Shop Ireland

The Vanishing [1993] [DVD] starring: Jeff Bridges, Kiefer Sutherland, Nancy Travis, Sandra Bullock, Park Overall

Click to tell a friend about this item...

More Product Details...

Review Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Click here to add a review!

Average rating -

Rating: - He's my favourite!

I spent sixteen years working as a psychiatric nurse, and this is the best on screen portrayal of antisocial personality disorder (i.e. a psychopath/sociopath) I've ever seen. He's easy to get on with, can affect a certain vulnerability, he's sort of nerdishly charming (not necessarily one of the criteria, but it all helps), very calculating, clearly incapable of remorse or empathy, and only allows himself to be in situations in which he has complete control. He also avoids responsibility by rationalising his behaviour. In short, he's one of cinema's most credible villains. His presence in a film where nothing much actually happens (as opposed to, say, a slasher) makes for a genuinely unsettling experience. And yes, avoid the remake.

Rating: - Great Service!

These guys rule.

Product was perfect and delivered quickly.

Thanks!

Will defo use again.

Rating: - A shambolic desecration of an all-time classic.

Spoorloos, the Dutch/French original telling of this story, was incredibly successful and remains very popular to this day. Unfortunately this, the American remake directed by the same George Sluizer, frustratingly manages to produce what is almost a mirror-image in terms of value. A lot of this has been attributed to the tacked-on ending that pretty much negates what came before, but it is wrong to blame this alone. The film which precedes the climax is similarly disappointing.



**Most of you will now be aware of what happens, but I'll try my best not to give away too much of what Channel 4 viewers voted the 45th Best Scary Moment in broadcast history. The reason for this is that, although the original is more than worth watching regardless of how much you already know, I'm sure the enjoyment of it is aided further by the viewer's attempts at working out what its sinister antagonist could consider the ultimate act of evil. However, I might reveal aspects (or even big, meaty chunks) of the ending for THIS film, and this interpretation alone, as it's important to understand why it was, deservedly, so poorly received - especially by audiences outside of the United States.**

The first mistake, or the first questionable difference, is that the disappearence and its build-up are all shown in chronological order. In the first version, the story begins with the two victims (Rex and Saskia) driving towards a holiday home, only to have an argument that is then resolved at a petrol station. The supposed villain is then revealed, and then Rex realises his girlfriend has gone missing and is sent into panic. It then flashes back in time to Raymond (the man responsible) preparing for the deed and asking neighbours of his new farm estate about the level of noise they could hear when his beloved family were screaming. Several failed efforts are then shown before the story is brought forward to three years after Saskia went missing, where Rex is still searching for her.

In this remake, the preparation and previous efforts are shown BEFORE we meet the two future victims, this time called Jeff and Diane. This means we immediately know that Diane was kidnapped, unlike in the original where you could have formed the conclusion that she had just gone with the man of her own accord until it was proved otherwise. You're also left with a very unsympathetic baddie, renamed Barnie - presumably because you HAVE to feel some sentiment towards a man who shares a personal label with a dinosaur - whose numerous unsuccessful ventures into abduction are now on display long before his wife and children are introduced.

This may not have been such a problem had the characters eventually been played as vulnerable human-beings. They're not. As Barnie, Jeff Bridges simply comes across as a psycho with no real attempt at justification for what he's done. Not only that, but his strange, quasi-European accent (because pure Americans are incapable of such savage acts of anti-social felony) does nothing less than bludgeon our minds with the hammer of stereotype. Sandra Bullock's small amount of screen-time as Diane is spent whining and bickering with Jeff, leaving the viewer wondering why the two ever got together in the first place. And Kiefer Sutherland's Jeff is a self-motivated, cynical fop - a world away from the obsession-riddled loser portrayed so perfectly by Gene Bervoets five years prior. I don't blame the actors here in the slightest - in fact, all things considered, the two aforementioned male leads do as well as they could - but the material is so blatantly dire that not even Cooper and Brando would, if cast, raise this above two stars.

Oh yeah, that's another stupid decision on behalf of the filmmakers. One of the reasons Spoorloos is so effective is that everyone cast in the leading roles was a complete minnow. None of them, with the exception of Johanna ter Steege, had ever been seen before or has been seen since, which just adds to the depression felt once the tale has culminated. Had Sluizer taken that approach once more, perhaps we could feel some sort of emotional attachment to the characters being presented to us.

I'm not saying you always have to use unknowns - if that were the case, nobody would ever become established. However, the approach worked for the story first time around and would have worked best again, due to its dark nature. Instead, two 'hot property' actors and a woman who was in the midst of a rising career were chosen to represent isolation and unfamiliarity. On this occasion, the suspension of disbelief was far too great for them to achieve. Thankfully for them, the film was actually so bad, as the result of other peoples' stupidity, that none of the main actors' credibilities were really damaged.

So three years pass, although it seems longer on tape, and Jeff obtains a new girlfriend (Rita, played by Nancy Travis). We have to see them meet for the first time in this, because English-language spectators are apparently too slow to put two and two together and work out he's met someone else. We'd probably think it was his sister, wouldn't we? As Jeff's desire to find his past love doesn't really grow beyond 'light concern' or 'mild regard', I'm left scratching my head wondering how on Earth Sluizer thought this would enhance his stock. Is this really his 'vision'? No matter, because Rita gets annoyed anyway, and - unlike in the original, where she won't compete for his affections but still cares very deeply for him and wants him to be content in life, before leaving never to return - decides to get a very small amount of revenge by changing Jeff's answering machine message.

