Featured Audience Ratings

• Martin S

  
  Well I can obviously not put this on my list....but I'm gonna rate it anyway...it was so long ago I saw it....so now I'm just pissed....but it's good if not great...stupid non-existing movie if you wanna put it on the list

• Tim S

  
  This was pretty bad.

• Luke B

  
  Stephen King's The Shining (extra emphasis on the "Stephen King's" part) is Mr. King's "correction" of what he thought was a botched opportunity by Kubrick. It just goes to show that faithful does not equal better. This is still a fantastic… More
  Stephen King's The Shining (extra emphasis on the "Stephen King's" part) is Mr. King's "correction" of what he thought was a botched opportunity by Kubrick. It just goes to show that faithful does not equal better. This is still a fantastic adaptation, fitting in a lot more due to it's 4 hour and 30 minutes running time. It's long, it's slow, but it's still an interesting and enjoyable watch. The best part of this film is watching Weber and De Mornay. In many ways they are better than Nicholson and Duvall. Nicholson looked crazy before he had went crazy and Duvall looked like she'd been haunted for a long time before the film even starts. With so much time to fill, Weber is able to go from apologetic and caring father, to angry father and finally going crazy. He lacks the raw intensity and power of Nicholson, but I was very surprised. What the film may have in character and story, it lacks in style, atmosphere, pure terror and overall quality. It's well made, but only a few scenes are able to have an effect on the viewer. Kubrick changed the hedge creatures coming to life because of a lack of technological capability, 17 years later and they manage to prove him right. The edited scenes of still creatures are hardly threatening and the CGI is amateur and cartoonish. This is certainly a great watch, especially for dedicated King fans, but you could get a better experience and spend less time watching Kubrick's classic.

• Alexander W

  
  The shining is an ultimate horror because of the blur between reality and fiction. Not to be taken lightly. Get scared.

• _kelly .

  
  a frustrating piece, another time when Stephen King should have left "movies to the movie people"

• Aaron N

  
  Jack Torrance: Women, can't live with them, can't kill them. Delbert Grady: Can't you sir? While Kubrick's version of The Shining will always be superior, for a TV 3-part miniseries, this movie is very good as well. I remember seeing this when it first came on TV… More
  Jack Torrance: Women, can't live with them, can't kill them. Delbert Grady: Can't you sir? While Kubrick's version of The Shining will always be superior, for a TV 3-part miniseries, this movie is very good as well. I remember seeing this when it first came on TV and making sure that I stayed awake to see the whole thing. Steven Weber takes over the Nicholson role as Jack Torrance, the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, who slowly dissolves into madness. Meanwhile, his wife, played now by Rebecca De Mornay must deal with the problems of her husband and her son Danny, who has problems of his own. Since Stephen King hated Kubrick's version of the story, he takes the writing credit for the screenplay here and was very much involved in the production of this version. It re-establishes the changes made, including the original ending. Since it is like 5 hours, it gives a lot more depth into what is going on in the hotel and with the characters, and the changes made actually are pretty good. Putting the other version aside, as its own film, this is a good one, and I think its nice to remember a work like this that will always be in the shadow of the other. [Addressing the Overlook Hotel] Dick Hallorann: Hello, you old bitch. You're just as ugly in wintertime as you are in summertime.

• Lafe F

  
  A mini-series of Stephen King's "The Shining" brought things closer to the events of the book, but they still missed the scope of the story. There was some occassional frightening imagery, but it's hard showing things inside little Danny's head. The… More
  A mini-series of Stephen King's "The Shining" brought things closer to the events of the book, but they still missed the scope of the story. There was some occassional frightening imagery, but it's hard showing things inside little Danny's head. The story was shot at the hotel where King based his book, which was charming, but the place looked like a country cottage compared to what the book described. It was nice to finally see the hedge animals realized on-screen, with competent CGI effects. There were scenes involving a wasp's nest which didn't fit very nicely. There were goofy things like CGI ghosts, a dorky buck-toothed Danny and his seizures, and a dorky floating Tony dude with glasses. The whole series had a tacked-on happy ending which left me with a sweet aftertaste rather than affecting my waking hours in the darkness. The fire-hose scene was very memorable from the book, but they botched it with a cheap CGI effect shot. Stephen Webber, who played Jack Torrence, seemed nice to begin with, which made it more shocking when he turned evil. With a little computer wizardry, they bent his facial features into a twisted demon. Rebecca De Mornay played a strong silent blonde mother and wife Wendy, just like in the book. The haunted room with the lady in the bathtub was wonderfully done; it creeped me out a bit. The Kubrick version at least captures the grandness of the story and setting.

• xGary X

  
  Stephen King brings his own version of his story to the screen. Kubrick's The Shining was a success because of the haunting imagery, his skillful direction and Jack Nicholson's genius. This of course, has none of those things; just a faithful adherence to King's… More
  Stephen King brings his own version of his story to the screen. Kubrick's The Shining was a success because of the haunting imagery, his skillful direction and Jack Nicholson's genius. This of course, has none of those things; just a faithful adherence to King's original novel. Which was crap.

• Jason S

  
  This made for tv version was closer to the book than the movie and I thought it was better for it.

• Steve B

  
  Don't call it a remake, because technically it's not -- it's another adaptation of the book. And in this case, a better one, sticking closer to the novel than Kubrick did. The final installment is lacking, however, because it's here that Kubrick DID stay true to… More
  Don't call it a remake, because technically it's not -- it's another adaptation of the book. And in this case, a better one, sticking closer to the novel than Kubrick did. The final installment is lacking, however, because it's here that Kubrick DID stay true to the book (parts, anyway), and King and Garris didn't want comparisons made so THEY diverted from the book on scenes that were, if not integral, at least pivotal. Either way, Weber makes a better Jack Torrance than Nicholson did any day.

• Morgan S

  
  i just want to see the original. the book is very good

• Dean M

  
  Better than 1980 original film with additional scenes.

• Marion R

  
  I thought this was interesting, but the pacing was off.

• nefnie l

  
  Stephen King made his own version of this movie, because he wasn't really satisfied with Kubrick's version. He felt Kubrick's version was too cold and couldn't really connect with the characters. King has always been character driven. This movie portrays that… More
  Stephen King made his own version of this movie, because he wasn't really satisfied with Kubrick's version. He felt Kubrick's version was too cold and couldn't really connect with the characters. King has always been character driven. This movie portrays that more than the other, which makes the movie worth watching; but I don't think it is as good as Kubrick's.

• Jim W

  
  It's the version that King wanted, that's more like his book. It is a little creepy and scary even. But unlike the Stanley Kubrick movie, it has a touching ending. The 1980 movie is still much better though. Mick Garris is no Stanley Kubrick and Steven Weber is no… More
  It's the version that King wanted, that's more like his book. It is a little creepy and scary even. But unlike the Stanley Kubrick movie, it has a touching ending. The 1980 movie is still much better though. Mick Garris is no Stanley Kubrick and Steven Weber is no Jack Nicholson. While, Rebecca De Mornay may look better than Shellely Duvall, she wasn't as good of a Wendy as her.

• Miriam K

  
  Actually a very close adaptation of the book, but not nearly as scarey as the original

• Sean S

  
  Much better then the totally overhyped Kubrick/Nicholson version. Ironic as it is my icon, I know but I only tolerated the Kubrick version. Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay are both very good in this version.

• paganchild1979 p

  
  Redrum - what says it more then that?

Read all 18 featured audience ratings