MovieChat Forums > The Vanishing (1993) Discussion > A truly dumb remake made for dumb Americ...

A truly dumb remake made for dumb Americans


Before you get on your high horses, I like Americans in general, I've been to your country many times, and had a really great time, and I know many of you are NOT dumb.

However the Hollywood version of The Vanishing was obviously made for the Jerry Springer end of the market. My review posted on this site says everything I want to say about this truly dreadful remake.

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 were 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.

reply

Wait! This one has a "happy ending"? how is that even possible?? What is it then??

I only saw the original, because the school made my after reading Het Gouden Ei, but now i don't think i should finish watching the remake (which is on now)

reply

Holy cow... this one has a happy ending??? How could that be???

========
"Curiosity is the first step to being open-minded" VM
Bean Bloke Eric Sean

reply

Niet zo moeilijk. Het verhaal is tot een halfuur voor tijd hetzelfde als het boek van Tim Krabbé. Maar waar het boek eindigde met Rex/Jeff levend begraven, daar gaat de film nog even verder. Zijn nieuwe vriendin Lieneke/Rita weet het buitenhuisje van Lemorne/Barney te vinden en na een hoop gedoe, geschreeuw en gevecht weet ze haar vriend op tijd uit zijn kist te krijgen. En de bad guy... tja, het is en blijft Hollywood, dus wat denk je? Precies. Hij gaat eraan.

reply

he gadver... over spoorloos heb ik echt nog een week nagedacht, deze zou ik dus binne een dag vergete... :P

reply

Houd het Engels mensen ;)

Spoorloos was great. And I'm not going to see this film because of the happy ending and Sandra Bullock.

reply

Wel, als de Amerikanen een mooi Nederlands boek verkrachten, mogen wij toch zeker wel even een Amerikaans forum bekladden met Nederlandse teksten als compensatie...?

But, ehm... what's wrong with Sandra Bullock?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have a question. If American films are always so terrible, why is it that they are such a huge part of foreign markets. You can't tell me that American capitalism is holding a gun to the heads of Europeans forcing them to go see Hollywood films rather than those produced in their own country. These dumb American films also find quite a large audience with international idiots as well as domestic ones.

And more on the subject of things, Sluizer directed both the original and the remake, so its not like Hollywood is stealing his movie and bastardizing it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

prodijay, learn how to spell, dumba$$.

reply

"And of course you're posting this inane garbage on a computer, be it a Mac or a PC, made and invented by "dumb" Americans"


I don't usually reply to such topics as this one, but I feel it only necessary to address the above statement. You seem to be implying that the computer was invented in (and by) America. This is incorrect. Although the computer as we now know it today, is an amalgamation of inventions / components / tech from all around the world, the very first computational device (computer) was actually invented by Charles Babbage, and was called "The Difference Engine".
Charles Babbage was born in 1791, in England.


Please get your facts straight before throwing in such spurious and misinformed comments.

reply

I really could care less about this movie or whatever version someone prefers, but I loathe rude people.

Perhaps you should get your facts straight. He was trying to build a calculator to help with calculations in his work. He designed the analytical engine, but was unable to build it. After his death, his “computer” was pieced together and it didn’t even work. In the 1900’s his concept was redesigned and actually worked.

The person that posted this was not speaking of a simple “calculator”, but the Mac and the PC. Leave it to Americans to take a crap idea and massively improve on it.

reply

Wow, what an idiot. It cracks me up when Euros talk condescendingly about America and Americans. Jonzot, if we're so dumb how is it that we run the world? If you and your ilk are so much smarter than us, then why is it that you are nothing but our bitches? And why is it that when Euros were running the world we had 2 World Wars in less than 40 years? And while we're at it, why is it that the whole world eats up the popular entertainment that originates from America if we're so "dumb"?

