MovieChat Forums > The Shining (1997) Discussion > There are people who actually liked this...

There are people who actually liked this 'film'...

posted 16 years ago by saturns1stmoon
22 replies | jump to latest

i just watched this for the 1st time in 11 yrs & i'm in shock to come here expecting this steaming turd of a movie to be ripped apart in every post as it so deserves & there are some of you who seriously liked this more than the original!
i mean, Kubricks was no masterpiece i know. it had its share of issues but COME ON.
everything from the casting(Steven Weber, seriously?)to the dialogue to the pacing of this thing is a joke & a bad one at that.

the little boy in the original would win no prizes(i think it was his 1st film & it showed)but this kid, OMG, ugh.
ugh in every way. i mean, where did they find this kid? was he related to one of the producers? won the part in a contest?
it wasn't so much his performance as it was him in general.

& the way some scenes were stretched out over 10 minutes(to justify 3 nights of viewing i suppose)is insanity. especially the scenes in the lobby of the hotel, OMG talk about never ending! i know that ABC wanted to get their moneys worth but honestly!
the original had some run-on scenes that could have been cut but at least when you got past them, there was genuine creepiness to be enjoyed. not some censor-approved shtick that ABC made sure would appeal to mom & pop.
where the original had this bizarre moodiness about it, this was just pure cheese(the lights just flickered! the chandelier just shook! spooky!). like, let's lose the slaughtered twins & hedge maze & instead have some super cheesy CGI topiary lions(that only get about 60 seconds of screen time total).& they were sorry looking at that.

& how many times can you get the word "Sidewinder" in a script?
i lost count.
i did enjoy Rebecca DeMornay over Shelly Duvall for both her performance & overall appearance. King wrote the character to be much more like the former than the latter anyway.
Elliot Goulds phoned-in performance at the start of the film said it all.
i was laughing out loud it was so bad. but you can't blame an actor when they have nothing else to work with.

so, i guess the people who liked this version over the original, while clearly having zero taste, are lucky to be so easily entertained.

******
Now that everyone's dead from superaids, my herpes doesn't seem so bad, does it?

[–] mgreen9715 9 years ago

It's close minded idiots that are responsible or churning out generic movies an TV shows. They're starting to use the same formula over and over again because you refuse to allow others to have different taste. When they try something new it's panned because you like the same old same old.

You sound just as much of a close minded jackass than Kubrick did. No wonder people like you preferred his.

[–] Vic_Hitler 8 years ago

while clearly having zero taste

YEah, no kidding.

King is a pompous ass, IMO. Rather than being flattered and honored that a master of film like Kubrick would make a movie out of his book, King takes exception to changes and cries like a little girl.
He can't act, he can't adapt his own novels to a visual medium, he can't produce, and he certainly can't direct. He should stick to writing books, which what he does best and leave the cinematic arts to the experts.

So he pissed and moaned and got his shot - and churned out a 6 hour marathon of boring drivel.
And what about that stupid ending?

"I love you, Doc..."
"I love you, Dad..."

Oh, brother.

I guess that pretty much settles who is the real master of film and who should shut his cake hole.

[–] eweland 8 years ago

Yeah, no kidding.

King is a pompous ass, IMO. Rather than being flattered and honored that a master of film like Kubrick would make a movie out of his book, King takes exception to changes and cries like a little girl.
He can't act, he can't adapt his own novels to a visual medium, he can't produce, and he certainly can't direct. He should stick to writing books, which what he does best and leave the cinematic arts to the experts.

So he pissed and moaned and got his shot - and churned out a 6 hour marathon of boring drivel.
And what about that stupid ending?

"I love you, Doc..."
"I love you, Dad..."

Oh, brother.

I guess that pretty much settles who is the real master of film and who should shut his cake hole.

Absolutely.
It says a great deal about King's ego that he still cannot understand what made Kubrick's horror classic a surreal masterpiece.

KING DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO CONVEY WHAT HE WROTE IN A VISUAL MEDIUM.
Give it up, already.

Just how many films that King directed are in those "best horror film" lists?
Any?

King fans deserved the miniseries.
Now they can read the novel while simultaneously watching it.
_

THE SHiNiNG

[–] sbrooks839 8 years ago

The thing is, it's not just a horrendously bad TV mini-series, but ego-driven King made very questionable changes to his own story, SMH, lol.
In other words, all these King fanatics that defend this drivel by saying "It's just like the book" don't know what they're talking about, because it is not just like the book, lol.

Oh, and for anyone to even remotely compare this trash to Kubrick's 1980 cerebral masterpiece of horror seriously needs their head checked by a professional, just saying.

[–] CallmeV (147) 14 days ago

I can speak for myself. I like this more because I saw it first, before the other one.

Same with IT. The new one will never come close to the one with Tim Curry, with all the budget & hype.