Of course, this is a new twist that allows for the horrendous finale to transpire down the line, as Jeff changes his message back but is interrupted while doing so by the appearance of Barnie. After beating the life out of him for the sake of it (Rex in Spoorloos hits and kicks Raymond due to shellshock and desperation, whereas Jeff just says "FTW" and pretty much smashes Barnie's head in for giggles), Jeff hops into Barnie's car and this degenerates into a buddy movie. Well, I wish it had because what we got instead was a very watered-down version of the revisiting/explanation sequences from Spoorloos. The scenes in which Barnie's motives are studied are apparently so worthless and unimportant to the plot that they have to contend with jolly background music and slow-motion camera techniques to hold the attention of the viewers, as well as being roughly a quarter of the length of the originals.

Once these, as well as the flashback of Diane's abduction taking place, are all over, the 'coffee scene' and the 'lighter scene' which marked the end last time around are copied almost word-for-word and shot-for-shot - although without ANY of the urgency, as Jeff's reaction when he realises what has happened to him (and, by proxy, Diane) is no more inspiring or heart-rendering than that of a man infuriated by an untimely power-cut. Albeit, obviously, not a power-cut that took place while watching this movie. I can imagine the fallout from THAT turn of events would probably involve balloons and whistling.

By rights, the film should finish here, and perhaps should have ended long beforehand just to put us out of our collective and individual miseries. I maybe would even have bumped the score up a bit if Rosanne Barr had apologised afterwards as a DVD extra. Alas, it was not to be, and the experience descends further into sub-hope as the most excrutiating of contrived plot-twists takes place.

You see, Rita is so proud of herself for violating Jeff's Smartbeep Autosave earlier in the day that she phones him, at a time she knows he'll be out, to let her friends take a listen. However, discovering the new recording - that, of course, involved Barnie and Jeff's acquaintance - she hurries off to find him. Somehow, she manages to track down Barnie's daughter at his suburban home, becomes friends with her in all of four minutes to the extent that she willingly tells her where the farmhouse is, and then travels there without any trouble finding it in the dark and in the middle of nowhere. She then works out almost immediately what has happened and, even more ridiculously, exactly WHERE it happened, and tricks Barnie into thinking she's kidnapped his daughter. So NOW we're supposed to readily accept that Barnie, a calculating and evil man with no conscience, is so compassionate and easy to fool that he would compromise his own safety and freedom on the grounds that Rita knew his daughter's name. JUST HER NAME and nothing more. I honestly could cry at that point.

Then, she promptly saves the day (and, of course, Barnie just HAS to get his comeuppance), and the film ends with - of all things - a 'feel-good' reversal of financial fortunes and A JOKE as its final line. And not even a good one. Yeah, keep telling yourself you're mentally crippled by your past, Jeff! The only thing it was missing was a pregnancy revelation and a letter from Diane saying she escaped and is living in Cuba. Although, admittedly, if Diane's parents had turned up to complain about Jeff's new business move and taken him to court for it, I might have heralded Todd Graff as the greatest genius on the west coast. Sadly, that didn't happen and what remains is an unmitigated apocalypse of quality.



A lot of idiots blast Martin Scorcese's The Departed because its characters are not faithful to the original, but what these people somehow fail to realise is that they're not supposed to be. It's a complete re-telling in a different climate with different incentives and motives, and it's just as good as - if not better than - Infernal Affairs. THIS is just an incredibly lazy remake of a much-heralded classic, an attempt to make some money from an audience they've determined as being too lazy to read subtitles and too fragile to accept anything bleak, which falls short in almost every conceivable way at creating anything that can be considered decent viewing.

In short, this is not just a disaster in relative terms, when compared to the original. It is, without a doubt, a horrific film in its own right.

Rating: - The Kiefer Sutherland version is the terrible one

Amazon appear to have screwed up all the reviews which appear before this one, because some of them appraise the original Dutch version of the film, whereas the version on sale is the Hollywood remake.

I will try to make this as simple as I can:

The TERRIBLE version of The Vanishing is the Hollywood version (starring Kiefer Sutherland and Jeff Bridges).

The BRILLIANT version of The Vanishing is the original Dutch version (which I don't think is currently available on Amazon - try a well known online auction site instead).

Rating: - Sorry guys, original is best!

For those wishing to share a debate that has obviously aroused strong feelings on both sides, there's a simple way to resolve this issue: watch both the original and the remake, then it will be quite apparent that the remake is not a good film. Quite apart from stretching credulity beyond all known limits to support Hollywood's desire for a clean ending with all loose ends tied and the hero coming out smelling of roses (almost literally here!), it lacks the freshness, vivacity and suspense crafted so beautifully in the first filming, the acting seems stale and the actors seem uncomfortable. I didn't believe in the remake, where the original made me jump out of my skin!

In short, nothing whatever to do with subtitles or being pretentious - one is a great film, the other is a poor imitation. Remakes are seldom if ever a good idea, and I say so more through sorrow, not anger.

Review Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »