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?
Hands down the original. Now I like both, but Steve McQueen was the king of cool. The bluest eyes on any actor I've seen. Anyway, this version was just too fun and too cool.
McQueen all the way
"I'm just a happy camper! Rockin' and a-rollin'!" - Patrick Bateman, American Psycho
I consider the original much better. First, because it's the original; any remake is necessarily less creative. Second, the stars: just compare their awards and nominations. Brosnan has a greater number of awards, but that includes two Razzies. As a matter of personal taste, I also prefer McQueen. He looks like a rugged man's man, someone who had to work his way up to become wealthy, and who retains a lot of rough edges. He's clearly uncomfortable with the other rich guys. They're focused on making deals and money; McQueen's Crown is bored with that; it's too easy. "You paid too much." Brosnan always just looks like a model, posing in an immaculate suit.
I also like that the original is very much of its period: it's a '60s movie, like, say The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. Both are embedded in their period and capture it well. Some people don't like that; they want everything to be modern. Fine, but I don't agree.
Some people complain about the "maniacal laughter". That seems integral to Crown's character, as portrayed by McQueen. "Why would somebody who has four million dollars want two million more?" Because he's crazy, that's why! He's so bored he's become self-destructive. He might never have really believed his elaborate plan would succeed; it'd be quite a kick in the pants when it did. He's found a new challenge, something more stimulating than taking reckless risks in a glider.
Is the original slow-moving? Doesn't seem that way to me, but then I was born before the MTV generation, who need a jump-cut every three seconds and frequent explosions (or loud arguments) to hold their interest.
Music: I don't remember anything from the 1999 version. The 1968 version had Windmills of Your Mind, which won the Academy Award.
The original also has a much better ending: it's dark and perfectly captures the personalities of the two leading characters. The 1999 ending starts with a ludicrous, implausible contrivance and then gets far too sunny.
I do wonder what happened to Crown's girlfriend (1968). She just disappeared without explanation.
I thought she lived at least part of the time in Europe. Granted that the narrative took liberties with the timeline (and she was seen with him later in Boston), but seemed to me that he met her in Geneva during his first trip over. And it was her auburn hair in the glider scene that was featured prominently just as that line in the song was sung.
His laugh strikes me as more forced than maniacal. He's trying to convince himself that he's amused, and having a good time. As many have noted, he's not, but this last viewing it struck me that he's not just bored, or empty, he's sad, quite self-consciously so. Maybe it's just that he sees a bad ending to all his forced stunt-pulling, but it might be something that he had lost before the story began --like maybe his family. When he smiles enigmatically at the end, I almost wonder if it's not because he knows he has given Vicki a taste of his sadness; it's not clear to me that she had known any such before, because that would be hard to square with the emotional risk her approach to the case entailed.
________________________________________________________________
"We'll be closing this case for now, or rather the courts will, but there'll be others,
because that's the way the world's built." --Racket Squad, typical episode ending.
Vicki may have been the only person who really liked him--cared for him . . .
shareI like both very well. The original is a very classy production, but the give and take between Brosnan and Russo was better.
In the original Faye Dunaway is always ahead, in the remake, the "game" vacillates between the two with neither one gaining a clear victory until the ending.
Brosnan exudes a classier persona than McQueen. He didn't really fit the role of the wealthy playboy.
On the other hand, the chess game was one of the steamiest scenes ever put on film.
Accept them both for what they are.
Hands down this version. McQueen plays the character so well, when someone asks him what he has to worry about he replies. "Who I want to be tomorrow." I've seen both versions, but this is the one that stays with you longer. Rene Russo was not convincing.
So long and thanks for all the fish!
The original by far. The remake is all style and no substance.
And the original has Steve McQueen.
jaddjamar says > McQueen plays the character so well, when someone asks him what he has to worry about he replies, "Who I want to be tomorrow."I agree that McQueen does a good job in the role but I'd say the same of each one of the other lead actors in both movies too. As I mentioned before, I see the movies as similar but different; probably more different than similar.
Rene Russo was not convincing.I thought that at first because I couldn't see Thomas going for someone like Catherine. She’s older, mature, accomplished; she’s a woman. He seems the type to chase after much younger, more frivolous, girls but as the movie rolls on I change my mind.
The '68 film was the very first movie I ever saw where the bad guy got away with it. I was all of ten years old, and this interjection of reality into Hollywood's phony world simply blew me away. I sat in the theater dumbstruck, as my seat fell away beneath me. BRAVO!!! For that reason alone, I've always loved the original "Thomas Crown Affair". Antiseptic Hollywood heroes usually leave me cold.
Not only did he get away with it, but the way he got away with it! Leaving Faye Dunaway, so relentlessly sure of herself, 40,000 feet below him, crying. Superbly dismissive, masterful, and completely unrepentant. Like a boss...As a child, I completely missed the sexual chemistry between McQueen and Dunaway, but it's pure dynamite. Faye Dunaway's acting is always so seamless and natural-seeming that other women who aspire to her profession need to take notes.
McQueen's Crown exudes an elemental power you would expect from a self-made tycoon that Brosnan's more sophisticated Crown lacks. Brosnan seems more like a man who's inherited his wealth.
Both films are good in different ways, but the original is clearly superior to me. Without the '68 film, the '99 would have never been made in the first place. The attempt to "redeem" Crown's character in the remake's ending offended my sensibilities. McQueen's cruel, sociopathic portrayal was what attracted me to the film in the first place.
alkhmyst says > McQueen's Crown exudes an elemental power you would expect from a self-made tycoon that Brosnan's more sophisticated Crown lacks. Brosnan seems more like a man who's inherited his wealth.That's interesting. I had the exact opposite impression of the two. In the first movie, even though Crown tries to play it cool, he seems to get shaken up almost right away; he's already contemplating taking off; saying he feels trapped. Once the pressure is on, he's ready to give up and flee. I never felt I got to know a lot about McQueen's Crown but it's clear he has a big chip on his shoulder. He uses Vicki and would not have gotten away with the second caper if she hadn't keep quiet.
Definately the Remake.... Pierce Brosnan rocked it !
shareThe original, because Steve McQueen!
Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!