Side-by-Side Directory: mattskuta.com/... This side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison is intended to illustrate the variety of choices possible when creating an original motion picture and a remake.
This movie has always disturbed me. Glad to know that I'm not alone; Stanley Kubrick said that the Dutch version of this movie was "the scariest movie he had ever seen". Kubrick reached out to the director (he directed both versions btw) to ask him about the editing. Apparently Kubrick was impressed...
It's amazing how the same general film can have vastly different philosophies to share. Spoorloos was about the danger of obsession. It's was one man's frantic search for an answer, under the mistaken belief that you can make sense out of something senseless. It was more of a character study. The Vanishing was a more traditional film. It was a man (and his girlfriend) vs a villain. The obsession was more of an accent piece. There was no utter consumption of the main character's life, like in Spoorloos. Both villains had similar motives, but only Spoorloos's villain felt like a true psychopath. He killed without any emotional reason -- just to see if he could do it; in The Vanishing, he claimed to have the same reasoning, except the film clearly shows he has emotional attachments. If you're looking for a three act structure with a more cinematic ending, watch The Vanishing. If you want to leave the film contemplating the danger of relentless obsession, and the gut-wrenching reality of one man's capacity for cruelty without a conscience to guide him, watch Spoorloos. It's a tough film to get through, but it is more thought provoking.
@@shaymicah4194 I said the obsession was there in The Vanishing, it just wasn't the central aspect of Jeff's character. It was about Jeff wanting to know the truth, still wanting to move on, and his girlfriend's frustration with his inability to do just that. The Vanishing was about BOTH of them. She was there to try to break him out of his obsession, because The Vanishing--at its core--was something of a love story. Spoorloos was just about the main character and his obsession. The girlfriend leaves him in Spoorloos and doesn't come back, because Spoorloos isn't a quasi-love story. She's only there to show that his obsession IS his life now. There's no redemption arc. It's just one man alone with his all-consuming desire to know what happened. I say again, the obsession was an accent piece in The Vanishing. It was there, it was just secondary to the girlfriend's attempts to "save" him. In Spoorloos, it was the central aspect of the film, and the main character. I stand by that.
It’s also about the banality of evil. The being middle class respectable man meticulously and coldly calculating his murder and then vanishing back into respectable middle class life only to methodically murder his next victim like planning a train trip.
The American version is the shitty version. The power of the story was the end of it. And what do the Americans do? They change the end into something..... Well, let's leave it at that.
@@BennyBlanco-gh3zd a conclusion thats stupid and misses the point of the whole story. it was stated multiple times in the original that the obsession would get him nowhere. Rex acknowledges this and still continues to persevere due to his desire to find out what happened. it was never supposed to have a happy hollywood ending, its realistic.
It's basically the movie buried. It's a suck ass way to die for sure but the movie on an overall view is amateur at beat compared to the top notch cast of 1993
@@shaymicah4194 buried came out 22 years later so the implication of the original copying buried is ridiculous. spoorloos is infinitely superior to the remake due to the script being written by the original author, not watered down and dumbed down for american audiences. no cast could save the cheap, badly-made movie the vanishing is.
Johanna ter Steege, the actress in the original is irreplaceable! She is so authentic and likable, truly a girl next door. Hollywood remakes are always to be avoided!
The original can't be bettered. UK film critic Mark Kermode describing both called the original "The Banality of Evil" and the remake "The Evil of Banality". Sums them up so well.
Hollywood made the director ruin his own masterpiece by rewriting an ending that could have been used by a Disney movie. It also missed a lot of what made the original awesome. First, the crux of the novel and the original is that obsessions can be fatal. It reminded me of movies like Oldboy. Had the protagonist not been overly obsessed with revenge, he would have avoided his tragic fate. The original is similar only that the protagonist is obsessed with finding out what happened to his girl instead of revenge. He could have had the upperhand. He could have beaten the crap out of the villain and then reported him to the authorities, more than likely he would have found out where his girl was buried. But no! Because he is so desperate for closure, he acts recklessly and falls right into the trap of the villain. The remake completely erases this because at the end, the protagonist is saved from the tragic fate. Moreover, they kill the bad guy. So apparently, thanks to his obsession and recklessly risking his life, he does get his revenge! Horaaaay. Second, the Villain in the original is a textbook psychopath. He is unable to feel for anyone but more importantly he is very narcissistic. He is fascinated on himself and of what he is capable of doing and getting away with. He talks about his daughter's love and how his family admires him for saving a young girl from drowning, but he does not actually live for their love or admiration. They are just there to validate his narcissism. That he is awesome, because he is "worthy" of love and admiration. He is so overly confident, he walks into the protagonist declaring himself as the man responsible for the abduction, seemingly not worried that he will either go to prison or be killed by the protagonist in a fit of rage. He knows he can easily manipulate the protagonists obsession, and he does successfully. Again this element is taken away because in the remake, there is really no emphasis on what motivates the villain. He does what he does just because. Also unlike in the original, he is emotionally attached to his daughter which is why he ends up drinking his own drugged coffee and gets killed later on. Awwwww so he is not such a monster after all.