As for this movie, you're talking as if the American goverment sponsored this film. And you're also talking as if the whole country loved this movie - they surely didn't. Please get a clue.

reply

I'm an American, and I give this movie a 5.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yeah, I know. We're "dumb", but we run the world! Ha ha. Die, Queen, die!

reply

i LOVE it how the english, from a country with kings and queens and a socialist economy with NO growth rate, calls us dumb...


I can't even begin to describe how ignorant that comment is.

reply

[deleted]

Somebody help me out here, because as I remember it, both leads get killed by being buried alive! if this is a happy ending, you've got issues!

Or maybe either I

1. missed the true ending, or

2. Saw a different version

Anyone?
Now I have to rent the remake to find out.

reply

You are both correct and wrong in the same moment strangely.

In the original dutch film 'Spoorloos' ('The Vanishing' or more accurately 'Without a Trace') both of the lead characters are buried alive. The Hollywood remake with Jeff Bridges and Keifer Sutherland have the lead characters remarkably escaping certain doom in the coffin and escaping and killing the bad guy.

BTW, I like your "you've got issues" comment 'quickzoom'. Oddly, to some, that would be a happy ending perhaps in one of those weird German films where they poo all over each other.

With that thought....

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Thank you midlife_crisis. Finally an intelligent thought.

reply

Thank you, midlife crisis, finally a post that reads as if it was written by an adult!

-x- Nouska

reply

Thanks for speaking up for those of us Americans who don't think think we're better than everyone else on the planet, midlife

reply

[deleted]

Obviously,you must be a Democrat.If you think the Eurotrash are so so damn wonderful,move there and watch their stupid movies.And take Bill and Hilary with you.


Fascist.

reply

Please, don't speak on behalf of 300 million people. You and the people you associate with may be ignorant provincials but keep your apologists attributions to yourself....weakling.

reply

I have to agree...the whole original film was all about the film. The re-make completely wusses out and goes for the happy ending. It's a shame, because the rest of the film (as I recall, it's been a while since I've seen it), was pretty much the same.

reply

Not just the changed ending. Something essential is totally missing in the remake. I actually watched the remake first, just felt like any other hollywood thriller, some twist and turn, and some of my favored stars, not a bad one to kill some time, but nothing more than that. If not for IMDB, I wouldn't even know this is a remake. Last week, I checked out the original one. God, what a totally different experience. Even though I've already known most of the story, the movie gave me the chilling feeling from the start. I can still feel that invisible force, you know you wanna turn away but you just can not. Very disturbing. Now I want to watch it again, but I'm bit scared for my mental health.

reply

Some kind American lady sent me a private message about this thread a couple of months ago but it got deleted from my in-box automatically and I lost your details. If you see this please write again - thanks!

reply

I saw the original version in my film class months and months ago and just last night watched the American version. One of the many things I disliked about the remake was the lack of focus on the "killer". Not only was there a major difference in the portrayal of the character by both actors but the normality of this character in the original was stripped away in the remake. Aside from his extensive planning he seemed rather normal in his "normal" life. Which in turn made him extremely creepy. The stalking was creepier in the original. He was actually sitting only a couple of feet from the main character in the cafe (multiple times I think). The whole daughter thing going to meet the secret boyfriend didn't exist. The remake tried to hard to get a happy ending out of a story that didn't want one. I laughed when the "heroine" tripped over the grave where Keifer was buried. It was too cliche and became almost like Friday the 13th, with a slightly more intelligent and thoughful Jason. Besides, the coffin scene in the original was absolutley terrifying. And the fact that he got away with it sealed the deal. Unfortunately the original is going to be really hard to find in the States, but worth it if available. You can't always know if something is a remake of a (sometimes) better film. Isn't IMDB great in that regard?

reply

HA, very good analysis. I wish I could be as good with words as you.

