The Stephen King thread

[JudasMyGuide]

I might later, but we've decided to go watch the Gerald's Game right now. I could postpone the full review until we get to it chronologically, though.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

- "Scoot close and we'll share..." -




EDIT:

You know, @Ariana , that second scene you mention... yeah, they didn't hold back. At all. Fuck, I'm a bit nauseous myself right now.

 

[Ariana]

Gah! Not seeing the film.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

Gerald's Game is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read.

Sold!! Will watch this weekend.

 

[Night Prowler]

Another Stephen King adaptation coming out:

 

[JudasMyGuide]

A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

AAAAARRRRRGGHHHH!!! Oh, fuck, fuck, fuck. Sorry, but I can't even call this "shite", because with shite you still have this faint glimmer of hope that the particular shite at hand has been a tasty food only several hours ago. But - I kid you not - this is the WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN SO FAR. And I'm neither overreacting nor exaggerating.

I dare you - go and watch the first five minutes. The scenes, the "actors", the script. It's not even a parody, it's just surreal. I mean, the protagonist does not change his facial expression throughout the whole movie! The scenes often don't make sense at all - seriously, at various times we were wondering what the fuck is even happening. The vampires often look like some rubber blue gremlins. All "embellished" by this dissonant synthesizer soundtrack. Seriously - if you haven't seen it, you probably can't even imagine how it looks and feels like. This is more stoned than Dylan in '66. But the actors take the cake. This acting is worse than in porn. Fuck it, I've already written more than enough about this abortion of a movie.

Oh and by the way, this buggeration has nothing in common altogether with either the book or the original miniseries. Apart from the name of the town and the fact it's supposed to be about vampires. I know i disliked the miniseries, but I might be reconsidering now. This is as low as it gets.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Salem's Lot (2004)

This one... is actually good. I mean, for three hours it hardly can't be overlong, but out of the Salem adaptations, this one was both most faithful and most enjoyable. Actually, this might have been the most enjoyable King adaptation so far (meaning only Carrie/Salem). It's very well cast - the completely unknown Rob Lowe (well, unknown to me) somehow really worked as Ben Mears and I'd say that Sutherland, Hauer and Cromwell were all well picked. Much better than the older adaptation in that regard. Also, there are some changes from the book, but I'd say most of them really work for the benefit of the story - Ben's history with the Marsten house is radically changed, but both makes sense and actually makes for an even more captivating narrative. Also, the setting update to (then) present time is acceptable and well done (of course, a character uses "dot com" in one scene, but hey, it was 2004. Just look at Mean Girls, if you please). I don't know what to make of the twist with Father Callahan, but I guess it makes sense from dramatic point of view.

Of course it's hardly scary at all, but I'm afraid that while King managed to actually somehow make the vampire theme work within the book, it's probably impossible to do so on screen. So that's a caveat for you if you indeed look for a horror, instead of just a "King adaptation". But a pleasant movie regardless.

Indeed, the worst thing about this might be Gob's cover of Paint It, Black that plays over end credits. Fuck that. But I'd probably recommend this one even to the fans of the book.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

The Shining (1977)

This one has been quite long in the making and I apologise for the lateness of this post. In fact, I actually finished the book in August and I admit that in the last five months I've barely gotten through the first half of Rage. Blame the school and my laziness. But also the shittiness of Rage and the fact I knew this was going to be a long post.

Anyway, King's third novel was a huge success and it still is one of SK's most well-known horror works among the general public - of course, for many there are somewhat blurred lines between the book and its Kubrick-directed adaptation (more on that one later), but that's pretty much expected. Let me say this right now, before we proceed - I have already said it many times in the past (and I could swear I have already said so even on this very forum, but I can't be bothered to look after that post) and I guess my opinion hasn't changed: this book is not only Stephen King's greatest achievement, but it is also one of the most striking works of modern US literature, weird as it may sound. Indeed - if there has been a Great American Novel written in the past 50 years or so, I just might put my money on The Shining being it.

