Sabrina (1995)

Director:

Sydney Pollack

Writers (WGA):

Samuel A. Taylor (play)
Billy Wilder (earlier screenplay) ...

Release Date:

15 December 1995 (USA)

Genre:

Comedy | Romance | Drama

Tagline:

You are cordially invited to the most surprising merger of the year.

Plot:

An ugly duckling having undergone a remarkable change, still harbors feelings for her crush: a carefree playboy, but not before his business-focused brother has something to say about it.

Plot Keywords:

Millionaire | Color Remake Of B&W Film | Affection | Workaholic | Unrequited Love

Awards:

Nominated for 2 Oscars. Another 1 win & 4 nominations

Cast

Harrison Ford	...	Linus Larrabee
Julia Ormond	...	Sabrina Fairchild
Greg Kinnear	...	David Larrabee
Nancy Marchand	...	Maude Larrabee
John Wood	...	Tom Fairchild
Richard Crenna	...	Patrick Tyson
Angie Dickinson	...	Mrs. Ingrid Tyson
Lauren Holly	...	Elizabeth Tyson, MD
Dana Ivey	...	Mack
Miriam Colon	...	Rosa
Elizabeth Franz	...	Joanna
Fanny Ardant	...	Irène
Valérie Lemercier	...	Martine
Patrick Bruel	...	Louis
Becky Ann Baker	...	Linda

Also Known As:

Sabrina (Germany)

MPAA:

Rated PG for some mild language.

Runtime:

127 min

Country:

Germany | USA

Language:

English | French

Color:

Color (DeLuxe)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

South Korea:15 | Australia:PG (TV rating) | Iceland:L | Canada:G (Quebec) | Canada:PG (Manitoba/Nova Scotia/Ontario) | Argentina:Atp | Chile:TE | Finland:S | Germany:6 (bw) | Portugal:M/12 | Spain:T | Sweden:7 | UK:PG | USA:PG | Australia:G | Singapore:PG | Canada:PG

Filming Locations:

399 Park Avenue, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA

Company:

Constellation Entertainment

Trivia:

Demi Moore, Gwyneth Paltrow and Julie Delpy were all considered for the female lead.

Goofs:

Continuity: In one scene, Linus and Maude are talking while Maude is riding a stationary bike. When she stops, she keeps her hands on the handles with one handle farther forward than the other. As the camera angles switch back and forth, so does the hand which is forward.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Sabrina: Once upon a time, on the north shore of Long Island, not far from New York, there was a very very large mansion, almost a castle, where there lived a family by the name of Larrabee. There were servants inside the mansion, and servants outside the mansion; boatmen to tend the boats...

Movie Connections:

Referenced in "Game K N B: (2007-03-15)" (2007)

Soundtrack:

Love's In Need Of Love Today

I don't buy it

I was surprised to see so many love this film. As I have not seen the original I will not compare them, nor do I think it is fair to compare remakes to an original. A movie is made to be itself and should be evaluated as is.

While they may have tried to modernize the movie it was not modernized enough. It seeps through the screen that it is based on values and images decades ago. Take the architecture of the corporation premises which so clearly is designed to convey the common man of the 50's awe respect for the 'corporate giants' of his days. The architecture is an echo of the 50's not the 90's. An interesting fact is the lack of other employees in the offices apart from the secretary. But of course it can symbolize the loneliness of the corporate all-business shark.

So is the glamour girl style of Sabrina, styled over the romantic ideal for a 50's young woman. They put in a 1950's girls personality in a 1990's woman. Sabrina of the 1990's would appear much more modern and critical of the men and their behavior and not such a push-over, a willing vessel for the men's admirations. Also she would have been engaged in education and career not only seen as an object destined for the role of a wife, as was more common in the 50's.

Is Ormond doing a good job? Perhaps. If she was trying to follow the director's desire to portrait a 1950 girl. I just find her personality archaeic and out of time and place. The character is simply not believable for its time. Why portrait a classic Hollywood movie star and not a modern woman? (I think they perhaps tried too hard to make her look like Julia Roberts)

Also not believable as a corporate shark was Harrison Ford. If the director had pushed him a little more to the nerdy side, it would have worked well with the bow-tie. He did look a little funny with the old fashioned hat, black&white and the mobile phone of it's days with the immense antenna. But as with Sabrina the conversion to 1990's is only half lived. Not totally committed.

The best and most believable performance was actually the mother although also she was clearly cut out of the 1950's dominant mother. I came to think of the 30's Groucho Marx's favorite victim, Mrs. Dumont.

The pattern goes on with the immense staff of the household, which with today's salaries would be outrageously expensive and eccentric. Even for the 50's it would be a grotesquely big staff even more so for a modern family. I think we would have to go all the way back to the 30's to believe in this household.

Also unbelievable is the lightening transformation of a teenage school girl to a dazzling sophisticated self assure young woman overnight who even manages to acquire an exquisit French wardrobe on a meager photographer assistant's wage, which surely would have been meager because so many would want the job. I am not sure she would have been paid all together. "Working for the honor."

What remains for me is an uncommitted attempt to remake a(ny) success which seems picked out of coincidence; - the film doesn't show WHY it was remade and modernized. It doesn't claim its own right so to speak. It seems simply like a blind, ill thought through refreshment with no care for details or cinema art. It's neither the 50's nor really the 90's really. Not a pure romance and not really a comedy.

One overseen joke in the comments or trivia is the painting behind David in his little used office. It is actually a Pollack painting, the same name of the director. Jason/Sidney Pollack. Well, actually and actually, I simply mean it is in the Jason Pollack style. Don't know if it is an actual reproduction or copycat.

I agree with one of the other comments. This film is simply a mess. And an uncommitted one as well. It should have been burned, not released. I was too nice giving it a 6.