And I got it from Netflix. Thanks to Netflix and IMDB, they opened a whole new world for me.

reply

is in Barnes and Noble = if you have a B&N that has a viseo section (or try bestbuy.com - usually they are pretty good without hard to find/out of print films).

reply

[deleted]

The original DVD version of this film is available in the US, it is released by Criterion.
http://www.criterionco.com/asp/
I just watched the movie again after many years,
The ending is still unbearable.
Fantastic movie.
The Criterion collection is a good place to see original world cinema before they are remade. Badly.


reply

I saw the original many years ago and it probably rates as the most psychologically terrifying and memorable ending to a movie I've watched. I did not want to watch the U.S. version after seeing the ad which appeared to give away the ending. I finally saw it on TV last night and it was worse than I thought - it no longer was the ending. I enjoy Keifer Sutherland (especially '24'), yet this is far inferior to the original and a classic example of what can happen to a brilliant European (in this case Dutch) movie when it is Hollywoodised (think Roxanne vs Cyrano de Bergerac). If I'd not seen the original, I may have enjoyed it for the mindless entertainment it represents and placed it at the higher end of this genre by Hollywood standards. However, if you have the choice, skip this version and go straight to the original - a far more satisfying / terrifying experience.

reply

I haven't seen the original, but I have the following impressions:

A) An unhappy ending only gets you so far. I didn't understand what was so novel about Seven. Movies CAN be horrifying by ending badly, but it all depends on the treatment of the material. A recent movie that ended VERY chillingly, indeed, was SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER The Skeleton Key END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER.

B) For the perceptive viewer, I thought the remake managed to SUGGEST the possibility of the darker ending. When Rita is sitting with Barney with the cup of coffee, it becomes clear that evil is VERY close to winning the game. If Rita drinks that coffee as she is somewhat tempted to, the game is over.

C) As it is, the futility of the search for Diane is made more poignant by Sutherland's ability to live on. As lasting as the original's shock value may have been, I thought that the happiness of Sutherland's newfound peace was quite worthwhile. In fact-

D) The acting in the remake quite good- good enough that I was truly happy for the protagonists in the end. Moreover, the outcome of the movie never seemed like a done deal until Rita claimed the daughter as hostage.

All in all, I very much enjoyed the remake. I understand that the original is probably quite good. However, while it The Vanishing IS a remake.....in technical terms, it is also a different movie, and a very good one at that.

Before you write me off as an unintelligent movie viewer, I might add that I love foreign cinema. Most of the great movies being made today are foreign. That said, I take every movie at face value, and I am quite able to enjoy the fluff.

reply

If you think the Eurotrash are so so damn wonderful


Hmmm, so who actually discovered America than? Who are all caucasian Americans decendents of? Who needs a brain?

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

yeah, you discovered it, then WE took the $hit from you bit*hes!!!!

reply

[deleted]

I believe this was a version of another ending Sluizer made - Lemorne got caught by the police. Sluizer didn't use that ending. Sluizer, I think, regretted not using that ending and decided to remake the film. That's my two cents on this film. Also, for the record, I like both films (original and remake). This film and the original are both good, except were Rita starts to attack Barney back by saying that she has Denise hostage, which, of course, was a lie. Still, it was good.

reply

That's wrong SSuqui. Yes, he did shoot an alternative ending for Spoorloos but he didn't go with it as he felt it wasn't true to what went before.
He remade the film because he wanted to make it in Hollywood - that's all.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

According to the trivia section of this website, Sluizer made the decision to change the ending himself. He thought Americans would not buy the downbeat ending of the original. Which is a bit silly. Se7en was released two years later, and noone but a sociopath could find that ending happy. And Easy Rider. American film. Lead dudes get shot and killed at the end.

So, before everyone gets on their high horse about how Americans need to be spoonfed and catered to, remember it was the director's choice not the producers to change the ending.

As for the film itself. It was okay. Had some nice moments, had some corny moments. The original is in my Netflix queue as I write.

reply

I've only seen the original. I tend to hunt down and watch the foreign original instead of remakes. My mother refuses to read subtitles though, and so do too many people here, but at least she has a good excuse: poor eyesight.

What did we do to the ending, because I probably won't watch the remake? The Raymond character still buries the Rex character, but Raymond's wife digs him up or he claws his way out or something?

I got a VHS of "Spoorloos" on amazon.com for roughly $7 + s/h a few months back, so it's not that hard to find, it's just that most rental places don't have it.

--Ray

reply

I don't believe for a second that the director chose to butcher his own film and it wasn't at the behest of the American producers dumbing it down for the 'good ol' boys' market. The very first scene of the remake follows the Hollywood formula that blighted Ridley Scott's 'Legend', the insistence on showing the audience the villain at the very beginning of the film so that the Americans know who the baddy is and avoid any nasty surprises later. This proves detrimental to the whole movie as subsequently Barney's decision to feign a handicap, which in the original evolved as an idea after his initial failure to pick up a victim, is known to the audience from the outset which means the narrative flow becomes choppy and much has to be explained by the villain at the end, instead of being picked up intuitively by the audience.
The genius of the original is in the almost documentary like way that the story unfurls, nothing happens that needs a leap of the imagination to believe COULD or WOULD ever happen outside of a movie. The killer is mundane to the point of invisibility and hence all the more believable and his amateurish cunning is at odds with the American version that has Barney 'spiking' the phone with chloroform....come off it, Diane would be able to smell the amount of the chemical necessary to knock her out from yards away. Bridges's weirdly accented sociopath would have surely been put in to therapy long before he got to commit any crimes, the original villain was scary largely because of his complete lack of the character traits attributed to Hollywood villains.
Also, in the re-make too much depends on coincidence; if Diane had not stumbled across the grave and subsequently dug up Jeff at apparently the exact moment that he ran out of oxygen (how else to explain his being unconscious other than for the dramatic 'surprise' of him saving the day and killing the villain??!)then Barney would have won the day.In the original it is left to the intelligence of the viewer to figure out why the Police would have given short shrift to Jeff's claim that his girlfriend had been abducted (their prior argument)to the point that the director does not even bother to show us the incident at all, in the re-make it's all spelt out for you.
By comparing the two versions the inescapable conclusion is that the film has been 'dumbed down' in almost every aspect; The original is a masterpiece in creeping dread where the latter is formulaic Hollywood fodder and indicative that American films for the large part are designed to be understood by idiots (or maybe children)! As to why that is, who knows?! Perhaps the average American is too busy re-writing history to be distracted by having to think intelligently about a film plot!?

reply

Good post Fad - spot on, says it all. Explorative insight into the popcorn factor of American cinema.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

Yes - I hate America. It must be true - german-mustard said so.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

What derogatory comments have I made about Americans?? I might have made some about some of the members posting on these boards who may well have been American, but are you suggesting that they represent the entire nation of America??? - talk about conceited. And besides, it's not as if there isn't a fair share of dumbass Americans aswell as dumbass 'any nationality', I didn't bring up that issue.

Show me how American films are dumb


Where are you going with this ridiculousness??? Most of my favourite movies are American made you idiot.

Also, why do you consistently bring up this "I am a QT hater comment". Is it wallowing in self gratification on account of you "catching me out"? You didn't catch me out. I chose the wrong word there and stated so but you continue to nit-pick like a child in a playground. If I hate Tarantino I WOULD SAY SO QUITE OPENLY AND AGREE IF YOU PUT IT TO ME. Do you think that I feel shame in hate Mr. Psychiatrist? Well I don't, so drop that stupidity.

But if you continue to nit-pick then I will join the club by never letting down this comment made by you: "Where is it written that artists cannot steal?". The most absurd and dimwitted question that has ever been put to me.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

You infer that these movies are made that way because the "AVERAGE" American is dumb or a good ol' boy. These are the things Fad64 said, which you applauded and agreed with


Yes, I agreed with what he said but he called Americans dumb, I called them lazy. Don't see how that makes me anti-American even if I do think that they are dumb. Hating a nation because there IQ is not up to an acceptable level is absurd. I guess I hate most of Africa too.

