MovieChat Forums > Spoorloos (1988) Discussion > Why is this movie considered such a genr...

Why is this movie considered such a genre classic??

posted 12 years ago by Alocirp3
23 replies | jump to latest

God I feel like such an outsider on the whole topic of the lovers of this movie vs the haters. I'm a classic film fan, there are plenty of "boring" movies I absolutely love (Godfathers, Glen Garry Glen Ross, In Bruges, 2001, Dreams, etc) And also horror/thrillers/suspense movies are one of my favorite genres of film. And yet I absolutely hate the pointless gorefest lots of modern horror uses as an excuse for a real movie. The Hostels, the newer texas chain saws, the saw movies after 2, the list goes on and on. But anyway I found this movie to be INCREDIBLY overrated.

This movie is considered one of the genre's classics. I can't believe it, I have no idea why this movie became so popular. It isn't scary at all! The tension never really builds at all. The only reason I found myself building any sort of tension/excitement was because I knew how well reviewed and respected this movie was. So as I got further and further into the movie with nothing really happeneing except for the villain becoming slightly more interesting, I expected the last 30 minutes or so to be absolutely mind blowing and I kept thinking this over and over again. "Ohhhh man these last 20 minutes, something crazy must happen!" 15 minutes to go "Oh god here we go the villain is telling his story theres gonna be something really mind bending here!!!" 5-10 minutes "Jesus! Something absolutely incredible better happen when Rex drinks this coffee" Which led into " THATS IT???" The guys in a coffin he screams for 15 seconds, movie ends, roll credits. So basically exactly what you would have expected all along he took her from the gas station, brought her back and killed her. Thats it there you go. No interesting plot twist or motive or anything. Just a crazy guy, who felt his next step in life was to kill someone.

This movie was NOWHERE NEAR as good as other murder mysteres/suspense films. Se7en, Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, Memento, Vertigo, stand head and shoulders above The Vanishing, even some not so "classics" I would consider far superior to this, Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, Zodiac, Shutter Island, and Blue Velvet, and those are just off the top of my head! I can't see giving this movie higher than a 6 maybe a 6.5.

I don't get the hype at all. The acting was nothing special. The scenery wasn't anything great. I don't mind subtitles at all. I just don't get it...

/end rant

[–] waldenpond88 12 years ago

I fully agree. The Dutch version from 1988 is not nearly as thrilling as the remake with Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland.
The Dutch film is way too slow to create any real suspense and another famous movie director made a much better movie on this topic in the mid sixties: William Wyler's "The Collector". That has plenty of suspense.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059043/

[–] TemporaryAgent 12 years ago

Or you just hate depressing endings.

[–] TemporaryAgent 12 years ago

It isn't scary at all!

If you don't consider things that could happen in real life scary.

The tension never really builds at all.

Only if you need gore and pointless title sequences.

So as I got further and further into the movie with nothing really happeneing except for the villain becoming slightly more interesting

If you consider more and more being revealed not being important events.

5-10 minutes "Jesus! Something absolutely incredible better happen when Rex drinks this coffee" Which led into " THATS IT???"

What do you mean "that's it?" The main question of the movie (what happened to Saskia) has finally been answered.

The guys in a coffin he screams for 15 seconds, movie ends, roll credits. So basically exactly what you would have expected all along he took her from the gas station, brought her back and killed her.

No, what you would have expected is Saskia is dead, but you don't know how or even if she really is dead. The suspense is over whether or not she truly is dead, because the protagonist is going to die if the drinks the coffee. But on the other hand, what happened to Saskia will remain a mystery if the protagonist doesn't drink the coffee.

Thats it there you go. No interesting plot twist or motive or anything.

So you weren't paying attention to what the villain had to say?

Just a crazy guy, who felt his next step in life was to kill someone.

Do you have a problem reading subtitles? Raymond Lemorne clearly stated that he did not consider killing to be the worst thing in the world. He wanted to make certain he could perform the worst thing he could do (to counter balance him saving someone's life) and wasn't murder.

This movie was NOWHERE NEAR as good as other murder mysteres/suspense films.

Yes it is.

Se7en, Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, Memento, Vertigo, stand head and shoulders above The Vanishing

Only if you're referring to the IMDb scores. Are you just picking those movies because they're in the top 250? Se7en is good, but The Vanishing is superior because there's no graphic details, which makes it all the more effective. Psycho would be a lot more effective nowadays if everyone didn't know the twist ending. Memento was engaging, but nowhere near as disturbing as The Vanishing.

even some not so "classics" I would consider far superior to this, Girl with the Dragon Tatoo

I assume you're referring to the Fincher version? Graphic rape scenes detract from the overall film and you won't find that in The Vanishing.

Zodiac

Boring.

Shutter Island

Which had a predictable twist.

and Blue Velvet

I love Blue Velvet, but I'd take a depressing ending over a happy ending any day.

I don't mind subtitles at all.

That's what you claim, but you missed the antagonist's main motivation.

[–] Alocirp3 12 years ago

Your counterpoint to basically all my points is just you saying the opposite. It wasn't scary "yes it was". The tension didn't really build much "yes it did". Basically what happened to the girl was exactly what we thought had happened all along "No it wasn't. These movies are much better than this "No they aren't".

