On Tuesday, Dec. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT, IMDb Asks brings you a livestream Q&A and online chat with Lisa Edelstein. Tune in to Amazon.com/LisaEdelstein to participate in the live conversation and even ask a question yourself. Plus, catch up with Christina Ricci, star of new Amazon pilot "Z." The livestream is best viewed on laptops, desktops, and tablets.
A small village off the mainland is about to receive a huge winter storm. It won't be just another storm for them. A strange visitor named Andre Linoge comes to the small village and gives ... See full summary »
Becky Ann Baker,
After a deadly plague kills most of the world's population, the remaining survivors split into two groups - one led by a benevolent elder and the other by a maleficent being - to face each other in a final battle between good and evil.
Television adaptation of Stephen King novel that follows a recovering alcoholic professor. He ends up taking a job as a winter caretaker for a remote Colorado hotel which he seeks as an opportunity to finish a piece of work. With his wife and son with him, the caretaker settles in, only to see visions of the hotel's long deceased employees and guests. With evil intentions, they manipulate him into his dark side which takes a toll on he and his family. Written by
Most criticisms from people on here about Stanley Kubrick's original film seem to lie with the fact that he deviates from the book. I'm reading the book at the moment and whilst I'm enjoying it, there's a lot of potential American-style schmaltz. Secondly the book is too long and condensing it was really the only option to make it into a mainstream film.
What annoys me more though is people insist the mini-series is better as it's "like the book" - to me this shows absolutely no imagination. If you've read the book you'll know exactly what happens and it really is directing by numbers. All events in the series take place, chronologically as they do in the book. All the director had to do was shoot everything and throw it all together, without any question of how to approach a scene as he obviously just lifted all the ideas straight out of the book.
The idea about a man on the brink of insanity is really the core of the Shining, both in the book and the 1980 film. The whole question of whether supernatural forces are at work is somewhat questionable in the film, but in the mini-series the viewer is given no choice, as the supernatural is signposted at every opportunity. In the movie just one look from Jack Nicholson can send chills down the spine - the mini-series insists on make-up and CGI to say "look, scary movie".
Whether you dislike the 1980 shining because it deviated from the book is largely irrelevant. The fact remains, this mini-series is very badly produced. Steven Weber is far too nicey, nicey to be at all convincing as the film's villain. DeMornay is fine but can't convery Shelley Duval's sense of desperation. Melvin Van Peebles is also okay as Hallorann but cannot hope to achieve what is a beautiful and wistful performance from Scatman Crothers. However what really spoils the film for me is Courtland Meade's performance as Danny. I felt absolutely no sympathy for him and actually found myself rooting for Jack to get hold of him in the end. The kid sound like he has a permananent cold and for some reason seems unable to close his mouth. I lost count the amount of times Danny went off into a trance and his parents asked "Danny are you okay" - wake up lady, staring into the distance with a despaired look on his face is ALL Danny does! I also thought some of Danny's dialogue in the book sounded too advanced for a five year old and hearing it uttered aloud on screen reveals it's true ridiculousness. Danny Lloyd's performance in the movie was beautiful - a kid who clearly wasn't stupid but was fairly confused as to what was going on around him. What a shame we never saw this fine actor again.
Add to the inferior casting are a number of poor production values. The hotel, rather than the imposing, dark Timberline lodge used for the movie, is a rather jaunty looking place which is all too quaint. In the movie, just the sight of the hotel is scary - in the series, the reaction is more of an "oh is that it". Another truly awful thing is the use of moving objects whenever characters leave a room. Oh look the Torrances aren't in the room anymore, lets make the door close by itself, swing swing by itself etc..... Lastly the score is terrible - all jaunty one minute when it is totally inappropriate and should be dark and brooding and at other times clearly trying to copy the original to dreadful effect.
Fair enough, dislike Stanley Kubrick's original for it being too different from the book. I personally prefer the film and it's themes myself. However, don't for once think this is a good mini-series just because "it's like the book". Any old director can take a book and translate it directly to screen. It takes someone like Kubrick to take a source material and develop into something completely his own.
Finally my perception is many people preferred the mini-series as there was little need to think as everything was so clearly spelled out. In Kubrick's film a lot was left open to the viewer to interpret themselves, which in my opinion makes it a much more personal movie. However looking at another comment on here that said "Kubrick's was okay but it wasn't scary - the mini-series had things jumping out at you and stuff" I am beginning to realise that the age of dumbing down is upon us.
116 of 207 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?