what are all of your opinions...as to which is better and why, etc. I vastly prefer the McQueen/Dunaway original, not only because i'm a big McQueen fan, but i like the style of it, and stories are always better the first time around. i found the remake kind of annoying, mainly because of rene russo...but also, it just wasn't as involved. and now they're making a sequel to it?
any opinions?
I'm too young to have seen this, I've only seen the 1999 remake (thrice, BBC ONE have shown it at least twice the last four months) and I find it hard to believe that the original is better but maybe that's just my still rather immature taste. (Still, the scenario and music are top.)
But I note your preference of the 1968 original over the new one and now I'll definitely try to get my hands on it!
Thanks for the tip!
I have seen both. I think the '99 remake is better. Things don't have to be always better just because they are older. 40 years from now, the '99 film will also be a classic. Besides, the elite society doesn't change as much with the passing of decades as common people do. Thomas Crown played by Brosnan is also a pretty old fashioned man.
shareOriginal is much better. It's has more character overall. The art heist theme is not original to the story or title, the original story also takes place in Boston where the original movie ended up being filmed. That alone damages the remake for me. It becomes kind of cliche.
The original is annoying to some, but it has much more of an expression from an art standpoint.
The original, by far and away! Granted, I fell in love with the original as a young girl, so of course I was expecting great things of the remake. The '99 version was okay, but it just didn't have the same charisma of the McQueen/Dunaway original. There was just something more simply elegant about the first version which the remake attempted to achieve, but didn't quite attain. My .02 worth...
shareI saw the original TCM last night again and I must say that the original was WAY better. Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway were awesome.The 1999 remake was okay,but not like the original.
share99 hands down. The set up, camera work, plot and especially the ending heist is beautiful. I didn't find the 68 one tense enough and was pretty slow paced. Granted the acting may have been better in the original (I'm not a good judge of acting etc) but I prefer the new one. And regard the new one as one of my favourite movies.
shareI think the original is the better version, but I have to admit I do enjoy the remake as well. I think the 68 film is more stylish and the chemistry between McQueen and Dunaway is extraordinary. I also think how their characters relationship evolved seemed more right, Brosnan and Russo seemed a bit rushed to their mutual admiration and such.
I did not care for the ending in the 99 film at all. IMO that is not how these two people would have resolved. The original's ending was spot on if you believe in the characters at all.
~LjM
Step on it! And don't spare the atoms!
The original for two reasons: Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway period.
shareHaving seen the remake first I enjoyed it. But having seen the original, I think it blows the remake out of the water! McQueen and Dunway had a great chemistry.
Dear Vorenus, I don't **** your wife.
-Erinne "Rome"
I just saw the original. I like the remake very much, especially because of Brosnan, and I often prefer the remake over the original, but in this case to me definiely the original is better. I think that in the remake the emphasys is on the heist, while here it is on the relationship between the two leads - hence, the happy-end in the remake and the bitter-sweet ending of the original.
Women are like deer - You can't just charge in, you gotta stalk 'em...
I personally liked the remake better. McQueen and Faye are great though. I just like the emphasis on the heist in the remake much more.
shareYou nailed it on the head. The chemistry between Dunaway and McQueen was awesome...the perfect example was the chess game. Not a word was said but an entire seduction was illustrated just by look and gesture between the two of them. Actors today couldn't pull that off simply because they don't care about the artistry of the profession.
shareThe original- hands down. Best chess game ever filmed, especially when she sucked her finger, then fondled the bishop. Oh, man!!
shareTotally agree the Original is the best due to the cast...McQueen and Dunnaway...
shareFaye Dunaway has confirmed in multiple interviews that she wasn’t on her period during the shooting of this film, so I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.
shareI saw the remake first and have owned the DVD for several years prior to recently seeing the original, so I guess I'm predisposed.
First the purely subjective factors: both movies ooze style while showcasing the fashion, cars, and upscale lifestyles of their respective eras. In short, those who grew up during the 60s or 70s will likely prefer the original while younger folks will probably relate more to the remake. (Although there's the somewhat odd twist that 70s fashion seems to be enjoying a minor resurgence right now.)
Similarly, star power is largely subjective and generation specific. I thought Pierce Brosnan was perfect as the suave, cocky, calm, and controlled Thomas Crown. He defined the character for me so it's hard to gauge Mcqueen's version fairly. Other have complained that Steve Mcqueen was out of his element; I've only seen a handful of Mcqueen movies so I guess I wouldn't know. I generally like Mcqueen so I think this is a wash. (In fact, I almost wonder if tough-guy Mcqueen could have pulled off Bond, after seeing the success of Daniel Craig)
I don't care for Faye Dunaway, but then again nor am I a big Renee Russo fan. So they're a wash too.
