Speaking as a casual viewer with casual interest - I found the Stanley Kubrick version very effective as a film. I vaguely remember watching the mini-series when it aired and remember being irritated by the kid. The TV version did not have the impact of the movie.
But ... if I were more of a Stephen King fan and had read the book, I might have felt differently. I am usually a purist when it comes to movie adaptations of literary works, and usually wonder why the screenwriter(s) seem to think they know better when they make significant changes to a work. Such changes are rarely "improvements," IMO.
So when I read in the linked article that the character of the father was all wrong in the movie version, I sympathize. It seems like the role was conceived as an "off-beat, Jack Nicholson part," rather than King's story of an ordinary man slowly unraveling ...
I've been affected by the movie versions of "The Shawshank Redemption," "Delores Clayburn" (sp.), and the original TV version "Salem's Lot." All told really good stories (credit to King, there) and were done very well. But the only one I've attempted to read is "Salem's Lot." I may go back to the book some day, but with all the many characters depicted, the writing was too "popular fiction" for me, not enough depth. I can see where many readers would really like it and think I might have liked it better at a younger age. Not to knock it, and I do think King has come up with some remarkable stories.
