from modesto, california, now in knoxville, tennessee
Stanley VS. Stephen
Okay guys, I guess this is kind of an comparison/critic's view of both versions of this movie. I have seen both and was shocked when I found out that Stanley Kubrick's version was released in theaters and IMMENSLY praised, even though it follows the book EXTREMELY loosely; (And who couldn't help but laugh when Danny was talking to his finger and even giving it a voice? ) Now, I am not saying that this wasn't a good horror movie. It definitley was well done. Seeing Jack's character slowly start turning into something completley different than that of which his family knows him for, The subliminal messages of the two little girls slaughtered and an ocean of blood flooding the halls, and even a good, twisted ending. It was a good movie, but like Halloween 3: season of the witch, This movie should not have been called "The Shining." Later on in the years I had stumbled across what seems to be an unappreciated, and candy coated gem of a film with an even sweeter filling known as Mr. King's made for t.v. movie bearing the same title as Stanley Kubrick's. What's the difference? This version was not only faithful to the novel, but also and sometimes a little too terrifying of a movie. WHO COULD FORGET THE WOMAN IN THE TUB?! Oh! How magnificently and more thought ought this movie was. The ghosts, The insanity of Jack, Heck, even the animal shaped shrubberies were out for blood! And they weren't illustrated as silly either. They were an real and honest to god threat to the young family. While they can usually be found around the same price and they are both great movies, I must say that Stephen wins this round in cinema. Even though Stanley Kubrick directs some of the greatest science fiction movies, (most notably 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Clockwork Orange) King is the king of This hotel's hidden hauntings and horrors.
I think I stand alone on the Kubrick version of The Shining. Yes, there are differences, yes there are things left or added that purely shouldn't be there, but Kubrick IMO caught the horror of the place and situation SO well. To me, the atmosphere more than made up for differences from book to film. I prefer the book to any filmed version I've seen.
I'm a big Kubrick fan and I love this movie on its own merits. Strictly comparing it to the book, though, the movie does not hold up. (I consider the book to be one of SK's best.) Your "Halloween: Season of the Witch" analogy is dead-on, Kubrick really just used a skeleton of SK's plot and made his own movie out of it.
Don't get me started on the TV movie...that kid playing Danny drove me bananas for some reason.
I think I stand alone on the Kubrick version of The Shining. Yes, there are differences, yes there are things left or added that purely shouldn't be there, but Kubrick IMO caught the horror of the place and situation SO well.
Nope, yer not alone. I love Kubrick's version. It's far superior to a few other King adaptations so I can forgive the differences made during the transition from book to big screen. I'm also a big fan of the tv mini~series, though. I appreciate how that version stuck closer to the book, and felt Jack's descent into madness was better represented.
Nicholson plays Jack as a crazy~eyed madman pretty much from the start. He always seemed irritated by Wendy and Danny and it was implied he could hurt them without much external influence. Steven Weber's portrayal depicted a man that loved his family and truly didn't want to hurt them. His inner turmoil at being possessed by the hotel was well acted, making his slow descent into madness seem believable.
Two very different portrayals of the same character, but both actors achieved what was expected from the role for each adaptation.
I love the Kubrick version as far as stand alone movie, but the made for TV version was not only closer to the original, but a lot of it was filmed in the Stanley Hotel where King had the idea and started writing the book. Side note: if you haven't been to the hotel I highly recommend going. Truly awesome and a lot of great stuff about the man himself.
The main reason I like the Steven Weber lead TV movie more is that the character development is much closer to Jack Torrence's journey in the book. In Kubrick's version it almost feels like Jack is crazy from the get go and only needs to be nudged over the edge. The journey Weber takes is a twisted tale that actually has you feeling sorry for him along the way.
agree with ally and doowopgirl...the kubrick vers. is an astonishingly great film..but i digress from them and others in that i think is a fair and good adaption of the novel...
really...comparing the womne in the tubs to see which is better ??
nah...if you read the book...understood the book...you knew, from page one, jack had the itch...he had that monkey on his back from the get-go...
sure, he was trying to win that battle...and the tv movie does depict that a wee bit better, but that is more because they could take thier time in that..whereas a cinema movie cannot: in a two hour movie compared to a 4-5 hour movie, one must take some short cuts to get to the heart of the tale...and kubrick does that brillianty and logically
imho, all three are very good, in thier own rights...
Kubrick's movie is a lot better, in my own opinion. Kubrick's movie is what most people think of when they think of The Shining and that can't be changed. I've seen the miniseries and want to like it, try to like it, etc, but Kubrick's version is just a lot better film, even if the miniseries is closer to the novel.