Customer Reviews
Much more accurate - By: Azlak, 26 Feb 2008 
The Shining is one of my favourite books & to be honest, it deserved a better attempt that Kubrick's version. That's fine for a horror film, but not as a adaptation for one of King's best works.
Who else can adapt a King book like the author himself? This work is a little on the long side but I was pleased to see alll the aspects of the book that I enjoyed were there.
On the subject of the most complex character Jack, it was refreshing to see him portrayed as a family man trying to make ends meet for his wife & child without any hint of the monster he would become. I just found that Nicholson's portrayal of such a deep character to be far too simple. King at least gives us far more information on Jack & why the hotel chose him as it's 'host'.
The whole essence of "unmasking", such an important theme in the book, is constantly flowing through this book/adaptation & when read alongside EA Poe's The Masque of the Red Death, we reallly see what King means by "UNMASK!".
I found the accuracy that King maintained to be striking. It's probably sad that I noticed this, but most of the things described in the book are spot on in this film. Even down to the bathroom in Room 217. King wrote that the floor had hexagonal tiles & King even delivers this in the film. This is probably because the very hotel The Shining is based in was the very hotel used to film (The Stanely Hotel in Colorado). If any set is going to be accurate then what better than the author's inspiration for the story instead of an outdated timber lodge that Kubrick used?
The rest of the cast do okay in their roles. There aren't any major stars in the cast but maybe that's why King chose them. I think Steven Webber does well in his role bearing mind he had the unenviable task of re writing a character who even by that stage Nicholson had made his own. I feel Webber's portrayal of Jack, as has been said, was far more loyal to the book. Nicholson created the image of a man who would explode at any minute. That's fine in other films, but it's not what Jack Torrance is like in the novel & for those who haven't read The Shining, his character reallly is central to the theme.
Courtland Mead (Danny) is probably a bit too far on the cute, well adjusted kid side of things. He does okay in the role, but for a 6 year old he seems to be remarkably well adjusted to his 'powers' & not as disturbed by them as King states he is in the book. He's also a bit older than King intended. In the book, he's only 5 & can't read.
I also found the reinstatement of the original ending to be refreshing. I also noted the irony of one of Torrance's first lines in the film when Watson reminds him to dump the boiler "Well, it wouldn't be likely to forget a thing like that, would it?". It also again shows that the hotel is the cause Torrance's change & not, as in Kubrick's version, just down to Torrance's psychotic tendencies.
In summary, if you want to see King's own version of the Shining then this is the version for you. However if you've seen Kubrick's version & are just curious, be warned, these films are very different & you may not like King's version in comparison. It's fair to say that I'm one of those people who thing what Kubrick did to The Shining was sacriledge. This version is far superior.
The "real" Shining - By: Mr. R. R. J. Hooper, 02 Sep 2007 being a huge fan of the shining, i loved the stanley kubrick version, however on a long train journey i decided to purchase the novel for the trip. & realised how drasticallly different the book is from kubrick's version...so my upmost respect for the movie has gone apart from nicholsons performance. however this movie stays true to the book & i loved alll 260 minutes of it. not long enought if you ask me. so alll in alll an amazing movie great casting 5 out of 5. hope this helps
Faithful. - By: Martin I. Smith, 08 Aug 2005 
Stephen King's The Shining is drasticallly different to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. He sticks to the book as much as possible, even at the expense of pacing. It's very very long & there are a lot of scenes that fill out the backstory that was missing from the Kubrick version. King fans should be happy with it. Having read the book, I still find Kubrick's vision infinitely more interesting. This movie is a total adaptation, very faithful & basicallly a filmed version of the book. It seems to have no life of its own. Stanley Kubrick wasn't very faithful to the book but then he didn't need to be. It's a different medium & some things work better in one than in others, as seen perfectly in King's movie. Some of the more scary moments in the book seem tame & predictable in the film. Kubrick's film was a visual tour de force. It was pure cinema. As such, Kubrick's film might not be as cohesive a story as this, but it will always remain a more exciting, daring & horrifying experience. King's The Shining is not a bad movie by any means, but for me the definitive version already existed, so why bother?
True enough to the book yet not a notch on Kubrick's classic - By: , 06 Aug 2005 
After having read the book & being a fan of Kubrick's adaptation, I was of course curious to see this 'King approved' version of the story. However, after watching the film (Spread over two nights due to it's 4+ hrs running time) I was left a little disapointed. Although the film remains much truer to King's story than the Kubrick version, it by no means does the story justice. I think the root cause of the film's flaws is its ever-present 'made for American T.V feel' which at times I found extremely cheesy & at others almost cringeworthy. The worst example of this for me was the film's ending... so incredibly cheesy that I could not contain my laughter & made worse by the fact that the scene is completely fabricated & bares no resemblance to King's own ending whatsoever. On a similar note, the annoyingly over-the-top & sickly acting of the young boy who plays Danny was also a let down, I witnessed the slaughtering of some clasic lines from the book on many occasion.
Despite this, the film at times was enjoyable if a little lengthy. I particulary enjoyed the portrayal of Danny's chilling visions, if they were a little tainted by poor cg effects (especiallly the hedge animals).
If you loved the book then i'd say it is worth seeing this version & making up your own mind, but if your hoping for something as powerful as the Kubrick interpretation then I think you'll be quite dissapointed.
Room 217 - aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh! - By: , 26 Mar 2005 This version of The Shining is so much better than the Stanly Krubrick one. It ios much more true to the story & it is - Stephen King's. He made it so he make a perfect asdaptation of the film - 260minutes I hear you shout - every second of it counts. And it also contains one of the most scary, shocking grousome thing I've ever seen! A good buy - worth getting anyday.