Sutherland's scream at the end is so chilling, I like his acting better when he is in the box, but overall the original ending is profoundly more terrifying.
Acabo de ver la película de 1988 y realmente estoy perturbado por ese final. Terrorífico y escalofriante tanto así que lloré pero del MIEDO, algo que nunca había hecho viendo un film de horror. He llorado de miedo en mi vida obviamente por situaciones de cada ser humano, sin embargo con una película de terror JAMÁS había sentido esta sensación. 10000000+/10.
Hollywood always has its way of ruining foreign originals in remakes. Look at what they did with Old Boy, same thing. I watched this comparison, never watched the Hollywood version, and you can see right away its Hollywood. That's why I always watch foreign, with subs not dubs. Hollywood always playing for the stupid masses. Look at this version, a woman comes out of nowhere in the end and is able to incapacitate the villain with a stupid plank board, so realistic.
Look the remake was garbage no doubt but there are plenty of remakes that we did that were even better than the originals. Example: girl with the dragon tattoo and the departed (remake of infernal affairs). Also to be fair there are a lot of country’s that steal from us. I know India did a remake of memento. They seem to always take from us.
@@maciek8159 indian film industry is not as big as hollywood in terms of resources and money. So I don't think it's fair to compare it with an industry as giant as hollywood
@@richardbool4232 Which is exactly why it's a master piece, thank you very much. If you're going to remake something then make sure it's outdated af but has a good ground concept.
The original version is more dark, the cinematography really implies that. The psychopath actor also play it really well. So if you want to see a disturbing movie, watch the original. While the remake is just a more fun movie
First saw the original back in the 90s on SHOWCASE and saw it again last year(library borrow). Still a great,unnerving film. SHOWCASE host Ann Medina made sure,inadvertently of course,that I would have little interest in the remake because she gave away its ending. Then again,even if she hadn't done so,I'm pretty sure I would have figured out there would be a happy ending of sorts. That's Hollywood.
Seems to me that Americans will go to the huge expense of remaking a perfectly good film (that could be overdubbed) rather than watch the original. I wonder why is that and I come up with very ungenerous answers, ungenerous to the American public. Is it because they need to have the surface furniture of language, location and faces rearranged for them to gather the energy to watch? It's not wonder that on the whole, so I'm told, they know very little about the world and think there's nothing worthwhile out there. Why, the people who watched the remake probably thought the idea of this film is theirs!
Hey! I’m an American and I loved the original. In fact I love it so much that I refuse to watch the dog shit version we unfortunately made. But it is the same director as the original who does the remake. Not all Americans are into remakes or whatever else you were suggesting. Hollywood is a business unfortunately and instead of making quality movies they keep it safe and do super hero movies with a million sequels.
Cesar Camba It’s all good. Hey, do you have any recommendations for some good foreign mystery thriller movies like this one? I’m just getting into foreign films and love them!
@@maciek8159 roman de garre 2007 Tell no one Nattevagen 1994 Thesis 1996 The invisible guest The body (el cuerpo) Les diabolique 1955 Repulsion 1965 The apartment 1996 The girl with Dragon tattoo 2009
1. Spoorloos is clearly the superior film. I thought The Vanishing was trite and soulless. 2. Money. I imagine Hollywood studios (more often than not) make much more money licensing the I.P. and producing and distributing a new movie than they can just distributing an overdubbed film. 3. "[Americans] know very little about the world and think there's nothing worthwhile out there." Do you realize how insulting and ignorant that sounds? Remaking foreign films is not unique to Hollywood. Here are a few notable ones: Russia remade 12 Angry Men; Japan remade Unforgiven and Ghost; Italy remade Jaws and Groundhog Day; France remade Maniac and Assault of Precinct 13; The U.K. remade The Longest Yard; Turkey remade E.T. and Star Wars; Nigeria remade Titanic; India remakes EVERY Hollywood movie they can. Those are just some of the most prominent.
