The Vanishing (1993) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
119 Reviews
Sort by:
The original is way better; evidence against the Hollywood film system
Sam-683 December 1998
This film is way inferior to the Dutch original (the fact that the same director directed both is another story). This movie has obviously been toned down for American audiences, which is insulting if you've seen them both (I stumbled onto the remake on cable late at night). The original is a thriller in the truest sense of the word, and is far more intelligent, disturbing, and scary than the Hollywood version. I bet the producers assumed American audiences couldn't handle disturbing well so they gave us a more friendly version, very insulting. If you're going to see this version, make sure you rent the original too and watch it first, just to see how much the remake pales in comparison. If you don't like psychological, disturbing, riveting, and no-downbeat-endings in your thrillers, the 1993 version is for you. But if you want to be truly blown away, the Dutch original is very highly recommended over this one.
85 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hmmm...2 versions. Which should I watch?
Chris Huddle21 August 1999
As everyone who has reviewed this film here has mentioned, there are two versions of this movie, one Dutch, one American, both directed by the same fellow. Which should you see first? Which should you avoid, if any? Decide for yourself... I saw the Dutch version in 1994, and it absolutely blew my socks off. I was horrified, didn't want to keep watching it, but I was pulled in and couldn't stop until the brilliant, ultra-chilling, uncompromising finale. This was my first foreign film, and so I was completely unprepared for such a non-Hollywood experience. I will remember this movie for the rest of my life. Later on, I caught the American version in the theatres, watched it, a few thrills here and there, yadda, yadda. Jeff Bridges was pretty creepy, but quite frankly, I would have completely forgotten about it by now if it weren't for the original. It's not horrible, it just pales in comparison to a masterpiece.
54 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Bungled Hollywood Movie Killed By Audience & Critic Perceptions
Jason Daniel Baker3 August 2014
In this remake of the 1988 Dutch film 'Spoorloos' writer Jeff Harriman (Kiefer Sutherland) searches for his girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock) who disappeared from a gas station during a road trip they took 3 years earlier.

His new girlfriend (Nancy Travis) tries to help him pick up the pieces of his life but gets increasingly frustrated over his fascination with the mystery. Diane's kidnapper Barney (Jeff Bridges) has his own interest piqued by Jeff.

There still persists the perception that remakes are inferior to originals and that European cinema is artistically superior to Hollywood. This movie is used to illustrate those points. But these are far from the only reasons it flopped.

The casting didn't follow the traditional route. It does not impact the quality of the production and should not be counted as negative. But it deflated the commercial appeal by ignoring the superficial tastes of moviegoers.

Kiefer Sutherland is an actor audiences more readily accept as a darker character than victimized nice guy Jeff. This is well-evidenced by his critical triumph in the movie 'Freeway' three years later as a kidnapper/murderer.

At the time he was also mostly seen bolstering ensemble casts rather than as a conventional male lead. His strong performance should have been enough to carry the film and it would have been had there not been other factors.

Jeff Bridges was more readily accepted by audiences as a nice guy male lead. He wanted to play a creep for a change and did an impeccable job here. But audiences had to look past over 20 years of typecasting to accept him in the role and most couldn't. As a result one of the finest characterizations in his long, distinguished career is overlooked.

No actress could have given a more convincing performance than Nancy Travis in the role of Rita, the heroine. But audiences liked Sandra Bullock better and have always wanted to see more of her which in this case would have meant giving her the more substantial role of Rita than the tragic role of kidnapped Diane.

At the time (1991-92 pre-production) how could anyone know that Sandra Bullock would soon top the box office like few actresses before her? Nancy Travis had been in a string of hits but then little-known Bullock would surpass her as a star within 18 months of the release of this film. Had they known, there can be little doubt Bullock would have played Rita.

The ultimate sin that North American film audiences could not forgive is obvious pandering to their own glaring superficial tastes when it comes to how movies end. The 1988 original European version haunted audiences and made them think because of its dark conclusion. That version didn't have a Hollywood ending and that was its payoff - one meant for an entirely different audience.

The Hollywood version not only wraps up the conflict between the characters differently (rewarding perseverance over intellect, good over evil in typical Hollywood tradition), it also includes a tacked-on, whimsical denouement. North American film audiences DO prefer happy endings with neat and tidy closure.

But expecting them to embrace the glaring implication that they can't handle scary and/or thought-provoking material is an unforgivable insult which could only elicit the kind of derision from reviewers that it has even though the action which leads up to it is far from boring or silly. Had the film been an original with a facile and obtuse resolution it would have been accepted if not embraced.