Now, before I'll lose any of my remaining credibility, let's explain as fast as I can. The reason for this is that for a horror novel (and it is a good horror novel, there's no doubt about that) it contains quite a lot of stuff that not only tells us about the main characters and America in general, but because of the fact the book is mainly a horror novel, that stuff is mentioned mostly in the background, in passing, so its intentional vagueness adds to the mystique and makes it look like the novel talks about more than it actually talks about. But I'll get to that in a while.

On the inspiration of the novel: On October 30, 1974, King and Tabby checked into The Stanley Hotel

Spoiler: Pic

in nearby Estes Park, Colorado. They were the only two guests in the hotel that night. "When we arrived, they were just getting ready to close for the season, and we found ourselves the only guests in the place — with all those long, empty corridors." King and his wife had dinner that evening in the grand dining room, totally alone. They were offered one choice for dinner, the only meal still available. Taped orchestral music played in the room and theirs was the only table set for dining. "Except for our table all the chairs were up on the tables. So the music is echoing down the hall, and, I mean, it was like God had put me there to hear that and see those things. And by the time I went to bed that night, I had the whole book in my mind." You probably can tell that atmosphere like this writes the book by itself and he captures it perfectly on its pages. It has been said many times that hotels in general are unnerving places on their own. Part of it is possibly pragmatic - despite all the effort and maids cleaning up, you can't help but to think how many people there were sick or dying or doing... strange things in the very room you were in - but it might be partly also because of the very philosophy thereof - here is a place that made sleepovers into an industry, a place which you make your home for a night, yet it is completely depersonalised and dehumanised ("DON'T YOU REALISE???" *ahem, never mind) and as such it might bear the ideas and thoughts of its previous inhabitants, let alone the presence of the people they indeed actually died there (and I do not necessarily mean all that in a metaphysical way, although that one too), yet all of these are unwanted.

King actually uses this to create both the horror "meat" of the book and its background and eventually its greater message as well. The supernatural part of the story consists mainly of the hotel being both somehow "alive" and stuck in a strange time warp where the former guests reappear, "enjoy the party" and interact with the main characters. Throughout the book we also watch as Jack is slowly consumed by an irresistible obsession with the hotel, its history, its previous inhabitants and slowly realising that there is a much darker side to this hotel (and possibly other hotels as well) than he previously thought. I know I'm going to sound crazy, but it was these small glimpses that thrilled me the most about the book. Both the scrapbook (who created it? Who wrote those cynical comments?) and the other stuff that Jack found in the basement (an old menu, a doll, the snippet "Medoc, are you here // I've been sleepwalking again my dear // The plants are moving under the rug") seems familiar, yet strangely otherworldly. It all makes you think of many other older stories that you might have been a part of but just as well might have not. And - and these are more or less Jack's thoughts quoted verbatim - it makes you think of how many parties there were, what deals had been made here, what did these people drink and think, what did they dance to? How did all those rich people spend the time here then, between the two wars, celebrating the victory and thinking the world is theirs? Our lives are built on a comfy cushion of past, of all those storylines and events that shaped the world that we actually live in and Jack starts to realise this somewhere here, too. "It's all forgotten now", as a jazz standard would have put it (again, more on that later), but the nights were young and fresh and thrilling, the people were shivering before their first kisses and dances or their first rendezvous with prostitutes. And yes, as Balzac said, "behind every great fortune there is a great crime", or - to be more precise - "The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done." The Shining does not shy away from the fact that many of those millionaires were, for all intents and purposes, actually gangsters. That's the dark, moist underbelly that Jacks sees, tries to confront Ullman about and is eventually most fascinated and pulled by. With Horace Derwent being a thinly veiled homage to Howard Hughes and the fact so much of Vegas and other business was handled by the mob in the first half of the 20th century, this is the background that I find really interesting. And I'd really, really like to be a fly on the wall in any of those hotels. Or other places, you know what I mean. Jack would, too, and the hotel tries its best to use this intrique and pull him in deeper. Also, again, how many people have actually died there? But like I mentioned in the third paragraph, it's all vague enough to be just a background info, a setting for the play, yet it also gives us a lot of social commentary. We often idealise the past, but the past is often just as dirty and unpleasant as the present is. The "endless party" aspect was quite fascinating, yet very, very creepy.

