all time, and I don't scare easy. I have read the book, once, about 7 years ago and I loved it. I couldn't believe how different the original film was from the book. I'm a massive Stephen King fan and love all his books. The book fascinated me as it was full of good ideas, including the wasp's nest and the topiary animals. This was completely unexpected and I found the ideas refreshing. So, when I heard about this tv remake I was very curious and excited to watch it. (I appreciate the lower budget and tv censorship, but I can look past those things.) I sat down to watch this remake with a very open mind and no expectations with comparison to the original. I must say I was very impressed with new version. I really liked all the actors and I loved the fact this this version was so faithful to the book; very satisfying. What let it down, for me I think, was the essential element which I found to be largely missing - the horror. Don't get me wrong, I thought it rather creepy in places but I must admit it could have been delivered better. I thought they way they did the hedge animals was very good - except for when the animals began to move on their own, for all to see. I think this was a mistake. I liked the camera angles and the use of shadows, but when they used the CGI to make the animals actually move, I just thought 'oh no, there wasn't any need for that' and the effect was lost. Another scene which I thought was a tad over-done was the woman in the bathtub. When Danny first sees her - the make up effects were stunning. However, the close-up on her face wasn't necessary and I think it went on for a little too long. I think that should have been cut straight to the next shot, which was a zoomed out one of her beginning to move and with that horrible insane grin on her face and those staring eyes, which freaked me out somewhat! I think the hotel itself could have been a bit darker, scarier. It was too clean and well-lit. There were some good moments though, in the way that it comes to life on its own. I think that to give 4 stars is to be fair. It was a very good effort and conveyed the events of the book superbly. Obviously, it lacked the pure sensationalism of the original movie but it has to be said that Kubrick was a master director, and, whilst he strayed from the book and the chararcters were rather dumbed down, he did make a great horrow film. That aside, I was very pleased with this version and enjoyed the slower pace. I watched this film in three seperate instalments; I thought Part 1 was easily the best. Part 2 was good, but I thought Part 3 was the most lacking.I would certainly recommend it however, especially to King fans, although I warn that it should be taken on its own merits and not held in the same lofty reverance as the original film. Both are good in their own way.
W**I
recomended
VERY INTERESTING MOVIE. If someone LIKES MYSTERY, ghosts, this movie is for you.
J**N
I’d recommend the 1997 version to other people
It was ok I wouldn’t say it’s better but jack in this one he doesn’t say his catchphrase from the 1980 version here’s Johnny but this one was still pretty good 👍
I**N
great
great
A**N
Stephen King's The Shining 1997 (Two Dvd Disc Set).
This 1997 version of 'The Shining' was surprisingly fantastic to watch. The feature length of this movie was very long of a Horror franchise then the 1980's version of The Shining. The actors & actresses in this movie were excellent. Stars Rebecca De Mornay, Steven Weber & Courtland Mead who played Danny were fantastic.The images in this movie were extremely different to the other version. The ghosts in the Bar were really humorous and they were really creepy as well. The huge fight between the father who turned violent and out of control went on a warpath to get revenge on his family because of his drinking problem. The sign 'Redrum' on the walls of Danny's bedroom were completely different because it was written in paint on the door in the 1980s version of 'The Shining' starring Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall & Danny Lloyd along with Scatman Crothers who played the chef in the 'Overlook Hotel'. Thanks Very Much Amazon. I apologize that I ordered this item accidently.
M**N
far better than Kubrick version
There have been many discussions on which version of the classic King novel is the better. Having seen both versions, I questioned why Kubrick altered the ending of his version to a final ending that is at odds with the novel's? Just didn't make sense - and so much detail was left out of the Kubrick version that is here in Mick Garris's version. And King himself wrote the screenplay - what better author to do so? In this version we have the wasp's nest event, the creeping topiary hedges, much more of the decadent masqued ball and for my money, Rebecca de Mornay is a far stronger Wendy than Shelly Duval's and the slow transformation of Jack Torrance - admirably played by Steven Weber - to madness far better portrayed than Jack Nicholson, who is completely crazy from the get-go. (and at the end, he does appear to have been taken over by some dark entity, not just wild-eyed crazy grinning like Nicholson.) Also, why change the story to have Halloran the cook killed in the Kubrick version? My only criticism is the young actor playing Danny has such an odd looking upper lip, it can be quite detracting. I can accept that the Kubrick version is a good film in its own right, but as King fan ever since Carrie - both novel & film, which, yes, had some minor changes too, but not glaringly obvious ones?! - I find this the far better and fuller transference from novel to film. And why only 4 stars if I rate this so much? Because, as usual, it has been slightly sanitised for American tv consumption.
S**L
Stanley Kubrick vs Shinning Novel
First of all, I saw Stanley Kubrick The Shinning way back when I was a kid and yes it did scare the crap out of me, fortunately I got in to reading books, so I picked up a copy of Stephen Kings The Shinning. At first I did not get it at first how could the Stanley Kubrick version of the book be so different in all ways, I was very disappointed because the books was the best I have ever read and plus the movie was nothing compared to the book, but with luck Stephen King made the tv version of his original masterpiece, and believe me it has almost everything from the book in The Shinning tv mini series I guarantee it does not disappoint!
TrustPilot
2 周前
1 周前