West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Now_Im_Not_Banned on January 18, 2006, 10:32:13 AM
-
After finally seeing the 1997 version of "The Shining", which is Stephen King's preferred version (it stays more true to the book, goes into more detail, and has him on the production team as well), I surprisingly found it interesting. The movie is 273 minutes long, but it kept me watching. Steven Webber does a great job of holding his own as Jack Torrance. You'd expect that role to forever be Jack Nicholson's, but once you watch it, the movie makes perfect sense. I suggest you horror fans, ESPECIALLY fans of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", go out and watch this movie...The 1980 version is a classic and will forever have a place in my heart as one of the greatest horror movies, but this version just complies better with the book and Stephen King does a good job elabortating what wasn't explained in Stanley's take on the book...Who else has seen this version of "The Shining" or has any opinion on it? Does anyone actually like this version better? I know a lot of hardcore Stephen King fans, and even horror fans believe this version is superior, but what do ya'll think? Has anyone ever seen this?
-
yup ive seen this verison on tv quite awhile ago... was split over two nights if i remember rightly. definatley a good remake of the film. went into more depth then the 1980 verison
-
yup ive seen this verison on tv quite awhile ago... was split over two nights if i remember rightly. definatley a good remake of the film. went into more depth then the 1980 verison
LOL...It's not a remake of the film. Stanley Kubrick's version was his own take on "The Shining", a book written by Stephen King. Stephen King hated that version, he thought it didn't even follow the story. In 1997, he decided to have it made the way he originally wanted it. Not a re-make...PeACe
-
the original way better,who cares if it strays off from the book,it's the performances of the actors, and damn shelly duvall doesn't get enough credit for what she brought to that flicc. greatest performance in a horric flicc by a woman yell
-
i didnt even know there was a new one realeased in 97... i dunno if it can be better than the original tho..
-
I watched this movie for the first time just this week, it's amazing especially the way it was shot, the opening scene with the views of the mountains, the scene at the end with the snow and the maze, there's too much to mention. 8)
I wouldnt say I was surprised it was any good tho all the ratings of it are good everywhere ???
-
I watched this movie for the first time just this week, it's amazing especially the way it was shot, the opening scene with the views of the mountains, the scene at the end with the snow and the maze, there's too much to mention. 8)
I wouldnt say I was surprised it was any good tho all the ratings of it are good everywhere ???
Well, watching the movie with the thought that no one can outdo Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duvall, or Danny Lloyd in mind really made me believe that the actors would try their hardest to impersonate the actors in Kubrick's version, only to come up extremely short. Surprisingly, they held their own, and did a good job projecting King's story onto the screen how he wanted it...
-
Stephen King's the greatest writer alive today, of course his version of the Shining would be good. I loved his "Rose Red" miniseries too. I've read 75% of King's books, he's great.
-
Stephen King's the greatest writer alive today, of course his version of the Shining would be good. I loved his "Rose Red" miniseries too. I've read 75% of King's books, he's great.
Well, it wasn't a sure thing...A lot of his good books have been made into shitty movies. Some he even had involvement in...He's just much better at writing than he is at producing movies.
-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118460/