I guess this is still subjective, but I vastly prefer the soundtrack of the remake. Thomas' Crown's piano theme was instantly addictive and memorable. The jazzy grooves of the original seemed shapeless and overall forgetable to me, though perhaps they were more distinctive to contemporary audiences.
Cinematically, I'm among the viewers who found the divided panels gimmicky. I enjoyed the lush presentation of Crown's life in both films. I thought it was interesting that 30 years later, a nearly identical glider still seemed like a pretty cool toy. I liked Mcqueen's dune buggy but felt the film dragged out and reused those scenes a bit too much. All in all, I felt like the original version moved very slowly and felt the need to spell out minor details too explicitly.
Plotwise, I definitely prefer the remake, which at least has a couple of fairly clever wrinkles thrown into the heist. The plot's not perfect and there is a lot of needless fluff thrown in, but most of these flaws can be found in the original as well.
When I watched the original, I was extremely disappointed by the "brilliant" bank robbery scheme. I thought, well, perhaps that was a very clever, original idea back then. But then I found Ebert's original review, and even that review (from the 1960s, I think) found the robbery plan to be curiously unremarkable. The plot tried to massage this lame scheme by having Vicky "figure out" that the thief might have used several accomplices who didn't actually know each other, even though that particular fact was completely irrelevant to the success of the generally straight-forward robbery.
Overall, they are actually very different movies. The original hardly focused on the heist itself (though I wish it hadn't tried to subsequently play it up), while the stealing of the paintings is center stage in the remake. Also, the portrayal of Crown is so drastically different. Mcqueen's Crown had a very dark side; his laughter seemed meglomaniacal at times, and at times it was unclear if he was stealing for kicks or for the actual cash itself. Brosnan's Crown is much more family friendly; there is little doubt he is in it for thrills, as the value of the paintings is so minute compared to his worth.
Overall, I give the original a 6 and the remake a 7. The original is not a bad film, but I feel it hasn't aged so well. In 30 years, we'll check on the remake. At worst the remake can be accused of pandering. Modern audiences like cute little twists and sharp, clean plot delivery rather than ambiguity and head-scratching open-endedness.
On another note, I just noticed that a sequel for the remake is in the works. I don't think this is a good idea. Yes, I liked the movie, but I can only imagine a very strained, disjointed sequel. It's just not the kind of movie that needs a sequel.
I personaly like this one idk y but i guess im biest b/c i saw this one 1st
shareI saw both but the original was better. Though PB's version was slick it didn't capture a certain flair the reason the original is a classic.
I'll have to go with the original. For a large part this is due to Steve McQueen, one of the most charismatic people ever on screen. Also, I love the way this was filmed, with the split screens in the beginning and the many stylish shots of both McQueen and Dunaway. It has a unique flavor, while the remake has a more generic feel to it.
voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013
[deleted]
i think REMAKE is far better cause i connect with the chemistry between Brosnan and Russo much more myself vs Dunaway/McQueen.
cause Brosnan fits a role like this MUCH more then McQueen does... cause Brosnan has that suave/sophisticated stuff to him which McQueen does not have.... cause McQueen's 'cool' is different from Brosnan's in general and for the movie.. Brosnan is flat out better.... McQueen fits stuff like 'The Getaway' and 'The Great Escape' etc much more as it plays to his strength's much better vs Thomas Crown Affair which i felt was made for Brosnan as he naturally fits the role better.
and honestly i feel that this film is one of McQueen's weaker films that i seen him in along with the generally praised 'Bullitt'... i think those are probably the weakest McQueen films i seen.
even Russo i felt is much better in her role to than Dunaway.
bottom line...
Original = 6/10 (this is a little overrated if you ask me as i have seen better from McQueen... but to be honest i only seen this film 1 time so far.. but either way there's no way it will beat the remake)
Remake = 9/10 (this film is underrated for sure!, no less than 8/10 for sure!)
p.s. johnseim said, "Having seen the original on a huge theater screen, I am disappointed when I watch it on TV, even a large screen TV. You don't get the same effect."
honestly the theater aint all that great if you ask me in general (some films are nice on big screen but most i would rather just see at home)... cause besides the 'sound' in theaters i honestly think at home is overall better cause of 'image quality' which lacks on a theater screen vs something that's HDTV etc.
plus at home you dont have to deal with people talking/making noise etc etc.
---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---
I bet you enjoy a bucket of KFC and beer with your movies..am I right?
