IMDb user comments for
The Vanishing (1993)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 10:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Index

94 comments in total

---

31 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
The original is way better; evidence against the Hollywood film system, 3 December 1998
Author: Sam from San Antonio, TX

This film is way inferior to the Dutch original (the fact that the same director directed both is another story). This movie has obviously been toned down for American audiences, which is insulting if you've seen them both (I stumbled onto the remake on cable late at night). The original is a thriller in the truest sense of the word, and is far more intelligent, disturbing, and scary than the Hollywood version. I bet the producers assumed American audiences couldn't handle disturbing well so they gave us a more friendly version, very insulting. If you're going to see this version, make sure you rent the original too and watch it first, just to see how much the remake pales in comparison. If you don't like psychological, disturbing, riveting, and no-downbeat-endings in your thrillers, the 1993 version is for you. But if you want to be truly blown away, the Dutch original is very highly recommended over this one.

---

26 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
America didn't have the right to do this to a perfect story, 27 February 2005

Author: Netherland from The Netherlands

When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.

---

21 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
So-so, 26 February 2005

Author: Gafke from United States

Had I not seen the original Dutch film "Spoorloos" I might have given "The Vanishing" more credit. But it's a weak remake which gives American audiences all the gore that the original lacked and a reasonably happy ending which was nowhere to be found in the original.

"The Vanishing" is the story of Jeff, whose claustrophobic girlfriend Diane goes missing from a gas station and never returns. For years, Jeff is plagued with guilt and never gives up on the search for Diane, not even after meeting Rita, with whom he begins a serious relationship. But Rita soon becomes sick of Jeff's obsession and leaves him after a bitter confrontation. It is at this point that Jeff's obsession pays off and Barney comes looking for him. Barney knows what happened to Diane, because he is the one who kidnapped her. But Barney will only tell Jeff what happened if Jeff agrees to go through everything that Diane went through without knowing in advance what that might be. Jeff agrees and disappears, and now it is Rita who is obsessed with discovering what has happened to him.

This isn't a terrible film by any means. The performances are great, particularly by Keifer Sutherland as Jeff. His portrayal of the guilt-ridden, haunted man is near perfect. There are some great moments of comedy provided by Park Overall as Rita's friend Lynn. But "The Vanishing" lacks the power of "Spoorloos" despite a harrowing scene in which Jeff learns the fate of Diane firsthand, a scene which is identical to the original. Still, I don't understand why when a foreign film is remade for American audiences, it is almost always assumed that we want more gore and a happy ending, thank you very much. Both cheapen the story in this case. "Spoorloos" was a film of terrible sorrow and grim reality, both of which will (or at least SHOULD) leave even the most hardened horror fan shaken. "The Vanishing" is slightly less effective, going in for cheap thrills and a kick-ass finale a la Hollywood.

I would recommend seeing it ONLY if you're going to watch "Spoorloos" as well.

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Hmmm...2 versions. Which should I watch?, 21 August 1999
Author: Chris Huddle from Atlanta, GA

As everyone who has reviewed this film here has mentioned, there are two versions of this movie, one Dutch, one American, both directed by the same fellow. Which should you see first? Which should you avoid, if any? Decide for yourself... I saw the Dutch version in 1994, and it absolutely blew my socks off. I was horrified, didn't want to keep watching it, but I was pulled in and couldn't stop until the brilliant, ultra-chilling, uncompromising finale. This was my first foreign film, and so I was completely unprepared for such a non-Hollywood experience. I will remember this movie for the rest of my life. Later on, I caught the American version in the theatres, watched it, a few thrills here and there, yadda, yadda. Jeff Bridges was pretty creepy, but quite frankly, I would have completely forgotten about it by now if it weren't for the original. It's not horrible, it just pales in comparison to a masterpiece.

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
An underrated tension cranker, 8 April 2006

Author: mutty_mcflea from Bristol, UK

George Sluizer's underrated remake of his overrated original doesn't really feel like an American film. Until the end. That's when it blunders past what should be the shocking denouement and goes on for another 20 minutes, like something out of 'The Player'. But if you can ignore that compromise then there's a huge amount to admire in this low-key cracker. It's thoughtfully directed – cracking close-up of Kiefer Sutherland as he talks to the cop; shocking yikes! bit when Jeff Bridges hides behind the door – and uses striking locations and a weird, creepy score to drum up an off-kilter atmosphere, helped along by Bridges's superbly odd performance. The finale aside, I can't understand why it's so lambasted.