[–] TemporaryAgent 12 years ago

Because you obviously hate reading and assumed that all of my counterpoints were just me saying the opposite due to one remark I made, I guess I'll have to repeat myself.

The movie is scary because it could really happen.

The tension builds by not showing any graphic details, but gradually revealing more and more about the kidnapper.

The girl was just presumed to be dead, how she died is a complete mystery. And that's what makes the coffee scene so tense. The audience assumes the protagonist is going to die if he drinks the coffee.

I already put down my thoughts on those movies.

[–] merskur 10 years ago

"The movie is scary because it could really happen. "

Wow, you must be horror movies' best customer if things that "could really happen" is enough to scare you.

Most of us already knew there are disturbed people out there. I already know there are kidnappers, killers, sociopaths and freaks out there, I already know it's possible to get buried alive and I already know that a lot of these people will never get caught. But how is that supposed to be scary when portrayed in a movie? Maybe it is for you, but that does NOT make it scary for everyone else. And that's the whole point here; your opinion is not the universal truth. Get over yourself.

[–] TemporaryAgent 9 years ago

Nobody asked you for your two cents on anything. The OP asked why this film is considered a genre classic and I explained why.

[–] merskur 9 years ago

It's a discussion board. If you can't handle people replying to your posts just because you don't ask for specific people's opinions, maybe you're in the wrong place.

[–] TemporaryAgent 9 years ago

I can handle replies just fine, but I prefer if they were necessary. The OP flat-out said this film isn't scary, making his opinion seem like it was "a universal truth," the same thing you criticized me for. I gave a reason for why I considered it scary. And that was the end of the primary discussion.

[–] merskur 9 years ago

No replies are necessary from an objective viewpoint. If you're talking subjective - well, that's obviously subjective isn't it.

He said the film wasn't scary, you said it was. He explained why he thought it wasn't scary, you explained why you thought it was scary. But the way in which you did it, made you seem like a douche. Most of your "explanation" was, as he pointed out, just you saying "yes" to where he said "no".

And no, the OP was not guilty of the same thing, at least not to the same degree. It was abundantly clear to me that he was expressing his opinion. He even emphasized that he felt like an outsider on the subject, and he finished his introduction with the words "I found this movie to be incredibly overrated." Notice the "I found"?

In addition, he also said "I absolutely hate the pointless gorefest lots of modern horror". Yet your second point in your first post was "Only if you need gore". And then you proceed to claim he didn't read your post? Laughable.

On top of all that, your whole post has an extremely arrogant, condescending and patronizing tone to it. Maybe he'd take your input more seriously (I know I would) if you didn't come across as a narcissistic turd. Just a tip.

[–] TemporaryAgent 9 years ago

No replies are necessary from an objective viewpoint. If you're talking subjective - well, that's obviously subjective isn't it.

What's the rationale behind that, especially when the person being responded to was asking a question?

He said the film wasn't scary, you said it was. He explained why he thought it wasn't scary, you explained why you thought it was scary. But the way in which you did it, made you seem like a douche. Most of your "explanation" was, as he pointed out, just you saying "yes" to where he said "no".

Incorrect, only one part of my response was me saying "yes" to him saying "no" and I still elaborated on that point later in my post. He claimed I was just stating the opposite to film not being scary, I said the film was scary because it could happen in real life. He claimed I was just stating the opposite to the film not building tension, I stated the film wasn't using unnecessary tactics to build tension, and further elaborated this point in another section. He claimed I was just stating to the opposite to the girl's fate being what we thought all along, I stated we didn't know truly didn't know what happened to her, and that's what made the drugged coffee scene suspenseful. He claimed I was just stating the opposite to other films being superior, when I did give reasons why.

Furthermore, by acknowledging I did explain why I thought it was scary, you've contradicted yourself. You're noting that his post where he claims "most of (my) 'explanation'" is "just (me) saying 'yes' to where he said 'no'" is accurate. But as I mentioned above, one of the points he singled out was me apparently just saying the movie was scary when he said it was. So by admitting I did include an explanation for this point, you've inadvertently demonstrated that his allegations weren't true.

And no, the OP was not guilty of the same thing, at least not to the same degree. It was abundantly clear to me that he was expressing his opinion. He even emphasized that he felt like an outsider on the subject, and he finished his introduction with the words "I found this movie to be incredibly overrated." Notice the "I found"?

He also emphasized he was "a classic film fan." And while he began one sentence with "I found," he then proceeded to state his opinion in a matter of fact manner:

"It isn't scary at all!"

"The tension never really builds at all."

"No interesting plot twist or motive or anything."

"This movie was NOWHERE NEAR as good as other murder mysteres/suspense films."

"The acting was nothing special."

"The scenery wasn't anything great."

In addition, he also said "I absolutely hate the pointless gorefest lots of modern horror". Yet your second point in your first post was "Only if you need gore". And then you proceed to claim he didn't read your post? Laughable.

He was criticizing modern horror movies, not gore. He didn't say he had a problem with gore itself. He's given positive ratings gory films like The Evil Dead trilogy, John Dies at the End, Event Horizon, Dredd, and The Raid: Redemption.