Jeff Bridges is brilliant in the 1993 film. Still haven’t seen the Dutch version. This movie has stuck with me ever since I saw it when I was younger. One of the most creepiest movies I’ve seen. I wanted to turn it off, but couldn’t because I had to see what happened next. I am claustrophobic so maybe that’s why I find this movie so scary.
@@bloandon I really need to watch it. I read the book The Golden Egg by Tim Krabbé which is what the movie is based on and it was really good. A short story really, the book was only a little over 100 pages, so I read it really fast. It just ends so dark and I imagine that’s how the original movie ends. Gotta watch it with my hubby tho, don’t wanna watch it alone. Lol
It really wasn’t a happy ending? He looks over and sees that the love of his life was buried alive and slowly suffocated to death after years of agonizing pain and obsessing over her and hoping she was alive only to find out she probably died shortly after she disappeared. I think it’s way more disturbing than having both die and that’s the end
Everyone complaining why would u wanna see the same ending?? I'm glad they changed it if u gonna remake it change something I hate seeing the exact same movie beginning to end
@@davehuisman8241 Star's right and that is a CRAPPY ending to have the guy just die? Wow, how artsy fartsy and deep. Always really liked the 93 version, never watch reviews.
@@williamkoppos7039 You are the reason why Hollywood made a remake for the US market, which was also known in Europe though. Typical American audience can't stand a movie without a (sorta) happy end. They need their justice, because MURICA! But especially the USA should know that the family man is fake and monsters exist. Of course it is depressing when a movie ends dark, but you can only feel that way when the acting and execution was decent. These days people root for the anti hero though, but the movies are sorta dull, yet it is praised as, like you put it, arty fartsy and deep. Btw, I only knew the 93 version till today.
@@eadghe Have you gotten over that seething hatred for "Murica" you apparently were bottling up for a while and unleashed on the random internet person...
Enfín, a mí me da igual. Para empezar porque contrataron esactamente al mismo director. A ver, hay remakes y remakes, y aunque estemos ante la misma historia, e incluso contada de manera muy similar, el cine es puesta en escena e interpretaciones. En este caso, pues habría sido distinto si nos encontrásemos ante la obra de algún gran director europeo, alguien tipo Polanski, con su maestría y personalidad tras las cámaras, sería una aberración realizar un remake de El cuchillo sobre agua. Pero Spoloos NO es el cuchillo sobre el agua, ni su director es Roman Polanski. De modo que si Hollywood decide rehacer de nuevo esa historia, y se la da a su autor, al mismo director de la original, ahora contando con la mas potente Industria del entretenimiento a su disposición, y a un enorme Jeff Bridges, a un Kiefer Sutherland en su mejor momento, a Sandra Bullock y a la muy en boga por aquellos días Nancy Travis, y los bellos parajes norteamericanos, enfín, con todo eso, lo siento pero que le den a la original. En este caso para mi el remake es muy superior, y considero la original una suerte de borrador.
If you watch the original version there is just an awful ending which can you give a bitter taste. You watch the whole movie and the ending shows you that there is no progress or positive outcome. While the conclusion of the American version is more of a retribution and shows that bad people get what it comes. I’m Dutch btw and our books and movies always have unnecessary negativity. Heartless and depressing
@@gk15 The original ending is only exactly what the director wanted it to be. He made the villan in the movie an awful and heartless person. People vanish all the time and are never found. What's necessary or unnecessary doesn't matter. The original artistic ideas should be respected and not changed to make a few people feel "good" in the end. It's a movie and not a piece of candy that you can expect to be sweet. If people need movies to make them smile and be happy, then why would you watch this? They should just stick to watching Disney movies.
I prefer the '93 over the '88. I preferred the American actors over the Dutch ones and the ending not as disturbing. Got that with Se7en, The Wicker Man, The Mist, The Prestige, Primal Fear, Oldboy, The Skeleton Key, Buried, and The Omen.
If you don't speak french then watch the 1993 remake, if you speak french then watch 1988, however I love the 1993 remake as it's in English and the ending is better.
though the movie has its errors and not the best make i still liked it and enjoyed it better than Spoorloos. I thought the french version was boring though the ending much more disturbing. But why not have a happy ending after going thru all that!!! Still makes me shudder trying to imagine waking up in a coffin ...