(Also - funnily enough, Danny's "shining" ability makes him more susceptible to the hotel's supernatural torment, yet it pretty much never tells us anything about the hotel's history we wouldn't already know beforehand and all of our spotty information is mainly gained through Jack's efforts.)

There's also something about the soundtrack to the Kubrick adaptation that's connected with this, but I'll discuss this in the adaptation's review.

But although everything I said above is essential to the book and very well put, it's not what The Shining is actually about. At the risk of sounding banal, let me say that eventually, this novel is about the family and especially its head, Jack Torrance. King is almost certainly autobiographical here, since Jack is also a writer, he has a "gifted" child and is an addict. Yet - and I can't stress how unbelievable this is - the prophetic feel of this novel is uncanny. He manages to vividly capture the family in its phase of decay, all those nasty thoughts and things people do to each other when they've beel already together for some time. All the inner turmoil and repressed hatred (in the worst cases), the blame shifting and guilt swinging, the writer does show how the most important secular relationship and the "backbone of the society" slowly erodes and makes its participants a little bit worse and more reprehensible in the process. And, to top it of, this book contains some of the most honest and direct, sickening and bare demonstration of alcoholism I have ever witnessed. We slowly watch Jack spiral back into addiction, after seeing him (via flashbacks) in the place nobody wants to go to - the endless party where only skeletons dance eventually. To quote Danny Elfman, "I'm all dressed up with nowhere to go // Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder // Waiting for an invitation to arrive // Goin' to a party where no one's still alive... It's a dead man's party who could ask for more? // Everybody's comin', leave your body at the door // Leave your body and soul at the door." Indeed, we watch the protagonist trying to keep that spark, that vigour, that "party" even as everyone with a little bit of sense (like his friend Al) tries to run away as fast as they can. And we are presented with the result, the devastating effects on Danny and Wendy, the only people Jack thinks he cares about, before we realise that, unfortunately, he just might care about himself a bit more. Gluttony, Wrath, Envy and Pride are Jack's combo of mortal sins, and man, does he make use of all of them. When I first read the book in high school, I didn't really understand these parts, I admit as much, but re-reading the stuff now when I'm older, it's really gut-wrenching to watch him try to (albeit involuntarily) destroy as many lives as possible along with his in the process. The lashing out of a hurt, shamed addict - just go and re-read the telephone conversations first with Ullman and then with Al. When Danny tries to read him and sees all the stuff in his head, it's pretty accurate, yet vague and it really makes you think.

Why do I find it so interesting? Well, although King's addiction later spiraled out to possibly similar proportions (I'd recommend you to go and read the autobiographical parts of On Writing if you haven't already) and he had been married for some time when this book was written, I seriously doubt he had the experience by then. In On Writing he admits that he wrote The Tommyknockers as an allegory of his addiction and didn't even realised it at first... and that was in 1987, ten years later. That makes it very prophetic and also kinda creepy, as if his very own subconsciousness tried to warn him beforehand and failed. The description of marriage that was entered and then never worked upon and therefore now reaching its expiration date becomes more and more haunting with each re-read. In that way, I can safely say that the book works for me on every level possible, forty years later, after 20 readings or so.

Anyway, enough about Jack - I think that the book actually did a pretty good job with Wendy, giving us insight in her history and life and explaining why she puts up with all this as long as she does without picturing her as a mere victim of domestic abuse. She is believable and interesting and you can kinda feel why Jack hates being outshined by her (in the field of common human decency) so much. Danny... is a believable child character with outstanding abilities. I probably can't quite comment on that any further. The chapter with the doctor in Boulder is quite amazing, though and gets me every time. However, I'd like do stress that I really like Dick Hallorann. One of my favourite King's character ever, in fact. He just... shines, you know? And no, that's not just a bad pun. I could imagine reading a whole book dedicated to him. Interestingly enough, he cropped up again nine years later as a bit character in It, but he has much less space there and I wasn't even sure if it wasn't just a re-use of the same name.

Connected with the above, King's style here is phenomenal. He manages to pull it all off and tells the reader everything this novel is supposed to tell him. In some ways, he was still a beginner and some of the homages and shout outs are not as subtle/precise/natural as it might have been later (just see the huge Poe obsession, that's quite heavy-handed), but I'll give him a pass in that regard, both because the results are quite extraordinary and because I don't have to squint all that much to overlook it. (OK, that one was also not a pun. Anyway...)