My claim of him not reading my post was based on the fact that his response was "(my) counterpoint to basically all (his) points is just (me) saying the opposite." Like I said above, even you wound up disproving this.

On top of all that, your whole post has an extremely arrogant, condescending and patronizing tone to it. Maybe he'd take your input more seriously (I know I would) if you didn't come across as a narcissistic turd. Just a tip.

It usually doesn't matter to me how I come off in my posts. Could I have been more tactful? Yeah. But my top priority is to create a competent argument and that's what I did. I addressed his criticisms of the film. And he replied with an allegation that wasn't true.

[–] ilon 12 years ago

After all of your points... you came to this

Zodiac

Boring.

You are not "referring to the IMDb scores", you are refering to the IMDB boards (much much worse). If you don't get the idea behind Zodiac... that it has to be boring as it is for the main character in his pursue...

I found Spoorloos not as great as I could expect and I like all kind of movies, not only the good ones, I like bad movies too. This was just pretencious.

By the way... you said "The main question of the movie (what happened to Saskia) has finally been answered."

That's not the main question of the movie, kid.

[–] TemporaryAgent 12 years ago

I never said I was referring to the IMDb scores with Zodiac. It's boring because it builds to an even more obvious conclusion than The Vanishing and it's almost twice as long. The Zodiac Killer was never caught and the character Jake Gyllenhaal played is alive and well to this date.

"That's not the main question of the movie, kid."

Then what is the main question of the movie, pray tell? I could have sworn this film was called The VANISHING because it's about a girl who VANISHES and the main mystery is discovering what happened to her after she VANISHED.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AceRoccola 12 years ago

I love that every movie on IMDB has at least one resident troll/white knight who sits around waiting for someone to disagree with them so they can post 17 times in one thread stubbornly saying "YOU'RE WRONG THIS MOVIE IS BAD" or "YOU'RE WRONG THIS MOVIE IS GREAT".

Anyways, you mentioned that the ending was sort of a "that's it?" moment, but I think the reason this film is considered a classic is partly because it was very basic. You probably expected something far more mind-rending and noir (and why wouldn't you, fans can't talk about the movie without overhyping the reveal). In reality, it's just a story about a man obsessed with knowing. Rex must know what happened to Saskia. You could see Raymond as a symbol of the downfall that follows a dangerous and powerful obsession, or you could just see him as a murderous sociopath. Either way, it's a pretty simple setup. I agree that, given everything that has been said in praise of The Vanishing, the ending has lost a lot of its punch in the last couple decades. When you read about The Vanishing, you come in expecting some mind-bending murder mystery, when it's really an incredibly simple movie. If people talking the film up actually played to the film's strengths, I don't think new viewers would find it quite as disappointing.

All in all, I don't think it's of the high quality that its place among critics and film buffs implies. The dialogue, acting, cinematography...they aren't quite on the level of what should be required of a true classic. I think it's a strange fit in the Criterion Collection for that reason. But I'm sure someone will be in here to yell at me about that in no time.

[–] TemporaryAgent 12 years ago

I love how the term "troll" is continually misused on the IMDb. People think it applies to those who simply don't agree with them. I don't mind different opinions, but I mind when someone's criticisms are flat-out incorrect (i.e. claiming the antagonist just wanted to kill someone).

I agree that the film is simplistic and that's why it suceeds. The more complex a plot gets, the more ridiculous it can become. There's no extreme violence, the focus is on suspense. And the story could occur in real life.

Anyways, if you think The Vanishing is a strange fit in the Criterion Collection, what do you have the say about The Rock?

[–] GoddamUnvoicedAbbot 12 years ago

Scariness is subjective dude. And no, the tension was incredibly strong. Stronger than in most of the movies you mention. Spoorloos was so effective because it felt real. And reality is not moving fast like in your favorite action movies.

Antiparanoia is the eerie feeling that nothing is connected to anything else

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

As GoddamnUnvoicedAbbot writes there is plenty of tension in the film because the naturalness of the acting and the credible scenario make it seem real and as though we are watching a criminal reconstruction.

The killer was incredibly effective as a character and the way he was acted and Rex makes the very valid observation that he passes unnoticed, as a normal member, in society. From the films you list as better it would seem you prefer evil characters who are so evil and odd that you would know them to be evil and in most cases the antagonist or protagonist (as with Memento) would not function in society. Well I prefer the opposite because evil is generally perpetrated by, apparently, normal people who elude justice as a result. That's what makes this film chilling.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] Egg_MacGuffin 12 years ago

Perhaps the original poster missed the absolute masterful use of getting information to the audience without having to resort to exposition.

Those who don't understand film wouldn't get that, so it's okay, random guy.

[–] Flabulous 12 years ago

I think it's two things:

1) Slow paced films don't suit high expectation - if you had caught this late one night on tv without knowing any hype, you may have felt different about it.

2) It's not the best ending ever - the buildup surpasses the outcome, which logically is quite weak (his curiosity was strong enough to trust putting his life in the hands of a madman?!), unlike Se7en where everything is a fantastic checkmate.