MovieChat Forums > Night and the City (1992) Discussion > Why This Night (1992) Is Much Better Tha...

Why This Night (1992) Is Much Better Than 1950's!!


Of course, in my opinion, not having read the book on which both films were based.

First: granted -- 1950 looks great. If you wanna see film noir photography and production design, this film is a textbook. But, and it's a big but, that's 1950's biggest charm! Minus the noir look, nothing else works!!

Chief among 1950's flaws: you don't care for Harry Fabian!! Not once!! Widmark is miscast! Shattering as Tommy Udo in Kiss of Death 3 years earlier, too much of that cold, mean-spirited, ruthless tough remains for him ever to be likable.

The 1950 script pales next to 1992's, which fixes all that didn't work. 1950 had two girls hot for Harry (wasting the little-used Gene Tierney). One is all ya need, as 1992 proves.

Widmark has zero chemistry with either girl! The chemistry between 1992's De Niro and Jessica Lange is hot as a torch!

Herbert Lom doesn't threaten as 1950's bad guy! Deep voiced, he's not scary! Especially next to Widmark, who chills with a scowl!

Big surprise: comedian Alan King NAILS the villain in 1992! Underplaying, a silent look from him scares! The love/hate relationship between King's "Boom Boom" and his brother (an excellent Jack Warden) rings truer, and is more touching, than that between 1950's brothers, who don't even look related!

1950's dialog, set in London, sounds stilted. Never rings true. Widmark seems out of place there. 1992's script is a gem: everyone looks, sounds and feels New York!

1950's score, while serviceable, is instantly forgettable. 1992's theme, The Great Pretender, fits Harry Fabian like a glove and will have you singing along with Freddie Mercury for days!

Finally, as much as I love De Niro's Travis Bickle, for me, this great actor's shining moment is 1992's Harry Fabian, who, despite betraying everyone he meets, remains likable! No small feat! In many ways, it's De Niro's finest role: he's charming, weaselly, funny, wistfully romantic, a fast-talking undefeatable optimist, a true wonder to behold.

Widmark's fate doesn't touch you. De Niro's brings tears. The 1992 film is a well-written, well-directed, rich tapestry, which moves you, has you rooting for the lovers and leaves you with a smile!

reply

[deleted]

The original is better.

reply

The two of you have a great gift for words.

I explained in detail why I thought the remake is better.

You can't give any reason why you disagree!

reply

Finally, someone who shares my thoughts on this. This is very underrated film and DeNiro is absolutely outstanding in it. He reminded me very much of Rupert Pupkin from King of Comedy.

reply

The two are very different films. I appreciate the original, but find the remake to be more entertaining.

Both films have their strengths, and it comes down to taste and what you're in the mood for at the time you watch.

reply