And those comments you quoted me on are bang on - I do believe that American cinema-goers are lazy and don't like reading subtitles. And this, I feel, is the reason for remakes of good foreign language movies. I don't have "facts and figures" as that would require a survey of some kind, but as of now it's my opinion on the matter and box office receipts for one movie are not going to change that and neither is calling me a dimwit, dimwit. Also, you've given no reason to why you think Hollywood remakes foreign films. To reach a wider audience? Maybe true - but why then do they ba$tardi$e them by making crap artistic decisions? Do we need a remake of The Ring? Or Dark Water? Or The Vanishing? Especially just a couple of years after there original's release?

And Kit, you can come after me with that quote of mine all you want. I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself


Oh I'M the one who looks like a fool??? Sounds to me like you're trying to worm your way out of it.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

You really can't be calling anyone a dimwit mustard.

Do you really think that Hollywood wants foreign films coming here and taking their money?


Long live capitalism. But Hollywood has no problem monopolising other markets.

Your logic makes it sound as though the entire American public is the reason why Hollywood does what it does.


Why do you believe that I'm referring to the entire population of the US at large? We're talking about movies here, so naturally I'm concerned only with the cinema going public. Therefore, I don't see the need to write "American cinemgoers" all the time as opposed to just "Americans".

I'm Irish mustard, and my nation has a very strong bond with the States. We've always been good to each other. There are about 40 million Americans of Irish descent which is roughly 1/7th of the population. Jesus, we've practically colonised the place - so no, I do not hate America - though the capitalism is gone too far but that has made ye so rich. And yes, Ireland is quite capitalist with our new found wealth but let's not go into politics shall we.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

Missed the point again german - I implied that alot of American remakes are dumbed down because the people involved in doing the remake believe the average American cinema-goer to be dumb, hence the popcorn factor quote. I'm attacking the filmmakers (yes, including Sluizer) not the American public. But that's all you see.

I don't know what Fad meant by 'good ol' boys', but let's examine another quote by him:

indicative that American films for the large part are designed to be understood by idiots


The important words here being "DESIGNED TO BE" - referring to the filmmakers who seem to me to believe that the average American is a simpleton. I can't count the times I've walked into a movie and found myself spoonfed everything. It's annoying, and although FAD might very well be calling Americans stupid, I picked up on the attack on the filmmakers and so agreed with that.

Now please waste a post trying to explain how I'm only trying to cover myself now and that you "caught me out", leech boy.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

If these filmmakers are intentionally "dumbing down" their films because they believe American moviegoers to be dumb then logic would dictate that the more dumbed down a movie is, the more money it should make. Right?


That might be logic in wacko german-mustard land but not in reality, I never said, implied or insinuated that.

Oh, and how exactly yo those two quotes contradict each other? - you're perceptions are screwed up if you think so, unless you think "lazy" is a synonym or euphemism for "dumb".

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

Do you believe the average American is a simpleton


NO. I said lazy. I said don't want to read subtitles. And I've already stated this: I'm referring to the cinema-goers, not the entire nation.

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

you're just being ridiculous now. How old are you, 15?

She shivers in the wind, like the last leaf of a dying tree.

reply

[deleted]

Klit Caruthers and the rest of the anti-Americans: all we "dumb" Americans have to do is read your stupid posts, you can't even spell or write. You prove the point of who is dumb!!!! Long live America, the greatest country in the world! *spits at the queen*

reply

[deleted]

you are all a bunch of idiots, the movie was made by the same guy, if he changed it its his fault, not the country of origin. if he felt so strongly about the film he could have fought for it the way he wanted it. if you also looked at the trivia section for spoorloos you would see that he filmed an ending in which the guy gets caught and when he doesnt get caught. he decided himself. we did not petition for him to change it he felt he made the right decision. i am a little confused about the trivia section for not explaining itself correctly but as far as i know it was his decision to change it.

reply

clap clap clap. nice, make up s*it. at least the stuff i said was TRUE. please dont call the queen? your sentences dont even make sense, and you call ME dumb. ha ha.