@Ariana @Mosh @Cornfed Hick @mckindog @Maturin Any thoughts?

The music mentioned within:

As mentioned above, there's a lot of time spent on the interbellum party, so there are a lot of old standards mentioned. Some of these are of later origin, but that's not an anachronism, as the hotel floats throughout various periods. These are namedropped:

(only Ticket to Ride, but it's hard to find a swing version thereof, so the medley will have to do)

To be continued, because of the forum's YT link limitation.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

More songs from the ball:

This one is actually of Czech origin - see for yourselves

But it is mentioned (and was probably played as well) under its English name, Beer Barrel Polka

Roger howls this one while dressed as a dog while trying to impress Derwent (it makes sense in the context... kinda):

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Songs Danny sings or hums to himself:

Eddie Cochran's Legendary Master Series is mentioned as one of Danny's favourite albums


He sings this one off it

Wendy keeps playing this one in her head during her night thinking

and this classic plays in the truck when she's with Danny (the lyrics are quoted, even)

Jack is mentioned singing On to Victory, the University of New Hampshire fight song

 

[Mosh]

Victor Wooten is doing a concert at the Shining hotel. Thinking about going, might be a fun weekend trip and Estes Park is really beautiful.

Haven’t read the book or seen the movie, both are on my list. I’m thinking about skipping the book in favor of the movie though since there are other things I want to read (including other King books) and from what I understand Kubrick completely changed the story anyway.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Haven’t read the book or seen the movie, both are on my list. I’m thinking about skipping the book in favor of the movie though since there are other things I want to read (including other King books) and from what I understand Kubrick completely changed the story anyway.

If you had to pick just one, pick the book. The film is pretty good, but the book is absolutely flabbergasting. There is not a King book I'd recommend above this one. Yeah, that's just like... my opinion, dude, but anyway

Soundtrack continues:

More songs thought of or sung by Jack:

(plays when he keeps thinking about the bike accident)

(hums to himself while inspecting the snowmobile)

(yells this one at no-one in particular during the make-believe bender)

(hums to himself during the flashback where his father burns the wasp nest)

(the boiler scene)

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Also, it is mentioned that Wendy had her classical music with her in Overlook, Bach was certainly mentioned, but I don't remember the rest. Anyway, some uplifting Bach for youse

And last but not least, these are the songs Dick listens to when trying to reach the Torrances in the blizzard

Also, Aretha is mentioned, but not a specific song. So let's just finish this all with

 

[mckindog]

I’ve never really paused to pick my favourite King book, but off the top of my head, this is it.
For all the reasons you nail in an excellent write-up.

You’ve made me want to re-read it.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

Haven’t read the book or seen the movie, both are on my list. I’m thinking about skipping the book in favor of the movie though since there are other things I want to read (including other King books) and from what I understand Kubrick completely changed the story anyway.

The book and the movie are both American classics. I'd suggest reading the book first, then watching the movie, though my experience was the opposite. It's tough to read the book without thinking of Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall and Scatman Crothers in the lead roles, having seen the movie first. The movie mostly tracks the book but Kubrick changed the ending significantly. Jack is a somewhat more sympathetic character in the book; won't say more than that without giving away any spoilers.

Having read a lot of Stephen King's novels, I think The Shining is probably the best bang for your investment of time, because, unlike his other classics like The Stand or It or The Dark Tower, you could read The Shining in a single weekend. Those other books will take weeks--or months, for entire The Dark Tower series.

P.S. I wish I'd had JudasMyGuide's musical appendix when I'd read the book -- nice work!

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

One for the collectors...

Original Stephen King Manuscripts Among Items Ruined In Bangor Water Main Break

 

[Night Prowler]

Amazon Developing 'The Dark Tower' Series

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Sorry for the delay, but you know the drill... Work, school, marriage, friends, godparenting and everything. In between, there were two shitty exams before me, my car kinda broke down (though it’s already fixed), we were setting up a mortgage and buying a flat (currently we’re in the process of moving) and even my friends sometimes tended to "put the load right on me" (as if I didn't have enough reading for school, I was supposed to have read Fromm's To Have or To Be? so we could discuss - that was one weekend, the second was spent by playing D’n’D, which was actually great), but here goes...

