Stephen King’s The Shining – 1997 Miniseries
By stephanie - Saturday, September 8th, 2007
In 1980, Stanley Kubrick directed the horror masterpiece The Shining. It’s something I grew up with (all the school kids used to mimic “Redrum” at lunchtime) and it is definitely a classic. So it was with low hopes that I popped in the DVD for the 1997 version of The Shining.
This is the version Stephen King always wanted to do – he was unhappy with Kubrick’s version, which veered greatly from the book. For example, Kubrick added a hedge maze instead of topiary animals. So King decided he wanted to set things right by creating a miniseries for The Shining.
So which one is better? Kubrick’s, of course. It’s a streamlined, scary masterpiece. But if you watch the TV version with an open mind, you just might enjoy it. Don’t be tempted to compare the two, just enjoy the miniseries on its own terms.
As a miniseries, it does suffer from a bit of over-exposition and the abrupt interruption of pacing, where the commercials were slated to play. Some of the special effects are now dated but weren’t bad for 1997. Remember, it’s television, so don’t expect the glossy polish you’d get from a big screen film.
As for acting, it’s hard to top Jack Nicholson, but Steven Weber does a good job as Jack Torrance and the kid is actually a good actor. Rebecca De Mornay, who has the best resume out of the three, is probably the weakest in rounding out the family. She vacillates between being smart and stupid, and doesn’t even come close to hitting Shelley Duvall’s terror and hysteria.
The worst acting comes from veteran Elliot Gould. He provides one of the most painful performances I’ve ever seen onscreen – the man was a robot! – but thankfully he’s out of the picture after the introduction.
What makes this miniseries interesting in contrast to the original film is the focus on the family dynamics, as Jack struggles to manage his alcoholism. Perhaps you aren’t expecting a heartwarming feeling from a horror film, but I thought the miniseries was touching and sad in a way Kubrick’s film could never be. You will also walk away with a full explanation of how and why things happened as they did, which admittedly removes some of the “mystery” but I enjoyed it.
I’m sure some director will want to remake this again someday. Will it be better or worse? Only time will tell.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I read the Shining after seeing the original movie and was surprised to see the differences among the two, considering I had basically grown up with the movie. The new version, however is so strikingly close to the book that I am not surprised to learn that King himself had a hand in its creation. I agree that comparing the two is impossible. The original has put such subconscious fear in me that I cannot help quickening my footsteps when I’m in a hotel hallway alone. I strongly disagree with the acting comparison, though. No one can compare to Nicholson in this movie, obviously. I don’t understand how anyone, though, can say with a straight face that Shelley Duvall is even a decent actress. I adore the original Shining but watching her act is downright painful. The entire time I am watching I cannot help but imagine how even more of a masterpiece this movie could have been.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I saw 1997 version when i was little. I loved it. After that I watched the other version too but it wasn’t scary at all. I hated Shelley Duvall even if she played well. Jack Nicholson was magnificent.
However I can’t compare these two movies. One was more psychological and the other one was scary.
January 5th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
The original movie is to its source material as Blade Runner is to its source material: a completely separate entity, great in its own way. It all boils down to whether you prefer a taut film with good-to-great pacing with a few liberties taken from the original book, or a straight-from-the-page, word-for-word adaptation.
I’ll take the former.
March 20th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I read the book for the shining and loved it. when i watched the original movie (1980) i was a little disappointed. i do agree that Shelley Duvall was absolutely a horrible choice for the role and the movie could have been just that much better with someone else as the character. i have yet to see the 1997 mini series but have high hopes for it. i would rather see a word for word adaption from the book so i can see what that director got from the book and compare it to what i got.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
i just finished watching the 1997 mini series and i absolutely loved it. in my opinion it was a whole lot better than the 1980 movie. i mean they were both very good but i’m more the scary movie type. my favorite character is the lady in the bath. i loved the “hair and make-up” on her. i’ll definately be having nightmares tonight. the casting was perfect and i loved the ending that was different from the book. it wasn’t a word-for-word adaption, give it some credit. anyway i really liked it and would recommend it to anyone that’s just a little bit bored on a Saturday night.