quite frankly, i am disturbed. after having posted my own comments on this film, i then went back to read other comments. that is why i am disturbed. so many people saying how super this mini-series was, and at the same claiming it to be far superior to the Kubrick version!
let us draw comparisons between the two. first we have the directors. 1980 version - Kubrick - perhaps the most consistently brilliant (and therefore misunderstood) director and cinematic visionary of the last half of the 20th century. 1997 version - Mick Garris, director of a number of other King adaptations and a few episodes of watered-down horror TV series. of course, he also wrote The Fly II and Critters II -- these hardly stand up against The Killing and Full Metal Jacket. Now we know that King wrote the teleplay himself, but frankly his involvement with the film industry has been rather more bitter than sweet. We all remember that terrible bad-film classic he directed Maximum Overdrive, and the screenplays for his films such as The Langoliers (another classic bad-film which i love) and Sleepwalkers. But it is funny how all the best adaptations of King's work were NOT adapted by King himself -- Stand By Me, Salems Lot, Carrie, The Dead Zone et al -- taken on by other people. and in recent years i have noticed his literary standard drop - pure opinion, but i am sure there are people who agree. the only two King books i have enjoyed from the 90s are Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia. he has always had a chip on his shoulder from his college days when he wasn't taken serious, and it has manifested itself more and more as the years go by. and of course, why do almost all his lead characters have to be writers?? i know it is easiest to write what you know, but honestly after 25 years, it's getting a bit ridiculous. so when he wrote the teleplay twenty years after he wrote the book, his approach was different - always mistaking length for suspense. Kubrick of course contributed to the writing in more or less every film he directed, each one a masterpiece. he is completely OF film. he is the beethoven of film, making rhythmic, complex masterpieces, each one demanding multiple viewings. there are few of King's works which demand second reading. the irony is, The Shining was one of king's best, earliest, and re-readable works.
and of course, The Shining 1997 is 4 hours long. i read that this is so the story can breathe! the novel is one of King's short novels, and frankly, the story had stopped breathing far before the end -- it had expired. Kubrick's film relentlessly builds the tension over a short space of time -- brimming with iconographic images (blood slamming thru the elevator doors, danny's silent scream, the truly creepy twin girls, the photograph at the end, danny's cycling thru the corridors, the tracking shots thru the maze, the panoramic sweep at the beginning, the zoom into the typewriter --- FULL of memories). The Shining 1997? hmmm, let me see --- oh yeah! some geeky spectacled floating teen (reminiscent of a slightly bad teen TV series) called "tony"! don't make me laugh! and danny himself! a snot-nosed nasal cretin - i feel more compassion for a snail than him! and since this is a modern remake, mrs torrance had to have more "spunk" and more spirit. and weber? well ok, he's good at acting drunk, but i noticed him copying some of nicholson's mannerisms and facial expressions! A 2nd rate cast complete!
so when i read comments lauding The Shining 1997 and panning The Shining 1980, i truly find myself feeling disturbed. i know that society as a whole is being dumbed-down, but this? this is ridiculous! are we gonna see a lame remake of Taxi Driver The Miniseries hailed as a true masterpiece and the original deemed a "waste of space"??
when an unknown 2nd-rate horror director is hailed above stanley kubrick, that leaves a lot of room for disquieted meditation.
let us draw comparisons between the two. first we have the directors. 1980 version - Kubrick - perhaps the most consistently brilliant (and therefore misunderstood) director and cinematic visionary of the last half of the 20th century. 1997 version - Mick Garris, director of a number of other King adaptations and a few episodes of watered-down horror TV series. of course, he also wrote The Fly II and Critters II -- these hardly stand up against The Killing and Full Metal Jacket. Now we know that King wrote the teleplay himself, but frankly his involvement with the film industry has been rather more bitter than sweet. We all remember that terrible bad-film classic he directed Maximum Overdrive, and the screenplays for his films such as The Langoliers (another classic bad-film which i love) and Sleepwalkers. But it is funny how all the best adaptations of King's work were NOT adapted by King himself -- Stand By Me, Salems Lot, Carrie, The Dead Zone et al -- taken on by other people. and in recent years i have noticed his literary standard drop - pure opinion, but i am sure there are people who agree. the only two King books i have enjoyed from the 90s are Hearts in Atlantis and Insomnia. he has always had a chip on his shoulder from his college days when he wasn't taken serious, and it has manifested itself more and more as the years go by. and of course, why do almost all his lead characters have to be writers?? i know it is easiest to write what you know, but honestly after 25 years, it's getting a bit ridiculous. so when he wrote the teleplay twenty years after he wrote the book, his approach was different - always mistaking length for suspense. Kubrick of course contributed to the writing in more or less every film he directed, each one a masterpiece. he is completely OF film. he is the beethoven of film, making rhythmic, complex masterpieces, each one demanding multiple viewings. there are few of King's works which demand second reading. the irony is, The Shining was one of king's best, earliest, and re-readable works.
and of course, The Shining 1997 is 4 hours long. i read that this is so the story can breathe! the novel is one of King's short novels, and frankly, the story had stopped breathing far before the end -- it had expired. Kubrick's film relentlessly builds the tension over a short space of time -- brimming with iconographic images (blood slamming thru the elevator doors, danny's silent scream, the truly creepy twin girls, the photograph at the end, danny's cycling thru the corridors, the tracking shots thru the maze, the panoramic sweep at the beginning, the zoom into the typewriter --- FULL of memories). The Shining 1997? hmmm, let me see --- oh yeah! some geeky spectacled floating teen (reminiscent of a slightly bad teen TV series) called "tony"! don't make me laugh! and danny himself! a snot-nosed nasal cretin - i feel more compassion for a snail than him! and since this is a modern remake, mrs torrance had to have more "spunk" and more spirit. and weber? well ok, he's good at acting drunk, but i noticed him copying some of nicholson's mannerisms and facial expressions! A 2nd rate cast complete!
so when i read comments lauding The Shining 1997 and panning The Shining 1980, i truly find myself feeling disturbed. i know that society as a whole is being dumbed-down, but this? this is ridiculous! are we gonna see a lame remake of Taxi Driver The Miniseries hailed as a true masterpiece and the original deemed a "waste of space"??
when an unknown 2nd-rate horror director is hailed above stanley kubrick, that leaves a lot of room for disquieted meditation.