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
 ...well played.
shareFrankly I am disappointed by people who post insults rather than specific criticisms. In your case, not only are you insulting the poster, but anyone who likes KFC (and there are millions) and anyone who likes beer (even more millions). Are you so arrogant that you think you are better than others because you drink wine or sip brandy or cognac??? I prefer cocktails myself, but rarely drink alcohol when watching movies. I don't understand why that matters.
I read these reviews in order to help me decide whether to buy or try something. It annoys me to waste my time reading something expecting to get information that will help me, and instead just getting nastiness. It is a major downer. I am 58, not 14 or 40 and not jaded, and while I don't agree with everything, I do completely agree with the first two paragraphs. Thankfully people have different interests and preferences. I happen to prefer Brosnan and Russo and I enjoy the plot differences and playfulness better than the original, so sue me.
I agree. Steve McQueen looks like a yobbo in a suit, and the dune buggy scene really underscores this impression. (That scene may have dated badly. Ripping up sand dunes might have been an acceptable pastime when this film was made, but these days you'd be justly crucified for such thoughtless environmental vandalism.)
Too much of the film is spent trying to convince the audience that McQueen is "sophisticated," but for me these efforts failed.
This sort of film only works if you to want the crook to succeed, at least to some degree. Given the way McQueen lived, and his personality, I just wanted him locked up - pretty much from the moment he started laughing bizarrely over the success of his simple-minded bank robbery.
For some reason, I also disliked Faye Dunaway's character. She seemed like someone who wanted an expensive and superficial lifestyle, but wasn't prepared to work for it. That's two strikes in my book.
Funny how the first BOND Sean turned down the part and yet the fifth BOND PB did the remake
on location with SUPERMAN I,& OTHER STARS
http://www.vbphoto.biz/
duh nothing beats the original. faye dunaway just sizzles in this and she had great chemistry with mcqueen and the cinematography, mind blowing.
brosnan is so fake!
JeSkuNk
[deleted]
I've seen the remake, and only the last thirty minutes of the original (am rectifying it right now), but the original is much, much better. And I think that my enjoyment of the original over the remake proves that it's short-sighted to think people my age (mid-20s) will like the remake better. For one thing, the original was sleek and sexy. The remake felt like Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond again, and it tried too damn hard to make the late-fortysomething Rene Russo a sexpot. And I happen to like the emphasis on the relationship between McQueen/Dunaway--after all, isn't their falling for each other the main crimp in investigating his theft? Focusing so much on the heist is why the Brosnan/Russo relationship felt so superficial. Plus, I think the remake fell apart completely after Brosnan whisked Russo away. Because the focus was so much on the heist and not only building up these characters and their relationship, when the script tried to backtrack, it couldn't, and the movie limped to its lame conclusion. And I loved McQueen as Thomas Crown. His aura was so natural. Brosnan was, as I said, James Bond (albeit a watered down version) all over again, his supposed suavity came across as forced. And I believe someone mentioned Brosnan was more family-friendly when compared to McQueen--the main problem with movies today. Thomas Crown wasn't supposed to be "family friendly", and this was a decidedly adult film. Hollywood is so dumbed down today because they cater to the frat boy, rather than those who want a sophisticated, glam, mature movie.
shareJust saw the remake on TV; have seen the original several times, also only on TV.
I prefer the original for the far-superior chemistry between the two leads. (The chess scene in particular is a highlight, highly original, very erotic, and unlike anything else in any other movie.) The original also offers a much more credible ending.
What I prefer about the newer version is heist. Not only is it ingenious, it's also more appropriate to the character Thomas Crown: it makes much more sense for the "man who has everything" to steal a priceless work of art that he'll never be to sell than for him to set up a bank robbery to get ~ what? ~ money?? He's already got too much money. In both movies, he hires a bunch of lackey to follow his instructions and perform a scripted operation, but in the newer movie his plan is more subtle and more diabolical.
However, once the heist is done and and cat-and-mouse game begins, the newer movie just doesn't match up to the older one ion tension & atmosphere. No disrespect to Brosnan and Russo, but they just don't capture the same magic as McQueen & Dunaway...
The original by far. I actually saw the remake first, and it didn't hold my attention, even though I think Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo are decent actors. This is really a '60s film with a very "mod" look and attitude that doesn't translate as a remake. Plus Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway are perfect together. It's exciting and ultimately rather sad.
shareRemake is better, by a hair.
The McQueen Version: takes 40 minutes to introduce Faye. Takes an hour for them to meet. There's only 42 minutes left at that point!!!! And it has fussy, dumb, decorous edits and use of splitscreen.
The characters are vapid in both versions, so there's no point scored there.
[deleted]