We are told at the beginning of the book, and also in the movie, that Danny Torrance is a 5 year old boy who's learning to read. This is crucial to the rest of the story. Now, we all remember the wonderful young actor in the Kubrick's version, riding his small tricycle along the hotel corridors. The actor's name was Danny Lloyd and he was 7 at the time (1980), but he looked younger, he was believable, and that was one of the strongest points in the Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece.
Here in the 1997 version, we find that Danny is played by a 10 year old actor called Courtland Mead. Why did they do that? I'll never understand, and the whole story loses its meaning. You look at him and you know that he's not Danny. Of course there are no tricycle scenes here... how could he ride it at the age of ten? (laughs)
Rebecca De Mornay's performance is very poor, and Steven Weber does his best, but the shadow of Jack Nicholson is too long here. Still, Steven Weber is the only reason why I can't rate it 1/10.
I loved the book and I loved Kubrick's movie even more, but this is so dull that I can't recommend it to anyone, not even King's fanatics. The horror scenes are laughable, and the supernatural presences are nothing but bad jokes. Honestly, what harm could those (well... no spoilers) do?
This 1997 version was personally supervised by Stephen King, so it makes me think that a great part of the magic in his books is inside the reader's head, and not particularly inside his.
Better read the book and use your imagination, or watch Kubrick's version once again,'cause it's worth it, but don't waste 4.5 hours of your life watching this nonsense. All the magic is gone.
Here in the 1997 version, we find that Danny is played by a 10 year old actor called Courtland Mead. Why did they do that? I'll never understand, and the whole story loses its meaning. You look at him and you know that he's not Danny. Of course there are no tricycle scenes here... how could he ride it at the age of ten? (laughs)
Rebecca De Mornay's performance is very poor, and Steven Weber does his best, but the shadow of Jack Nicholson is too long here. Still, Steven Weber is the only reason why I can't rate it 1/10.
I loved the book and I loved Kubrick's movie even more, but this is so dull that I can't recommend it to anyone, not even King's fanatics. The horror scenes are laughable, and the supernatural presences are nothing but bad jokes. Honestly, what harm could those (well... no spoilers) do?
This 1997 version was personally supervised by Stephen King, so it makes me think that a great part of the magic in his books is inside the reader's head, and not particularly inside his.
Better read the book and use your imagination, or watch Kubrick's version once again,'cause it's worth it, but don't waste 4.5 hours of your life watching this nonsense. All the magic is gone.