this one, or the Pierce Brosnan remake?

I love the remake, I saw that first before I even knew I was based on an original. I saw the original last night, it was on film 4.... I loved it; but watching that and reading these arguments brings in a few things for me. Watching the original I found my self comparing the new and original the whole way through, and I feel if you have watched the original first, you will do this as well, just so you know where you are with the film.

But putting social and human traits aside (which I may be wrong with) I thought the original was very 60's, brilliant film and both actors played it amazing. That being said, as many people said, you need to think more. The new one, it was easier to follow, original was harder to follow and there where more gaps, that being said, the original was more in that style, so it isn't really a criticism more an observation.

I prefer the remake as it's just done in a better way in my eyes, but that could be because I am younger and was born in the 80's. I find older people think the original is better, but maybe that is age..I am being very sterotypical at this point however. I won't knock the original, it was good, it stuck in my memory, but I think the story in the remake was better, but they are both VERY good films...just very different. I like how the remake kept an actor, some of the songs kept....to me it was a re-make made with respect

The remake much better

Russo is sooooooooooooo much hotter, and the movie is much more clever

This. More intriguing central coupling.






Do you like having sex? Then DON'T buy a Nintendo!

Its hard to say. I like tricky things that Pierce does to get the paintings and I like the music better to the new one because it keeps you more edgy than the old but Steve Mcqueen seems a lot colder and better suited to being Thomas Crown the business man who will sacrifice others to get money. I think my vote goes to the 1968 version.

I never thought that I should say this: I honestly think that honours are even. I've had the pleasure of watching the original today, and the remake last week (although I've seen them both plenty of times before), which leaves them both fresh in my mind.
The original is by far the classier of the two, and although other posters have criticised the split screen formatting, and the general gaucherie of the film, it should be remembered it is 47 years old, and this was the vogue at the time, so that's rather like disliking Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) because it's in black & white...I have always thought of Steve McQueen as a much maligned, underrated and underused actor (in fact I struggle to think of a bad performance, even On Any Sunday (1971)), and of course, no more need be said about the fragrant Faye Dunaway. It's a wonderfully entertaining film of its period, made when Hollywood didn't seem to be afraid of ambiguity, and fewer saccharine-sweet endings. The only things that grate, are that awful song (Noel Harrison's Windmills of Your Mind), which would never have featured in the remake, had it not been for a nod to the past, and the abundance of cringingly, obviously false forced laughter (McQueen on returning from the cemetery, Dunaway at the beach, etc) is there truly any other film with such dreadful pretence?
The remake has more than it's share of good points, I have always rated Pierce Brosnan (and met him, in Dublin, a charming man), it's an interesting thought that had he not been tied to his contract with NBC's Remington Steele (1982), we might have never seen Timothy Dalton playing Bond, and perhaps this might have allowed Brosnan to have made the part his own, he is certainly the best Bond since Connery (Daniel Craig?..Pfff), and he seems to relish the quiet introspective, slightly superior characterization seen in this film. Rene Russo, I know far less about, but then her filmography is far shorter. It may seem less likely for the romance to blossom in this version, despite the rather obvious sex scenes, but she is the same age as Brosnan, whereas Dunaway was over 10 years younger than McQueen. There is far less emphasis on using her as a clothes horse, and she is certainly more believable as a cerebral match for her opponent. The ending, however much I enjoyed the (totally unrealistic) twist with the Monet, is weak, and over-contrived...Was it altered, perhaps, after test screenings?..
...And so, I think, an honourable draw...

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

The Brosnan/Russo one is one of my favourite films. I don't like the original, it's too boring and the acting is funny (all that demented laughing - eeek).

[deleted]

Several reasons I prefer the 'remake'.

The plot:
A millionaire 'stealing' art for the thrill made way more sense, to me, than a millionaire stealing money (well, in an actual 'weapons - bank heist' way - millionaires often 'steal' money with so called 'legitimate' business deals ... Shearson, Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs - these all come to mind - and then there's Bernie ... lol!). The actual process of the heist of the art also made way more sense, than the heist of the money. In the 1968 flim: We have plenty of people on the street, a Ford station wagon sitting in front of a bank, and men in black suits and shades putting sacks of money into the back of the wagon - and no one paying any mind?? Be serious. Plus, I had been Ervin, driving the Ford, I'd have hightailed it with the money, left that nag of a fishmonger's wife and snotty nosed brat behind, and gone to Tahiti. Why settle for $50k, when there's 2 mill plus in the back of the Ford? In the remake, setting up a diversionary tactic, pulling off the actual theft, and then also orchestrating the replacing of the artwork, were all pretty slick tricks - much more fun than playing chess! (BTW, this was the intention, all along - Mr. Crown was not stealing the art to possess it - he could buy it. He was stealing the art for the thrill of the theft.) Also, the remake actually developed the 'other woman' character, making her both critical to the 'heist' and the replacement of the art, and explaining her relationship with Crown (she was the daughter of a dear, departed friend, and Crown's 'god-daughter', plus did the art forgery). In the original, the only 'explanation' of the young woman is at the beach, when Crown mentions he was just 'using' her to 'test' Vicki's devotion.

Some complain that the ending of the remake, where Russo's character thinks she ruined her chance at love with Bronson's character, but then the dark clouds part, and there's her hero, all forgiveness and devotion, was unlikely, and not in character for Crown - but I think it was actually integral to the development of Crown's character - and a redemption for 'Mr. Crown', too - to recognise that everyone has some flaw, and the trick in life is to find a life with someone whom you can not just 'trust', but also forgive. Plus, in the 'original', Crown does expect Vicki to betray him - but expresses his devotion, anyway, in the note.

There is also the absurdity of the Boston police not picking up Crown way before he could get away so easily. In the remake, the 'doubles' done up in the 'Son of Man' bowlers and overcoats were pretty brilliant, and added tremendously to the 'escape', as well as the atmosphere of the ending. (and the music was brilliant here, too!)

The acting:
Steve McQueen - what was with the maniacal laughter? Frankly, he never looked comfortable to me, in the boardroom and suit (which looked like it was off the rack of some JCPenney's or Sears, to me!)
Faye Dunaway - loved some of her outfits (excepting that hideous 'cocktail' halter dress she wore, on a 'house date' with McQueen) - but thought her acting was dismal. Of course, I think her only good work was Chinatown.

Pierce Bronson - Had the self-control of a brilliant and wealthy man, and had the disdaining smirk down pat!
Rene Russo - Aside from being way more attractive than Dunaway, she also exuded a smoldering undercurrent of sexuality that escaped Dunaway, with her finger in her mouth, caressing-her-own-bare-arm-and-ribcage overt actions.

As for chemistry, anyone who thought the 'chess game' scene was sexy innuendo never saw 'Tom Jones', and the scene at the tavern table between Tom (Albert Finney) and Mrs. Waters (Joyce Redman), and the roast chicken! Frankly, I would expect a fellow of Mr. Crown's cultivated and sophisticated taste to find a woman like Vicki Anderson being quite so .... shall we say, 'obvious' ... less than interesting or attractive.

Well, just my opinion, anyway. It's actually very uncharacteristic of me, to prefer a remake of a film - but in the Thomas Crown Affair, I think the 1999 film has it way over the 1968 film.