I just watched In Order of Disappearance (2014). The same director remade the film, almost shot by shot, as Cold Pursuit (2019). The scripts were nearly identical, except for some important differences. Why would the same director make an inferior remake, when he had the chance to improve his film and make more money with a larger audience? I found the remake to be superior.
In the original, the young son of the gangster had no personality at all, almost no lines. As I posted above, in Cold Pursuit, the kid stole every scene he was in. His gangster dad's henchmen asked him for advice about fantasy football gambling. The kid was hilarious in his response. It was obvious that he was much smarter than the gangsters, and that they knew that. In the remake, he quickly learned how to drive a snowplow and drove himself home in one.
By setting it in the US with American Indians, there was inspired drama and comedy, especially when the Indians go to the fancy hotel, and are asked if they have a reservation. In the original, there was no comedy at all. And yes, the rival criminal gangs and their bloody actions, based on misunderstandings, was similar to the FX TV Fargo series. Funny and tragic. The old Indian chief looking at the people at the ski resort had to be thinking, "This was once tribal land. Now look at it."
Both films had quirky titles listing each killed person's name and moniker. The cinematography was better in the remake, with the snowplow working at night. The original film was good, but the remake improved it.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8289)
3 years ago
I haven't seen the original, but I enjoyed this film. In the growing collection of Liam Neeson action thrillers, I thought this was one of the better ones.
It's been too long for me to remember a lot of details, but I thought it was a solid 7/10. I'd put it behind some of Neeson's other thrillers, like Non-Step and Taken, but it was definitely better than the Taken sequels, or Unknown or A Walk Among the Tombstones.
reply
share
MonStar (11568)
3 years ago
I thought the remake was better, for the reasons mentioned. Others posting above were criticizing the remake. I've now seen both.
Liam Neeson had an understated role, and it worked. Stellan Skarsgård had that part in the original and he was fine. When the last gangster standing climbed in the plow with Neeson, he said, "It's my job." That wasn't in the original. Little touches like that worked better in the remake. The final gag with the glider was in both films.
People might prefer the first one they saw, since they'll know exactly what is going to happen next, while watching the other film. The original is available for free viewing on XUMO.
reply
share