---

11 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
How to destroy your career in one simple remake, 3 November 2005

Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

George Sluizer's original version of The Vanishing aka The Man Who Wanted to Know offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbing sociopaths and one of the most memorable finales of all time (shamelessly stolen by Tarantino for Kill Bill Volume Two), but it has plenty more to offer than that. Playing around with chronology and inverting the usual clichés of standard 'lady vanishes' plots, it also offers superb characterisation and strong, underplayed but convincing performances.

Unfortunately, I can only assume that when it came to the remake, Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered from this disastrous misstep.

Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been over thought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying "Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.' But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good – Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending – standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame 'let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment – best not go there… which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for this one.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Good movie ruined by stupid ending, 29 October 2005

Author: PTB from California

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I watched this movie not knowing it was a remake of Spoorloos (1988). It wasn't until reading about the two movies on IMDb that I realized there was a difference in the endings. Saying that, here's my viewing experience: The movie started off well. I got involved with the characters, though I thought Diane (Sandra Bullock) was a whiny bitch and I probably would have done the same thing Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) does in the beginning when the car stalls in tunnel. Anyway, they do come across as a believable couple. I really think Jeff Daniels did an excellent job as Barney and the haircut, clothing, and mannerisms were perfect for this role. Nancy Travis was serviceable as Rita.

By now, everybody knows the story, so I won't belabor that point. But to me the high point was the confrontation between Jeff and Rita once Rita discovers Jeff is still obsessed with finding Diane. Great scene with great acting, and a totally believable revelation from Jeff that his obsession isn't about still being in love with Diane, it's about not knowing what happened to her.

**** BIG SPOILER ALERT **** The ending to me was very predictable, very typical, and very weak. Again, I had not (and still have not) seen the original. But I'm sitting there watching this and I'm going, "OK, Rita is gonna save the day and everything will be fine." Because that's what happens in these types of movies. And that's exactly what happens and it's terrible, because it's unbelievable. If Rita is this damn smart why is she just a waitress at a coffee shop? Moving on, my thoughts were that this movie would carry much more impact if it had ended with Jeff awakening in the coffin knowing he was buried alive and a slow fade away shot of Barney Cousins eating a solitary meal at his cabin, with Rita having no idea what happened (because she had left Jeff earlier that day "forever").

Course, I then read on IMDb that's how the original ended (more or less). Now I'm off to find a copy of the original and compare it to this. Ciao.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
well I haven't seen the original and I STILL hated it., 11 January 2004

Author: triple8 from Conn

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

If I had to pick the most depressing movie, try to be suspenseful I've seen it'd be this one. I know about how good the original is supposed to be, it had better be better then this one. The movie's so dark and depressing but it isn't interesting to watch either-I've seen depressing "thriler" type movies that were saved because of the suspense to counteratc and balence the dark quality. Vanishing didn't have that, This was so disturbing to watch to begin with and there was nothing positive to make this a classic type movie. I think another IMDb poster got it right in saying this genre has just seen thrillers done in a far superior way. I completely agree-I would recommend skipping this one-maybe I'll watch the original some day but I doubt it. I give this a 2 out of 10.

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
WATCH THE ORIGINAL NOT THIS POINTLESS REMAKE!, 20 May 1999
Author: anonymous from the ether

I don't get this. Either the studios think that US audiences must be protected from downbeat endings or hollywood just likes to spit in the face of the cast and producers of the orignal Dutch version (Spoorloos). What is the point of messing with a perfect film? This remake is an insult to the actors in the original - and the american actors in the remake should apologise for stealing the roles that were performed so well by europeans. WATCH THE ORIGINAL NOT THIS POINTLESS REMAKE!

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Inferior US version of Dutch film, 16 June 1999
Author: Jim Morton from San Francisco, CA

Others have said it already, but since there still seem to be some people who think this remake is worth watching, I feel the need to reiterate: skip this movie and watch the original. Both films were made by the same director. The major difference between the two is an ending on the Dutch film that will chill you to the bone, versus the predictable Hollywood version of the story.

---

---

Page 1 of 10:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history