The Shining (1980)

I'm going to be honest here and openly admit that while I respect Stanley Kubrick, I don't like him very much. When I want something cold and academic, I prefer Hitchcock or Kurosawa or Tarkovsky, when I want something visually enticing, I go back to Leone. Let's say that I usually see what he's trying to do and he's talented and everything, but I just don't see myself as his fan, neither now nor in twenty years. I'm afraid that, once again, this is not a very popular opinion nowadays. You see, he managed to create this kinda cultish devotion around him (though some of that was possibly already after his death) and - like pretty much every good thing - can't help but be a tad overrated.

That being said, while I personally don't adore him as many others do, I still respect him and watch his movies from time to time ... and would even recommend those to anyone looking for an intriguing and technically brilliant movies. Which is much more than can be said about, say Trier. I really liked both Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon and though it’s not my personal cup of tea, I openly admit that both Clockwork Orange and Odyssey were both stimulating and outstanding in many ways.

In all honesty, I don't particularly remember how many times have I read King comment on any given movie adaptation of his works and how did these come off, but I don't think I'm being that unfair if I say that he sometimes might look as if his main concern with the adaptations was the fact the director didn't keep everything as he, the Author, had written it. Considering how well received this movie was, him being displeased with it anyway, plus the fact seventeen years later he participated in filming another adaptation, this time for TV, which is allegedly closer to the book that Kubrick’s piece (allegedly, 'cause I haven’t seen it yet), it’s not inconceivable for someone to think he was just being his good old curmudgeonly self.

But I kinda get it here. Now. I have seen the film many times before and I was mostly satisfied with it (well, at first I was completely crazy about it). But with this last viewing... I don't know, something's changed. Something's broken and I'm not sure whether it's going to be possible to fix it again.

Maybe it's because of the director. I believe I have already stressed most of the novel's strong sides in my previous post. Honestly, I don't feel much remained in the movie version. Kubrick approached it as a bona fide horror and also managed to make it all artsy... but most of the overreach of the novel has been lost in the process. Those intriguing things and questions mostly disappeared and haven't been properly replaced (apart from some - more on that below).

At times, the movie follows the novel very closely - quoting many scenes and even dialogue lines almost verbatim - but then creates something altogether different out of that. The single parts (scenes) are still there, instantly recognisable, but compared to the whole (as pictured by the director), they don’t really fit. It’s really rather strange, because even you try to find out the differences and changes, you realise that the last few scenes you’ve watched were actually pretty close to the book, yet you don’t see and feel the connection. And sometimes it just strips the scenes of their meaning - creating this weird dissociation between what you see and what you should actually see, making the movie even more nonsensical than it already is.

Probably the most striking instance of this dissociation would be near the end where Wendy - completely scared and panicking - runs through the hotel and she sees someone in an animal costume (it might be a dog, but it might be a pig or a bear instead all the same) probably fellating another bloke in a tux. If you haven't read the book, this is going to seem very crazy and out of the blue. It just makes no sense. If you have read the book, you'll probably be offended at the film/director for making such an obscure reference that makes no real sense on its own. It's as if the director of the movie was a fucking hipster who's trying to show off - but the result is meh at best.

But I'd say that it's also because of Nicholson.

I have always liked the bloke, and, well, I still do. He's unbelievably charismatic, you can't miss him and he's able to hold lesser movies together by the sheer power of his performance. It's been said that people with similarly abrasive personalities actually did become friends with Kubrick and remained in touch with him long time after the shooting ended and - which is more important - broke out of the director’s notorious perfectionism, actually making changes, bringing additions to the table and did the things their own way. I suspect this might have been a factor here. Because his performance is really not that good. Throughout the movie, he mostly seems completely separated from reality and he's completely unbelievable and - with this last viewing - also rather annoying as a character. He's slow, weird and - apart from picking up an axe - he undergoes no development at all. When he arrives in the beginning, you know everything you need to know and you can’t be possibly surprised during the whole movie. He has his bouts of casual sociopathy, he stares blankly into space, he’s cold, distant, both annoyed and annoying… Everything the book has tried to tell you about the character is utterly flushed away here. Wait, did I say he undergoes no development? Well, actually, that’s not true - in the second half of the movie he hams it up even more, turning into such histrionics I had a really hard time taking the character (if not the very movie) seriously this last time.

