sbrooks839
What in the world was Stephen King thinking when he made this 5 hour travesty? Or better yet, what wasn't he thinking? He threw everything and the kitchen sink in this, yet sadly nothing stuck. I know he openly detested Stanley Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece, a stunning classic of cerebral horror on a grand scale that has yet to ever be equaled. But, was that a reason to defile your own work, Stephen, and try to re- adapt it - and for television at that? The answer is a resounding no!From the start, King and director Mick Garris do everything wrong, from the opening shot of Jack Torrance in the boiler room with Watson, to the horrendous outdoor scene of people still at the hotel playing croquet. So much for creating any sense of isolation. Yes, you can forget any kind of feeling of anyone being isolated, killing any further buildup of feelings of claustrophobia and doom.Oh, and also let me mention how pretty much from the get-go, King butchers his own novel. Yes, he made changes that would even stump Stanley Kubrick, who performed plastic surgery on the novel in his awesome adaptation; and rightly so. Number one, it is mentioned that Grady was at the Overlook alone when he killed himself. That's right. By himself. No wife. No twin girls. No family at all. Just him. Not the way I remember it from the book. And I've read the book so many times over the years, I've lost count. And King wanted to badmouth Kubrick for the changes he made when adapting the novel. OK, makes sense...NOT.Then, if all that isn't bad enough, director Garrison keeps throwing in these senseless flashbacks that do nothing but dumb the story down to the umpteenth degree. You know, like they do on the "CSI" shows, you know, because they feel people are too stupid to follow what's been said, so they have to show you as well as tell you. And it robs the movie of any kind of suspense right off the bat.And, again, as if other things that dumbed down this version wasn't enough, they feel the need to remind you that Jack Torrance is/was an alcoholic, and he had a "problem", and he hurt Danny, and he lost his teaching job because of his drinking problem every chance they get. Which is like every five minutes. Telling the audience one time isn't enough. Oh no. They obviously felt the audience was too dumb to get that, so they felt the need to throw it in as many times as possible so you would, you know, get it. Dreadful.And, I will slightly mention since I'm talking about certain characters/cast members, another heavy criticism I've heard over the years against the Kubrick film I've never understood was against the great Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrance, a role I feel she was simply brilliant in. Well, over the years, I've read negative reviews talk about how she was so wrong for the role, how she was too whiny and too weak, blah blah blah. Well, here's the deal. Sure, Rebecca DeMornay is more like the novel Wendy, however, visually on film, I just don't buy that a woman that strong would be with a man like Jack. Nope. Never. Not in a million years. She would beat the h*ll out of him, set him on fire, cuss him until he cried, and make him her little b**ch. True story.Thus, making her all wrong for the role film-wise. But she's the best actor in the whole thing. Yeah, I said it, and I meant it. And, as for Wendy, I really don't get where people get that Shelley Duvall's Wendy was a weak woman. Sure, she was meek, and a little timid around Jack, but pay attention next time you see it, and notice that any time when it comes to Danny, and Wendy thinks Jack may have (or possibly will) hurt him, she turns into a ferocious protective mother, standing her ground, not afraid of Jack in the least.I really liked Courtland Mead's small part in the movie Go, but he is completely wasted here. I blame it on bad direction. And that goes for the performance of everyone else in this. Awful. Atrocious. And I blame it on bad direction from Garris. Watch anyone of them in something else. Heck, watch something else than this altogether, and you will be better off.Anyways, even though King made some other questionable changes from his novel in this, I will give it two stars for at least being somewhat as close as it can be. I still prefer the Kubrick version. Always have. Always will. Especially after seeing this stinker.
JustineAssad
First off: a lot of reviewers here (especially those fans of Kubrick), have said that you shouldn't compare a book to its film adaptation as this is, after all, a site dedicated to moving pictures; while I can see a very vague point to the argument, you do expect some sort of faithfulness when a book is adapted for screen. I think even more so when you have a liking for a certain book, there will always be the hopeful expectation that a film adaptation will remain true because you want to see the story come to life, visually. That's sort of the point, really...But I'm not going to go much deeper into that, as it wasn't the greatest of concerns of mine. Probably my greatest issue was the lack of character development in Kubrick's version; you didn't really know where they came from or what sort of history they shared; none of the characters seemed to have any sort of bond with one another (which is a great deviation from the novel), and any closeness between mother father wife and husband were almost non-existent and at times – even from the get-go – bordered on pure antipathy. Here, with this adaptation, we could see that there was love, perhaps approaching its last throes for Wendy and Jack, but we could see and believe that at some point in time there was a bond that breathed between them, and this makes the break-down of the family ever more poignant. We cared. With the 1980 version we didn't really care. At least I didn't. And that's tragic, when you don't really care about the characters.Stylistically, it would be hard to compare the two films; there was certainly a great genius in Kubrick's cinematography, and I doubt that this film will ever be considered innovative. Having said that, it was nicely-shot and it certainly achieved an invasive creepiness, resulting in a truly frightening atmosphere and I think that this is one of the film's greatest assets. The desolate fear almost gets under your skin and squeezes you from the inside, making you very aware of your ever-escalating heart beat. Also, I much preferred the setting, the filmmakers having used the actual hotel which served as muse to Stephen King when he wrote the novel; and just for the sake of pointing it out: funny how some have commented here that they didn't care much for the hotel (again: mostly Kubrick fans), and have criticised it... do you guys even know that that was the ACTUAL hotel? Get yer facts straight when you want to pontificate... But I digress... Casting: pretty decent all round, though: I am a Jack Nicholson fan, hands down, and I honestly think he is one of the greatest actors in modern film; on the flip-side: I've never much appreciated Steven Weber, though I think his portrayal here of Torrance is probably closer to the mark than Nicholson's psycho playwright. Shelley Duvall vs. Rebecca de Mornay... well, Duvall's Wendy was so poorly developed there wasn't much to go on, which is a shame; again, the character here had a backstory and you could identify and understand her motivations and feelings. The two little Dannys: both I think were equally well-acted and did a fine little job with their roles.So between the two movies? While I definitely enjoyed the visuals of Kubrick, and the incredibly dramatic and foreboding score, the mini-series takes it for me simply because I felt the story was better developed, as were the characters; it also has a slow build-up of dread, a cold chill that quietly slides its way up your body and holds you close, reluctant to let go. And that's what a horror is all about.