reply

Sorry German Mustard, you misread my words, or certainly my intention. I don't believe all Americans to be dumb, that would be as vacuous as stating that ALL citizens of any country are...anything. I'll go along with your statistics for argument's sake but that doesn't stop the film from being aimed at the lowest common denominator....and look at who you voted in for President if you want an example of how an awful lot of Americans can get it wrong!!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The film-makers clearly aimed their product at the widest possible audience, not the 1% who went to see it nor the 5% who go to movies regularly (or whatever) but the largest possible number of people. In the course of doing this they will have shown the movie to a number of test audiences incorporating a cross section of American society...this was the result. This was no art house movie with an expectedly low appeal, nor was it a niche film, but a full blown hollywood big budget, star studded semi-event movie (By European standards anyway). The film industry clearly believes that the American audience prefers it's entertainment dumbed down and as they put a lot of money in to researching this very subject I merely intended a bow to their superior knowledge !

reply

[deleted]

Oddly enough, EnglishmanAbroad, this film was directed by a European.

----------
If you enjoy cinema, please check out my website @ http://www.FilmPix.net!

reply

exactly my point

reply

Great point

reply

Nope. Not such a great point! A friend of mine is a fairly well known artist and was comissioned some time ago to do a painting for a well known brand. He did so using the criteria that made him the calibre of artist they sought to employ; his skill with a brush, his eye for composition and his general ability to produce high quality work. The company concerned, on completion of the painting refused to pay unless he completely rearrange the composition he had produced for them. They demanded changes to the number of characters in the painting and the direction in which they were facing. Now, considering that this is a traditional painting, not a computer composition the demands they had made pretty much meant re-doing the painting from scratch, not to the satisfaction of his artist's sensibilities but to their's as the people with the money. The artistry with which he had made the first picture would have to be abandoned in order to satisfy the client. In this case he told them to stuff their money and refused to sell out. In the case of the Vanishing Sluizer clearly did not.

reply

Two phrases come to my mind: "Lowest Common Denominator" and "dollars".

I agree with the comment that American filmmakers tailor their product to make the most money from the masses. As such, the use of artistic vision is somewhat meaningless, and often counterproductive. Teenagers spending their parents' money don't want to see fine films, they want to see exploding cars and naked teenagers. So, in order to make money, put those things in your film. That kind of mentality.

Any aspect of a film that has made money will be repeated again and again, hence the phrase "Hollywood ending". In general, people don't like a sad ending, so eschew the artistic vision in lieu of a happy ending that will yield more box office dollars.

Then, when the movie makes big figures, you can join the other Hollywood elite, clapping yourselves on the back and preserving the status quo by making more drivel in an endless cycle of greed. Release it globally...

Then the rest of the world can see American product, and make sweeping generalizations about what America is.

I like Eddie Izzard.

I'm an American, but not so arrogant as to assume I'm right and if you disagree you're wrong. I can handle the criticism, and may well agree. Not all Americans are vacuous embiciles... but many are. Most educated Americans would agree with a lot of the world's criticisms of America. I love the basics of American ideals, but there are too many societal flaws, all congealed into a mass that I'm not alone in believing will soon lead to the demise of the American Empire.

Oh... and I don't like reading subtitles; not that I'm lazy, but I find it distracting.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Ok I will admit that Jeff Bridges isnt the greatest actor in the world but he is still pretty damn good. By far not the worst actor I have ever witnessed on screen. Well anyway he was at least really good in the Fisher King. Also I do love the originals ending much darker and more realistic in my own oppinion and it sticks with you for a while after the film is over.

The MPAA just a buch of wacko's in buisness suits.

reply

I love Jeff Bridges. He is the Big Lebowski!

reply

I agree with RayRay. (except that I didn't particularly like the Ring)

If a movie is entertaining in its own right -- as I thought the Vanishing was -- I don't see the need to put down Americans in general for making an "inferior" movie. I get saying the original was better, and making reasonable arguments, but to use this remake as an excuse to denigrate the American viewing audience and American cinema in general is just silly.

reply