Shelley Duvall is … very weird. I guess I wouldn’t mind her in the role were she not pitted against Nicholson. This way there’s too much strangeness and I have a hard time caring for any of the characters.

Danny Lloyd as Danny Torrance is mostly okay, apart from the sad fact he makes the boy look more catatonic than he already is.

I wouldn't deny the film is very iconic, but that doesn't mean it must move me in the same way it moves others. There are cool moments, but I have a hard time enjoying it, really.

Visually, well, it’s Kubrick, what did you expect? Also, so as not to be all negative, let’s say that if you manage to completely forget the book and you manage to fall under Nicholson’s charm, you’re probably in for a treat, because I remember that when I first saw the movie, I liked it a lot. Also, as a pure horror film, it’s not that bad. The ending shot with the photograph is very cool, I admit. So is the beginning. The long shots combined with the music are rather haunting.

Actually, in one way it manages to compliment the book in an interesting way - there are two cuts that are played throughout the movie, both by the Ray Noble Orchestra (with singer Al Bowlly, whom I once really loved)

Especially the second one - “It’s All Forgotten Now”. Seriously, Kubrick managed to dig out something that really, really works a lot, even as far as the book is concerned. It might be partly because Kubrick himself was a Brit and picking British big band music, obscure as it might be in general, was more natural to him, I don’t know, but there’s something transatlantic about these picks. It completely works with the “endless party” and “decadent interbellum society” and everything, it sounds very familiar (because it’s big band music), yet distant (because the approach of Noble and the UK big bands in general was noticeably somewhat different from the approach of Miller, Goodman and the like) and the very title of the second song says it all - it’s all forgotten now. This is such a haunting choice it makes me believe that the director actually has read the book... and fucked it up only later on. (only joking, I know he read the book many times over and called King in the middle of the night ... but what for?)

I admit I'm biased, but although I would recommend this to everyone, because it's a classic, I also wouldn't recommend it that much, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, we have the miniseries ahead and ... Rage, WHICH I STILL HAVEN'T FINISHED YET. Do you realise how much fucked up must the book be? I just want it to be over...

 

[Ariana]

Good bump, excellent read!
I'm going through a King phase again and I'm currently reading Bazaar... It's very enjoyable and the stories feel really fresh.
After I'm done (tomorrow maybe),I have decided to revisit some of the books I haven't re-read after the first time I went through them, such as Bag of Bones and Lisey's Story, and see if they're as good as I remember them.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

The Shining (1997)

Out of all the various SK TV miniseries, this is among the more well-known I believe. One of the reasons might be that in this particular case there had been a previous movie adaptation which was beloved by pretty much everyone, yet it was this one that was allegedly more to the author's liking. Of course, another reason might be it's actually pretty good.

It's much closer to the book, in every aspect. Yes, the fact it its 4 1/2 hours long allows the creators to preserve more scenes and othe stuff, but it's not just about that (and the length also created some problems - see below). After all, it's not as if the Kubrick's version didn't quote a lot of the stuff directly from the book. Jack's struggles with alcoholism play much more important part, the "endless party" theme is not only hinted at, as with the older film version, but done in full, the scrapbook reappears, etc. This way the miniseries gets much closer to an actual proper adaptation of the book and I like that. If you look for true chills, you are probably going to be disappointed (on the other hand, the Kubrick version wasn't that scary anyway), but I'd say that the true meaning of the book is kept intact, or at least mostly so.

