|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#51
10-06-2009, 05:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I hated the remake. The little boy in particular was just a generally annoying kid. And even an indie director could've said at some point, 'Kid, blow your nose and stop talking with your hands".
I'm a huge Kubrick fan, though. The original was the first movie I ever sat through (watched it at two years of age) and it changed my life. I'm not a big fan of the book, either. I was surprised at how weak King's early stuff was when I finally got around to reading it. Salem's Lot is my least favorite King movie, but it's the best of his early novels.
__________________
Sorry?! You lose a dangerously psychotic patient from a secret experimental drug program and all you can say is I'm sorry?! You're a bigger schmuck than I thought you were! 
|
|
#52
10-09-2009, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Both were good, however, the Kubrik version was a better film. I saw a documentary in the mid-1990's on Sundance (I believe). The Kubrik version was originally a lot longer, but once it hit the cutting-room floor a lot was lost to avoid a theatrical intermission. Have the DVD, but none of the scenes are up there, and the documentary is different. I think that Stephen King could have had a really good version if he had have had the funding and not had to rely on cut-rate CGI sequences (as well as cast members).
|
|
#53
10-15-2009, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i'm with you on that i didn't like the 1980's version either
|
|
#54
10-17-2009, 12:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'ma have to throw in my vote for the Kubrick version of The Shining. It had atmosphere, great cinematography, decent character portrayal, a good cast (apart from Shelley Duvall playing Wendy), and a very eerie score. That movie was a veritable "nightmare generator" for me when I was a kid...
 The TV version was just OK, but truer to the original story... which apparently didn't help it out much. :p
|
|
#55
10-21-2009, 04:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
OMG.. No brainer..the original. The remake had shitty actors. Who the hell wastes their time with it?
|
|
#56
10-22-2009, 04:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I thought this discussion might warrant a reviewing... DON'T JUDGE ME!!!! You gotta admit Rebecca De Mornay is super-MILF of the century and Courtland Mead's performance as Uh-Huh in The Little Rascals was legendary... How could I NOT review 1997's made for TV horror travesty, one more time?
|
|
#57
10-25-2009, 05:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
For me it has to be Kubrick's original - the remake lacked atmosphere not to mention wasn't too sold on the acting either!
__________________
"I've seen enough horror movies to know that any weirdo wearing a mask is never friendly." 
|
|
#58
11-11-2009, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First I'm ever hearing of a Shining remake, the original was good but boring I'll only watch the 1 time I did watch it. How big was this Shining remake?Should I know about it?
|
|
#59
11-11-2009, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 --The Piz is watching you--
|
|
#60
11-11-2009, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have to go with the original. Jack in all his glory was the role and his shoes nearly impossible to fill. Though the the TV version more closely fit the book, it's the TV version of chewing bubble gum. Not very spicy.
|
 |
|
|