Hollywood studios obviously have final approval on the cut released to theatres in most instances. A trick some auteurs can employ when attempting to keep the integrity of a darker-themed film is to wait until the deadline before delivering the finished product and including two endings. One ending will be the darker one they want. The other will be the happy ending - one shot and cut so badly that the studio will presumably have to go with the darker ending. This ploy might work if studios cared more about the quality of what they were releasing rather than its box office p potential.

Then there is the release date - February, 1993. What happens in February in Western Culture every year? Valentine's Day! Does this look like a date movie to you? Everything about how this movie was made and marketed invited flop status.

As I said the action which leads up to the finale is far from boring or silly. In fact much of it is quite watchable and on par with (and in many cases identical to) the original. Where it actually improves upon the original is in its addition of a female lead.

Rita is much more interesting than Lieneke - the second girlfriend character in the original an incidental character compared with Rita. Affable, considerate, blessed with work ethic and self-deprecating modesty truck-stop waitress Rita is an unlikely heroine for a Hollywood film.

Indeed truck-stop waitress is an occupation designed for comic relief or passive anonymity in most Hollywood cinema. A female lead can usually portray one only if her character arc ends in her being beneficiary of an extreme reversal of fortune i.e. marrying a rich dude or becoming a supermodel.

Rita doesn't entertain herself with such fantasies but she does have aspirations. When Jeff walks in she remembers him from high school but he doesn't remember her. He pulls out a picture of Diane and asks if she has seen her. Rita says that her mind blots out most of the faces she sees. Yet she remembers him. This is a character that knows what she wants as unromantic as it may seem.

This isn't what North Americans look for in movie heroines if you go by box office and surveys. They may live their lives differently and they even may be happy. But they go to movies to see something else.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Gafke26 February 2005
Had I not seen the original Dutch film "Spoorloos" I might have given "The Vanishing" more credit. But it's a weak remake which gives American audiences all the gore that the original lacked and a reasonably happy ending which was nowhere to be found in the original.

"The Vanishing" is the story of Jeff, whose claustrophobic girlfriend Diane goes missing from a gas station and never returns. For years, Jeff is plagued with guilt and never gives up on the search for Diane, not even after meeting Rita, with whom he begins a serious relationship. But Rita soon becomes sick of Jeff's obsession and leaves him after a bitter confrontation. It is at this point that Jeff's obsession pays off and Barney comes looking for him. Barney knows what happened to Diane, because he is the one who kidnapped her. But Barney will only tell Jeff what happened if Jeff agrees to go through everything that Diane went through without knowing in advance what that might be. Jeff agrees and disappears, and now it is Rita who is obsessed with discovering what has happened to him.

This isn't a terrible film by any means. The performances are great, particularly by Keifer Sutherland as Jeff. His portrayal of the guilt-ridden, haunted man is near perfect. There are some great moments of comedy provided by Park Overall as Rita's friend Lynn. But "The Vanishing" lacks the power of "Spoorloos" despite a harrowing scene in which Jeff learns the fate of Diane firsthand, a scene which is identical to the original. Still, I don't understand why when a foreign film is remade for American audiences, it is almost always assumed that we want more gore and a happy ending, thank you very much. Both cheapen the story in this case. "Spoorloos" was a film of terrible sorrow and grim reality, both of which will (or at least SHOULD) leave even the most hardened horror fan shaken. "The Vanishing" is slightly less effective, going in for cheap thrills and a kick-ass finale a la Hollywood.

I would recommend seeing it ONLY if you're going to watch "Spoorloos" as well.
59 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
America didn't have the right to do this to a perfect story
Netherland27 February 2005
When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.
68 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good movie ruined by stupid ending
PTB29 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie not knowing it was a remake of Spoorloos (1988). It wasn't until reading about the two movies on IMDb that I realized there was a difference in the endings. Saying that, here's my viewing experience: The movie started off well. I got involved with the characters, though I thought Diane (Sandra Bullock) was a whiny bitch and I probably would have done the same thing Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) does in the beginning when the car stalls in tunnel. Anyway, they do come across as a believable couple. I really think Jeff Daniels did an excellent job as Barney and the haircut, clothing, and mannerisms were perfect for this role. Nancy Travis was serviceable as Rita.