There are problems, though. The fact it was made for TV forces the creators to try to be "scary" more consistently throughout, even in the first part, so you get these would-be scary shots of rocking chairs rocking all of a sudden, while dramatic music plays. Eh. I could live with that. What's worse is that in order to keep the suspense throughout the third part (and realising that unlike with other works, there are not enough characters here to dispose of for sake of said suspense keeping), they keep stalling near the very end - suddenly you have Jack monologuing, "relishing the moments" - he keeps talking and raising the mallet and hitting other stuff... and doesn't get anything done (he could have disposed of Wendy twenty times, instead of standing there). Even worse is when the hotel, which wants both Danny and Wendy to die, stops him at the very last moment before killing Wendy, even though this conversation takes more time than a proper swing at Wendy would. (You could say that it was his inner self fighting through and stalling and keeping the other half from hurting his family - it's actually even hinted at during his final confrontation with Danny, but the point is not driven home enough and even if it was, it wouldn't justify it in this amount and still would look like a cheap cop-out in order to save your characters. As for the hotel's interference... I honestly don't know). It's a pity, beause otherwise the pacing is mostly good.

Also, much as I had been disappointed with Kubrick's version last time around, there was one thing he was absolutely right about. The topiary animals. Oh, my... While in 1980 there was no way to include them because of the limits of the practical effects, in 1997 there was already CGI so advanced that it could be done (even in TV-only miniseries), yet so backward it couldn't help but to look completely ridiculous. Again, one of the cases the idea looked much better on paper than in live action. I don't know, maybe even with today's computer graphics it would look ridiculous (I think it probably would), but the cheap effect used here is... embarassing, really. Especially when the animals don't play that important a role (tbh, they didn't even in the original book).

I like how they actually managed to explain who Tony is, just like in the book, but kept the reveal until the very end. That was a nice touch. However, that very final scene was otherwise so sickeningly sweet me and wifey both rolled our eyes in disbelief.

One other change that was actually for the better - Jack's final redemption is made clearer than in the book and the scene is awesome. The silly "kissing, kissing" shtick suddenly made sense and despite the series still ending on a bittersweet note, actually showing that Jack helped to drive in that last spike and destroy the hotel along with himself was really sweet. Oh, and giving Danny slightly telekinetic abilities as well just to have an explanation for the broken radio, that was also kinda cool.

The casting was pretty adequate, considering the conditions at hand. The first scene in Boulder made me really worried about both Wendy and Danny, but either I got used to them or they got better, for I had next to no problems with them throughout the rest of the series. I liked Steven Weber as Jack, he mostly gave the role what it needed and I think he captured the genuinely complex character quite well. Yeah, near the end where he hams it up and keeps grinning through the fake blood, that was a bit hard to take, but try to keep in mind that Weber's "ham it up" and Nicholson's "ham it up" are in two wholly different galaxies. As far as "crumbling and crazy father being mind-raped by a hotel abomination" goes, he managed to capture it much more convincingly. At least he didn't act like a clown. Rebecca De Mornay was also much better as Wendy than Shelley Duvall. Or, at least closer to the book version. Ah, and she reminded me a lot of Kim Basinger in L.A. Confidential, which was surprisingly a plus (I usually don't like that type of women, but there was something about both...). The kid was... decent, I guess. Funnily enough, the actor made Danny look a bit slow instead, but after you get used to it, it's okay. But the hair... that was terrible.

The only misstep was Melvin van Peebles (whom you probably know from Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song) as Halloran. Despite him playing a much prominent part than in the Kubrick's version, Peebles is almost completely deadpan all the time and it does not work at all. There's none of that joie de vivre, none of that elegance and shine the original had. Let's put it this way - there's no way Wendy would wonder about this version's 1950 vintage dentures.

One final problem I had with the series - they still had to simplify the complex relationship between Jack and his family, so "domestic abuser" and "suicidal thoughts" were almost used as clichés. This simplification also resulted in Wendy here being less likeable than in the novel, because of how bitchy she sometimes seemed. The same goes for Ullman - this simplifying made the job inteview look very tame and predictable and he failed to come across as a real prick, more of an overconcerned, but straight hotel manager.

But still, it was a good one. It has a chance of a snowball in hell surpassing the 1980 version in the minds of the general public. Nor did it, however, probably really intended to. It's much less ambitious and the cons are quite obvious. Still, I could easily take it more seriously and if I really needed to return to The Shining adaptation in the future, I might actually pick this one.

Next time we'll meet here over Rage. Which I still haven't finished. I know, I know, I'm sorry. But I hate the novel. As a matter of fact, I hate most "Bachman" novels. But we'll get to that in due time.