Synopsis
Trailers
Reviews (99)
-
C
Yep. I’m one of those people. No regrets, no apologies. First time I’ve watched this in about 18 years. I even still remember watching it as it aired on TV when I was 14. I expected to view it this time with a more mature critical eye. And I think I did just that. It’s even better than I remember. I watch it and I do not see poorly made melodrama. I do not see weak performance or poor pacing. Yeah the CGI hedges aren’t hot but I really thought they would look worse than they actually do. Rebecca De Mornay is good as Wendy. It’s a very different approach than Shelley Duvall but she nails that approach. The kid…
103 11 -
M
I know what I’m about to write is considered blasphemy to a lot of my fellow mutuals and Letterboxd friends but I prefer Mick Garis’ version of The Shining to Kubrick’s. I just didn’t like Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall as the Torrences and Kubrick is just not one of my favorite directors. That being said, there are a slew of other reasons why the original just wasn’t my cup of tea. I think Mick Garris did a fine job with his version considering it is a TV movie. Stephen King adapted the script from his own book and was also the producer. I also enjoyed Stephen Webber and Rebecca De Mornay in the lead roles. This was shot at the…
97 5 -
T
There are a dozen reasons why this miniseries is awful, including the flat acting, ultra-cheapie production, comically baggy pacing, badly dated visual effects, and tacked-on attempt at a happy ending. (If Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of his film so much because it wasn’t true to the original, why did he script this version to have a series of ultra-sentimental, overextended endings?) But the real issue is that it’s painfully literal. It opens (spoiler ahead!) with a clumsy scene explaining exactly how it’s going to end. The characters speak in huge hunks of undigested exposition. Steven Webber as John Torrence explains what’s going on inside his head over and over and over. Most criminally, Danny Torrence’s psychic friend Tony…
345 6 -
L
you know it’s bad when its only improvement on the Kubrick version is the lack of the n-word
190 9 -
J
The real genius of Stanley Kubrick was saying, “Fuck them hedge animals” and creating a simple hedge maze instead.
154 -
V
So confession time: this was the first version of The Shining that I ever saw and I haven’t revisited it since I was a young pup (jfc…take a drink every time someone says “pup” in this and you’ll die of alcohol poisoning), but I just finished reading the book so it was time to revisit and 🥁 Look it’s not great. It’s really long and slow and looks soooooo cheesy in that 90s TV movie way and never in a million years should anyone in their rightest of minds say that this is the better adaptation, but there is actually a lot to love about it, especially considering it against the source material and keeping it in conversation with the Kubrick…
175 29 -
J
it’s 2019, i was just starting to get into film and i was so excited to watch the shining cause everyone talked about it… 2 full hours in and i was so disappointed that it didn’t live up to the hype, but then i realized i was watching this shit show instead of kubrick’s and i genuinely wanted to give up and die
159 3 -
M
I can see why Stanley Kubrick said no to Stephen King’s script, because this was fucking awful.
698 9 -
C
Well, I’ve been snowed in my house for two days now, so at some point I had to rewatch The Shining. Both of them. I decided to go with the Mick Garris/Stephen King miniseries first. For anyone who doesn’t know, Stephen King has always been vocal about his disdain for the Stanley Kubrick film. He didn’t agree with the casting of Jack Nicholson among other things, so he decided to work on a miniseries adaptation with director Mick Garris, who by this point had already directed Sleepwalkers and The Stand. I know it’s not the popular opinion, but I’ve always really liked this miniseries. I understand why people prefer the Kubrick version, as it’s obviously a better made film. The dialogue is better. It’s…
197 10 -
E
I think I prefer the story here to the Kubrick version, don’t @ me. The acting can be bad at times, especially the kid who plays Danny. The CGI is charmingly bad, and sometimes the shots are just plain goofy, but it sticks closely to King’s original vision. The Shining, the novel, is after all, one of the most important books I’ve read in my personal opinion. Kubrick’s Shining is amazing, and all the intricacies and hidden details and theories…
1 -
G
Gente mt bomm terror
-
R
Podia ser melhor
-
O
you can tell how bad the kubrick version (masterpiece) pissed him off… steven put the camera down babe this is embarrassingggggggg
-
L
As a first time viewer, I tried to respect Stephen King’s original vision, but sitting through a little over 4 hrs of this was exhausting. The pacing dragged sooooo bad and don’t get me started on the CGI. I understand wanting to follow the book, but to do so in a mini series fashion, it’s not worth it, especially with the slow pacing. In my opinion, it’s not worth the watch and not worth 4 hrs+ of your day but maybe others will find something in it. I’ll just stick to watching the 1980 version.
-
C
What if The Shining was a Goosebumps episode (derogatory). Actively made me dislike the book. Alan Wake looks and sounds like Steven Weber.
1 -
A
🙁
-
O
After watching Stanley Kubrick’s Shining, I was interested in seeing this Stephen King approved adaptation. And I have to say, it succeeds in the sense that every chapter is chronologically laid out for you and every character and side character might fit perfectly with Stephen King’s imagination. HOWEVER, the film making is far, far worse and despite the fact that the book is “THE BEST GOTHIC NOVEL EVER”, the film totally lacks the gothic and horror elements even with the…
1 -
L
Danny’s song is quite possibly the best thing I’ve ever heard “I love snow. I love snow. It’s such a beautiful thing, yep yep!” Also Jack was elbow deep in peanut butter it was all over him
2 -
M
la même que celui de 1980 sauf que c’est en 3 épisodes
-
C
Soo I’ve been curious for awhile how this compares to the Kubrick. I think both of them have great things and that by seeing both we can form an integrated vision of what the story is supposed to be. Like, for all it’s divergence from the Kubrick this version also can’t help but mimic some of its iconic shots…like the back and forth of Jack beating down the bathroom door. There’s the problem of how to present its own vision…
3 -
G
I know Stephen King has long reviled Kubrick’s film adaptation of what I consider to be King’s best novel. I can admire that he made an effort to reclaim the story with his own miniseries. But this version is so bland, so uninspired, so poorly acted and shot. I couldn’t believe this came out in 1997, because it looks like something a studio would’ve slapped together in the early 80s. Still love Stephen King, but he needs to get over his saltiness towards Kubrick’s masterpiece.
-
L
The part that confused me was why this was 4 hours long when it’s a miniseries….
-
U
I can’t believe I watched this colossal piece of shit mini series
-
L
sicuramente un adattamento del libro molto più accurato rispetto al lavoro di kubrick (il cui ha lasciato da parte dettagli a mio avviso necessari). nonostante ciò, The Shining è un horror psicoologico, dunque giocare su luci, ombre ed effetti visivi è necessario. in questa versione ho trovato un lavoro dal punto di vista del regista quasi da sitcom americana, per non parlare della recitazione. per quanto mi dispiaccia per il trattamento che Shely Duvall ha dovuto subire sul set, la…
-
A
This is, to me, the ultimate indictment of book purists: they’re using their fundamentalist devotion to a text to act smug and condesending about a film, to make themselves seem more intelligent than they actually are, and then one of them actually makes it the way they want to – and it’s like: “Well done bro, you made something that was 100% faithful to the text and it was absolute shit; especially, when compared to the film it was responding…
-
C
Way more accurate to the book than Stanley Kubrick’s film
-
C
-
H
I think ik why Kubrick kicked Stephen king off the set of the original shining movie. This was horrible
4 -
B
i hope this gets its flowers soon. i hadn’t seen this in probably 15 years or more and it holds up incredibly. steven weber is actually so scary.
1 -
C
Hello, you old bitch! Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson might have strayed from the source material of The Shining quite a bit but there is a reason that film has damn near stood the test of time. The television adaptation of the book, written by King himself, isn’t necessarily bad but rather a reminder of the former’s glory and legacy. Steven Weber is one of the shining (pun intended) elements of this three part mini series. I will be honest…
1 -
D
A different lighting design could have totally transformed this thing, but Steven Weber carries.
1 -
C
Definitely not better than Kubrick’s version, but think it compliments it by filling in more actual “Shining” that it didn’t contain. Webber’s descent to madness is actually pretty good as well. I’m glad I saw it, but realistically probably won’t watch it again.
-
E
Its mid…but its mostly book accurate and would of been a full 3 stars if Danny wasn’t so fucking annoying.
-
M
Imagine if The Shining sucked
-
S
BOOM suck it Kubrick that was badass
-
B
Underrated in my opinion. It’s not Kubrick but it’s truer to the spirit of the King Novel. I also adore Steven Webber’s Jack Torrence, he’s better than Nicholson in my opinion.
-
Tthe queen of slime 8 月 9, 2026
Better than I remember. It’s not the Kubrick film, but I enjoyed this more than I did ten years ago. Steven Weber gives an excellent performance that is so different from Jack Nicholson that I don’t find myself comparing them. You can tell though, at the end of the day, that Stephen King is (obviously) experienced writing novels, while Kubrick writes for the screen. There are scenes here of really intense, terrible things happening — Jack hunting down and trying…
-
T
This is my punishment for sitting through so many Stephen King films and going ‘This isn’t like the book’. Jokes aside its pretty good if infinitely lower budget
-
M
1/2 A wise man once said: a book is a book and a film is a film Here we see Stephen King learn the hard way that being a great writer of books doesn’t mean you can adapt them into a good film It’s fine to have issues with Kubrick’s version of your book but there isn’t a single frame of this supposed ‘more faithful’ 4 hour+ adaptation that improves on Kubrick’s adaptation The acting is dismal. The SFX are…
-
V
I adore the ending it made me almost cry tears were forming
-
G
Reading a Stephen King Book then watching the movie to crap all over it – part 6. Book nerds are insufferable. They say they want a movie true to the source material. Well, here you go. You have a perfect book adapted pretty faithfully to the screen and it is inferior in every way. King made this a 3 night television event in the 90s and I’m sure people liked it. It plays like a tv movie with toned down…
2 -
Z
“Hello you old bitch.” Obviously cheesy and pitiful in production value compared to Kubrick’s adaptation, but not the travesty I was led to believe. In fact as I was watching I was wondering why this was so despised, but then an hour passed… and another hour… and another hour… Now I understand this was a miniseries, and I even watched Shining ‘97 incrementally, but the pacing is way off – due almost exclusively to the adherence to the source courtesy…
18 -
M
But don’t be reading my mind between four and five. That’s Willie’s time!
-
R
First episode is glacial but parts 2 & 3 are pretty good! Definitely still clunky and hacky and repetitive in a few places (little pup, take your medicine, kissin’ kissin’) but I totally get why King would value this adaptation more: Jack is actually redeemable here. Idk man, there’s enough room in this world for this and Kubricks version. They each have value even if Kubricks is decisively better.
-
A
as someone who’s a massive stephen king fan i had to watch this at some point and i just got back from the hotel for the 3rd time. I really appreciate the OG hotel and its glory great choice, everything else sucked. Kubrick was so smart to stick it to Stephen King bc WTAF was this script and casting and just everything really like god 🤢 The end got betterish
1 -
N
couldve gone weirder and he definitely couldve gone better
-
I
I can appreciate this for what it was, a direct book to movie adaptation. As a book nerd I wish more books would be adapted like this, however I do understand why people say this sucks, certain scenes drag out for way longer than necessary and the acting isn’t the best but I loved it. By no means is this a better movie than the Stanley Kubrick, but I think it could have gone over better if turned into a TV show since the whole mini series thing didn’t really stick.
1 -
V
-
R
It’s alright, nothing on the original though
-
K
Objectively bad, 5 stars
-
S
I’ll always have a soft spot for this adaptation along w the 1995 pride and prejudice because my BFF introduced me to both of them. Plus, this is so much more faithful to the book, touching on the aspects of generational trauma, alcoholism, and other shit that the Kubrick version doesn’t focus on as much.
-
J
A companion piece – Watched over multiple days – I remember when this aired on TV and my parents watching it. Hell I believe I even was watching it. Took some years to find, but finally got to watch on Tubi. I genuinely enjoyed this and Steven Weber performance is great. Again, a different enough version to me, that I can enjoy it and for me it takes nothing away from the iconic Kubrick version.
1 -
O
coughing baby compared to kubrick’s hydrogen bomb adaptation
-
M
I appreciated not being saturated in Jack Nicholson’s big bag of contempt bullshit, but this still isn’t great.
-
I
omfg
-
R
Starts good, but takes way too long, so the tension cannot be held up. It’s okay compared to the book and more accurate to this, but in compression to Kubrick’s work (which was made 17 years before!) it falls way behind. Also, the visual effects seem way older than they actually are, clearly visible that this was made for TV and not the big screen.
-
M
Incredibly overhated. While it’s nothing like Kubrick’s version, it is infinitely more faithful to the source material and worth a watch. Also, a cameo from both Sam Raimi AND Stephen King???
1 -
T
While watching this I was feeling that it followed the book a lot closer than the movie did. Then I saw that King was the writer of this. So, yeah that makes sense I guess. I enjoyed the book, and this for the most part. Even with the changes that King hated, I still like the movie better. This was good for a one-time watch. But at 4.5 hours, it is a slog in the middle.
1 -
𓆝
i would say maybe a 3.25..? not the most engaging but the characters shine much brighter than in kubricks adaptation which is enjoyable, a little slow :,(
1 -
T
Nowhere near as bad as people say, it definitely has a lot of issues and was very long, but this version was oddly charming to me.
-
J
In 1986, disappointed with the way some of his adaptations had gone, King marketed Maximum Overdrive around the simple line, “If you want something done right, sometimes you gotta do it yourself”. My man learned the hard way that this filmmaking thing ain’t easy. A few days on set and he was belling his pal Davey Lynch up to ask what the 180 degree rule was that everyone was saying he had broken. He would never get in the directors…
-
E
Nancy Drew click-and-point game-ass Shining. Stephen King, go to the damn hospital, this is NOT better than the movie. This isn’t even better than most DCOMs.
1 -
R
-
L
Filme muito lento, história chata
-
M
Personally, I prefer this to Kubrick’s version
-
M
This miniseries is a much more niche version of The Shining but I think it’s a lot more faithful to the books and I thoroughly enjoyed it
-
P
I am so conflicted about this, so I guess 2½ stars is equidistant between good and bad. Being kind of bingeing King’s TV adaptations for the last month, by the end of Part 1 I was pretty convinced that was the worst one of them. The plot was boring, the dialogue was not great (to put it mildly), the supposed scares were laughable, the VFX were noting to write home about. And I am usually that one person who loves…
-
CCedar 7 月 30, 2026
Stephen King saw Kubrick’s version and was pissed off that he didn’t make it silly and with bad acting so he made his own
1 -
S
decided to watch this bc my family doesn’t live far from the stanley hotel and last week we did a paranormal investigation for the overlook project there, i stayed there overnight when i was younger etc. they still have that playhouse in the hotel and some information about filming this miniseries so i got interested but i didn’t realize it was just some BULLSHIT 😭😭 like the most entertaining part of it was me saying “urgh i hate when my ___ does that” every time something moved or turned on by itself
-
G
-
K
I enjoyed spending a few days watching The Shining mini series from 1997. It’s 4.5 hours long. Many many differences from the Kubrick movie. Steven Weber as Jack is amazing! I had no idea about that guy but he’s got serious range! Almost even scarier than Nicholson because we spend so much time with him being a nice, sweet father at first, so when he turns, it’s sooo disturbing! Rebecca DeMornay was also very well cast as Wendy. The kid was…
-
E
Is Stephen King paying bots to praise this for its fidelity to the book or something? How could anyone watch this wheezing, repetitive, maudlin horror-flavored chamber drama and then say “this is such a great adaptation” like that does anything but make the source material look bad? Utterly anti-economical, King writing as if there’s a direct pathos-per-word conversion rate, which could not be less true given how often the characters drag each other into the same conversations over four and…
2 -
D
Hilariously awful production, acting, and adaptation. But kind of a fun watch.
-
L
Stephen King Marathon #11 Okay, natürlich habe ich eh nicht damit gerechnet, dass Mick Garris’ TV-Verfilmung von The Shining auch nur ansatzweise an die Qualität von Stanley Kubricks’ Originalverfilmung anknüpfen könnte, aber je länger ich diese insgesamt viereinhalb Stunden lange Miniserie verfolgt habe, desto verzweifelter fühlte ich mich. Aber beginnen wir am Anfang! So gut wie jedem Horror/Stephen King-Fan wird bekannt sein, dass der “King des Horrors” kein großer Fan vom ersten Film war, da die Story viel zu sehr…
-
Ood 7 月 28, 2026
fazla uzun
-
E
Finally got round to watching King’s own vision. Nice to see more of the book translated accurately compared to Kubrick’s version. While this is much more accurate to the book than Kubrick’s, you can tell this was a 90s miniseries because some of the texts just don’t hold up, unfortunately! I still had a lot of fun with this though! Definitely not as bad as I was expecting it to be based on some of the comments on our Shining video lmao.
1 -
D
Its an interesting take on it, but it doesn’t have the same charm or horror as the original. This one just feels like a goosebumps episode.
-
S
There’s something to be said for book accuracy, and there’s something to be said for actually filming at the Stanley, and there’s also something to be said for Danny’s stupid fucking haircut.
2 -
RRyan Dangman 7 月 26, 2026
This movie is a coffin
-
P
The Shining miniseries is quite a slog to sit through. Maybe there’s something to be gained by following the novel more closely than Kubrick’s film adaptation. What exactly is gained? I’m not sure. I suppose having three 90-minute episodes kind of works, despite the daunting overall runtime. The first episode/act is incredibly weak. The Hotel and the family are introduced. We learn what it means to shine. That’s really about it, stretched across the length of a feature film. The…
3 -
Ddarbythedragon 7 月 25, 2026
actual lol when Jack’s ghost appears at Danny’s graduation to tell him how proud he is. you can really see that Stephen saw Kubrick’s adaptation and went “waaaaaaait nooooooooooooo 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺”
-
R
Such a weird portrayal of Tony floating omar, also sorry but i hate Danny’s face lol. Loved how Wendy was already more accepting of Danny’s powers, and they really get the atmosphere between the three of them right. They did the hedge animals so well too, I didn’t think it could work on screen (hahah typed this before they animated them, lol). Cannon bi-curious Jack Torrance 😶🌫️ Good emotional ending. I really prefer the cast for this film, they just…
-
R
No babe I don’t care that we have to get up early we HAVE to watch the 1997 Shining Miniseries RIGHT NOW
5 -
A
It’s definitely more book accurate but at what cost Stephen, at what cost!!!
1 -
K
-
A
Stephen King trying and failing to supplant Kubrick’s adaptation of his novel. Mick Garris dutifully follows King’s every whim and offers no vision beyond the plodding script. This is why Garris has helmed so many terrible Stephen King miniseries “events”. He’s a good soldier who won’t challenge the author. What’s crazy about this is that King’s novel is already his definitive vision. Definitely one of his best books and remembered fondly by many. King’s strengths as a novelist do not…
-
L
Experiencing Jack’s descent into madness in the hotel after reading the book was fantastic. Book is 10/10 for sure.
-
M
just read the book so just had to give this another watch lol. still pretty dumb and bad. melvin van peebles is absolutely the best part though
8 4 -
2
i actually enjoyed this miniseries so much more than the 1980 movie. unlike the movie, this series truly respected the book and stephen king’s vision! what makes this adaptation superior in terms of pure narrative is that it actually cares about the torrance family! a family who struggled with jack’s addiction, a jack who’s portrayed as a man who actually wants to get better, a wendy who’s resourceful and protective, a danny who’s a wonderful, brilliant kid! filming at the…
1 -
L
Ok plot wise and the fact that we get so much time for the story to develop, makes me love this so much more than kubricks. Kubricks is far more beautiful and definitely a work of art in and of itself, but the depth of characters and storylines in this far outweigh any lasting emotional impression given from kubrick’s. The hedges are hilarious tho
-
O
-
RRobert Brenne 7 月 21, 2026
This would be ok if it was three hours shorter.
-
G
Its not like i don’t see the effort, but its still so bad it’s funny. And its wayyyy too long
1 -
O
Got about an hour in, wondered why absolutely nothing was happening, realized it’s almost 5 hours long, immediately turned it off.
-
T
3
-
E
Stephen puedo entender que no te guste la versión que hizo Kubrick de tu novela porque no era lo suficientemente fiel y no captó la “”esencia”” de tu historia, para gustos colores ¿Pero era necesario hacer toda una miniserie para proyectar todo tu descontento? -_- Link -> http://www.serializd.com/review/82169517
3 12 -
J
Super hot take here, this is just as good as Kubrick’s adaptation. Steven Weber’s portrayal of Jack was really good, I preferred him over Jack Nicholson and I thought that Wendy, Dick, and Danny were portrayed better in this film too. At the end of the day I think that’s what makes this film work, I found the characters to be well written. I won’t say this is directed better than Kubrick’s but it still looks fantastic, especially during the…
1 -
R
Boo 👻 aaAAAAAAAAA
-
W
Why does it exist? Kubrick’s version is better
- Synopsis
- A new caretaker moves with his family into the mysterious Overlook Hotel for the winter.
- Director
- Mick Garris
- Writer
- Stephen King
- Studio
- Lakeside Productions, Warner Bros. Television
- Country
- USA
- Language
- English
- Year
- 1997
- Runtime
- 273 mins
No information available.
Write a Review