By now, everybody knows the story, so I won't belabor that point. But to me the high point was the confrontation between Jeff and Rita once Rita discovers Jeff is still obsessed with finding Diane. Great scene with great acting, and a totally believable revelation from Jeff that his obsession isn't about still being in love with Diane, it's about not knowing what happened to her.

**** BIG SPOILER ALERT **** The ending to me was very predictable, very typical, and very weak. Again, I had not (and still have not) seen the original. But I'm sitting there watching this and I'm going, "OK, Rita is gonna save the day and everything will be fine." Because that's what happens in these types of movies. And that's exactly what happens and it's terrible, because it's unbelievable. If Rita is this damn smart why is she just a waitress at a coffee shop? Moving on, my thoughts were that this movie would carry much more impact if it had ended with Jeff awakening in the coffin knowing he was buried alive and a slow fade away shot of Barney Cousins eating a solitary meal at his cabin, with Rita having no idea what happened (because she had left Jeff earlier that day "forever").

Course, I then read on IMDb that's how the original ended (more or less). Now I'm off to find a copy of the original and compare it to this. Ciao.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Two words: Dutch original
karma-919 December 1998
Somehow, everything happened too fast in this movie.. which took away from the suspense and made it so awfully predictable. Trust me, the Dutch original is the way to go.
28 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Inferior US version of Dutch film
Jim Morton16 June 1999
Others have said it already, but since there still seem to be some people who think this remake is worth watching, I feel the need to reiterate: skip this movie and watch the original. Both films were made by the same director. The major difference between the two is an ending on the Dutch film that will chill you to the bone, versus the predictable Hollywood version of the story.
29 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Suki Woo20 May 1999
I don't get this. Either the studios think that US audiences must be protected from downbeat endings or hollywood just likes to spit in the face of the cast and producers of the orignal Dutch version (Spoorloos). What is the point of messing with a perfect film? This remake is an insult to the actors in the original - and the american actors in the remake should apologise for stealing the roles that were performed so well by europeans. WATCH THE ORIGINAL NOT THIS POINTLESS REMAKE!
48 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Please please seek out the Dutch original
id24731 December 2004
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.

I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
35 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Horrid Mess
zippyflynn215 October 2006
Skip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original "Spoorloos", or by the English title also called "The Vanishing". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the "successful formula" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful "The Scarlet Letter" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be "the feel good movie of the year" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.

Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess.
41 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
absolute garbage, watch the original!
{inanna}4 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The varnishing
tomsview11 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
An artist on the path to constant improvement often feels the urge to rework a finished piece. A fresh eye can see problems that had previously escaped attention, possibly because one was too close to the work to see even obvious defects.

This certainly applies to filmmakers. Very few have the chance to completely remake the whole thing from start to finish. But this was the opportunity presented to Dutch filmmaker, Georges Sluizer when US producers approached him to create a new, English language version of his acclaimed film, "The Vanishing" or "Spoorloos" to give it the correct Dutch title; a unique opportunity to improve on the original.

Did he succeed? To judge from nearly all the critics, the answer is a resounding no. The Hollywood version is dismissed as a poor imitation of the original at best and a total travesty at worst. Is the criticism justified or is it just a snobby attitude that automatically assumes European cultural superiority over Hollywood crassness, or did Sluizer sacrifice the integrity he had brought to the first version? The producers felt that American audiences would not accept the ending as it stood. As a result, the film received the most formulaic of endings, destroying the mood and underlying creepiness that made the original so disturbing.

Jeff Bridges character, Barney Cousins, begins by experimenting with chloroform to see how long it takes to render someone unconscious. Bridges plays Barney as an eccentric character – far more mannered than his opposite number in the Dutch version played by Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu.

A young couple enters the story, Jeff Harriman and Diane Shaver, played by Keifer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock. They are travelling up the coast together and bicker constantly, creating the hot and cold relationship that was so effective in the original.

After a number of incidents, they pull into a gas station. When Diane goes to the bathroom, she never returns. Jeff calls the police but Diane has vanished.

Three years elapse and Jeff has never given up hope of finding Diane. He meets a waitress, Rita played by Nancy Travis, and they move in together. However, Jeff is still obsessed with finding Diane and Rita decides to leave.

In the meantime, Barney sees Jeff on television. He eventually approaches Jeff and tells him that he was the person who abducted Diane.

Barney receives a beating, but tells Jeff that the only way he will find out what happened to Diane is to go with him and be drugged, duplicating the way Diane was abducted. Jeff's need to know overrides all else and he agrees. He awakens to find himself buried alive; the fate that befell Diane. And that is where things were left in the original – an uncompromisingly bleak ending.

Not so in the remake.

The last part of "The Vanishing" is not only changed physically but also symbolically from the harrowing ending of Sluizer's original. In fact, the ending is no longer harrowing; it's just predictable and pedestrian.

The new version has Rita arriving in the nick of time to save Jeff. The film ends on a light-hearted note when Rita and Jeff both refuse a cup of coffee, having given up the beverage after experiencing Barney's thermos of laced coffee.

Sluizer must have felt compelled to accept an ending that was so standard and safe that good work generated in other areas of the remake went for nothing – but maybe it all goes back to the decision to redo it in the first place; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good acting.
virindra15 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
When I was little I read the original book written by Tim Krabbé. I must say this movie had very strong actors and actresses. Jeff Bridges was awesome and so was Kiefer Sutherland. I know it is almost 2013 and I just saw the movie, but is was worth watching.

The reason I rate this movie low, is because I think Hollywood had thrown their own juice on Krabbés original story and that just did not work out well. In the original story, the story ends where Kiefer us buried. In this movie such an ending did not work because it ain't happy. So the makers of this movie invented a second girlfriend in the story. So at first I thought Bridges would kidnap her too and would like to mess up Kiefer's mind, but he didn't. That would have been the perfect juice on Krabbés story. But they didn't! So I stay with my opinion and that's if you want to make a movie based on a book, stay true to the original story of the book and don't create something of your own because of the lack of inventing a whole new story by yourself.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unwatchable Dreck
mcgargle16 February 2009
This is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think "what's the harm?" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.

If only I could give this a zero.
20 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Kiefer Movie
monkey-man27 August 2005
This movie is the 2nd movie i watched in my Kiefer Sutherland marathon and by far one of his best movies and this movie is a little bit better then Kiefers movie Truth or Consequences,N.M.And the actor Jeff Bridges does a great job at playing the bad guy named Barney Cousins in this movie. This is the first movie I have seen Jeff Bridges in and I would like to watch one of his other movies like K-Pax,Tron or The Door In The Floor.And if u are a fan of Kiefer Sutherland or Mystery/Thriller movies u will love this movie to death.

Over all this movie is really great and my rating is a huge 8 out of 10.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nancy Travis 10/10
ziskozlatko12 May 2014
Movie is OK, nothing specially (better then the original, original is too slow,my opinion) but it's not so bad.

Acting is overall great.

Predictable, and without any twists, ending .... no spoilers.

This review is only because I am IMPRESSED with performance of Nancy Travis. She was BRILLIANT, Excellent !

I think, one of the best performance ever (female).

WATCH IT because Nancy Travis produced magic in this movie.

I can't recommended this movie for any other reason, but I am not unhappy at the end.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A good film, but...
jcatl7 July 2001
Though I found The Vanishing a really interesting movie, I recommend checking out the original, the 1988 Dutch film Spoorloos. It's far creepier than the "Americanized" version. I was never a big fan of foreign films before Spoorloos, but that movie introduced me to a whole new aisle at the video store.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Inferior to the original
Sebastian-208 July 2001
I don't want to spend to much time on this review, because this movie doesn't really deserve it. This must be one of the worst remakes of a European film, although made by the same director, and the actors in it have tried their best, but even Bridges, Sutherland and Bullock did not make this movie fun to watch. The abductor in the original movie (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu as Raymond Lemorne) was creepy, but Barney (Jeff Bridges) was far from that! Also Kiefer Sutherland as Jeff wasn't as credible as Gene Bervoets (Rex Hofman) in the original. The original "Spoorloos" is absolutely superior to this one!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
why always comparing ?
moritzbonn-110 January 2006
Sorry, sorry, sorry...

this goes out to all who are P***** of by this movie and wrote their opinion by giving it an 1 or a 2. I have also seen the original and like it very much, however I totally disagree calling the American version as pure s***. I think The Vanishing is as good as the original or even better, especially Jeff Bridges as Barney is incredible which alone makes it worth to watch this movie. And there are quiet many people who agree to me and think that this a good thriller, for sure not perfect but very exciting, all in all intelligent and interesting. To those of you who permanently try to compare it to "Spoorlos" and who seem to be so disappointed I can only say, what did you expect? How could George Sluizer make you feel satisfied when he directed "The Vanishing" in 1993? I would agree; it's a typical Hollywood thriller but it's a good one; if you tried to regard it more individually I would suppose you to agree. I mean I only think it's a pity that those who haven't seen this movie and might be interested to watch it get such an underrated opinion of it just because some of you are showing their personal disgust to Hollywood remakes in a such a low way. I also use to enjoy Europeen cinema very much. Generally prefer it to so called blockbusters from Hollywood. But this remake is great and deserves a better vote. I give it a 9 and at least some of those who watched this movie should agree. Everyone who is able to comment movies without prejudices should be able to diversify "The Vanishing" from real crap giving it at least a 5 or a 6 even if he or she doesn't like it so very much.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Msfixall22 September 2002
I did not know of the original movie when I watched this version, but I really liked this remake. You can really see Sandra Bullock's RED FLAGS go off when she is at Barney's car, but the family picture she sees in his car causes her to ignore them and she gets in anyway. Scary to see just how easy it was to trick her. Jeff Bridges was excellent - I never would have cast him in this part but he was great. Very suspenseful ending, and I found it refreshing the girlfriend had some guts and brains to deal with the situation. Whenever I find out someone hasn't seen this movie it is one that I insist they watch!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kiefer Sutherland is brilliant, Sandra Bullock exquisite...
meweiner28 April 2006
Yes, I know, the Dutch original, Spoorloos, by the same director is supposedly far superior, but since I haven't as yet found or seen it, I can only comment on the American remake. It is definitely the most disturbing movie I've ever seen.

Jeff (Sutherland) and Diane (Bullock in a too-short role) stop at a rest area while on vacation. She goes in to buy drinks, and he never sees her again. Three years later, he meets someone new (Nancy Travis) but is still obsessed with finding Diane. After he goes on TV and pleads for information (you kind of wonder why he hasn't done this earlier, or why there seem to be no other family members looking for her, but I guess these are irrelevant questions) the kidnapper Barney (Jeff Bridges) contacts him.

Along with Jeff, we gradually come to realize what happened to Diane, and we are effectively sickened and saddened. Let me say that the beauty of this film is that other than the kidnapping, we are never shown what happens to Diane, only what Barney makes Jeff experience. Knowing it, but not seeing it (except as what happens to Jeff) is powerfully haunting. And for Sandy fans, the scene in which Jeff returns to the area where Diane disappeared, and envisions her again, makes this film worth seeing for that alone. Sutherland is brilliant and Bullock is at her most exquisitely beautiful. I burst into tears at this haunting and moving scene.

Having said all that, Jeff Bridges' odd accent is annoying and just plain weird. Is it supposed to be Dutch? No explanation given. In any case, I am now unable to see Jeff Bridges in anything without feeling sick. ***BIG SPOILER*** Also, have you ever noticed how in movies it's light outside late at night, even in a forest? This is what conveniently enables Rita to dig up Jeff from his burial spot, and Jeff to see Diane's grave (actually a nice touch there), even though in reality it would be pitch black out there. Despite these and other minor flaws, I liked this film.

To sum up, I'm ambivalent about recommending this movie, since it is so disturbing and absolutely not for kids or even teens, but if you (an adult) enjoy feeling creeped out for a good long while, rent this one. And I'd still like to find the original version.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Director's talent: wasted... [*** mild spoiler ***]
number one5 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A real insult to the original "Spoorloos", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.

Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the "happy end" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.

While such a distortion (especially grafting a "happy end" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in "Hollywood" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original "Spoorloos"...

Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.

Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not just the ending
dgf1b13 March 2003
Like many others the "Hollywood" ending really spoils this movie. For me, however, the relationship between Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) and Rita (Nancy Travis) also takes away the from the original film as to me the feeling of obsession by Jeff on finding his missing girlfriend is totally lost.

The character played by Jeff Bridges does not appear as cold and calculating as in the original although I would admit he does give a reasonable performance but the whole feeling of menace is lost early in the film.

All in all a very poor remake! Stick with the original it's very dark, very chilling and very entertaining.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The_Cobra23 October 2001
Despite the critics here, I thought it was a 'good' thriller. This movie touches the real emotions people experience when confronted with something like abduction.

* "The fear" when you discover that you have lost someone out of the eye. Right to the point where you realize that you have lost them.

* "The doubt" and the "need to know what happened", which is also found in reality and is even worse then knowing the throuth.

* The theme: "Curiosity killed the cat"

* The "burried alive" scene. Very spooky and realisticly filmed.

It did not know that this movie was a remake of a Dutch movie and since I am Dutch, I definetly am going to see that one....
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews