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 think this is one of the times when both remake and original stand on equal ground. Russo captures the Dunawaye nuance perfectly, she may not be as seductive or sexual as Dunawaye, but she plays the role well. Pierce Brosnan fits the character perhaps even better than McQueen, but they both do a great job. The pacing of the original is dated, as is some of the dialog and the chess scene in the original is great but a bit silly and raunchy, a bit overstated methinks... but not terribly so...
I think the story in the remake is tightened up and improved upon for a modern audience, I do prefer the times, decor and style of the '60s, but I don' let that alter how I rate the film itself... that would not be fair.
A clear problem with the original is that unlike in the remake, someone gets shot during the initial heist, and I find it harder to be on his side in the original than in the remake... Pierce just plays the character a bit nicer or something...
But I give both films a 7/10
Web www.jmberman.com
Fcbk https://www.facebook.com/catnipdream
I own the remake and like it. I just saw the original again on TCM last week, and found it very off-putting due to the enormous gaping hole in the very centre of the plot. I am referring, of course, to the fact that Miss Vicky decides Thomas Crown is responsible for the robbery in the first place.
Without a single shred of evidence to support any of her suppositions, she decides:
1. that the robbery was planned by a single person who masterminded it;
2. that the mastermind is basically a gifted amateur and not a professional criminal - for example, a member of the Boston Irish Mob;
3. that the mastermind either worked at the bank himself or was a regular customer (as opposed to just getting the information on the bank's procedures from someone else);
4. that the mastermind was going to handle the disposition of the $2M in banknotes himself (as opposed to, for example, it being laundered through standard Mob channels);
5. that he was going to launder it by putting it into an offshore account;
6. that the offshore account was going to be in Switzerland (as opposed to, for example, the Cayman Islands or any one of several other tax havens that existed in the 1960s);
7. that he was going to get the money to Switzerland by flying it there in his checked luggage in several trips on commercial airlines (as opposed to, for example, flying there once on a charter flight);
8. and finally, that he was going to do this immediately after the bank robbery (instead of stashing the money in his basement or a storage locker for a year or two to let things cool off before trying to move it).
After leaping to all these conclusions, she reviews the profiles of several current or former bank employees or customers who have travelled to Switzerland several times immediately in the couple months since the robbery, and decides that Thomas Crown is the guilty mastermind on the basis of his photograph.
And then the movie leads on from there.
For me, the total illogic underlying Miss Vicky's pursuit of Mr. Crown in the first place completely destroyed the entire "cat and mouse" atmosphere of the first movie.
Oh yes, she also deduces that a gang that carried out a multi-entrance simultaneous armed raid on a bank that went off like clockwork had never ever met each other before.
Oh yes, and at the end, Mr. Crown carried out an identical raid on another bank, which - unless he had also worked there in the past - indicates that absolutely crucial supposition number 3 in the above logic chain was total poppycock.
1) Yes, that was a hole
2) This could be a hole. But since none of the local mobsters were celebrating and the M.O. did not fit with known heist criminals, it is fair to make the assumption the thief was an amateur.
3) This is a given. All crimes are committed at places the criminal knows well. Not a hole at all.
4) Again they would know if the mobsters were talking or getting excited. None of them were. Since that was the case, it is logical that the criminal had his/her own outlets to hide the stolen bills.
5) The only option (considering the mob channels were not being used) was offshore.
6) Switzerland has always been the place to hide money. Not only that it has a solid government and society that has stood the test of time. The islands can be such testy places. Especially when a large group of people in need live with super billionaires.
7) Charter flights are too conspicuous. The first thing they would check would be private flights. At least on a regular flight he would be hiding among many passengers. Even so, carrying it on the flight was extremely risky.
8) He was going to get caught eventually. Law Enforcement and investigators like Vicki aren't stupid. Best to get the evidence out of the picture right away.
I like the remake better. This one plays Thomas as all for himself. The line about the wife and kids is a defining moment for the character. It's also hard to feel any sympathy for him. His team is expendable, not him. That bothered me too. But as a study in human nature, it can't be beat for its time. He would be the winner, at any cost.
In the remake, Thomas gave it up for love. A challenge he couldn't win.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
[deleted]
The new one was OK, and was saved by Rene Russo.
But compared to the original, it was like a child wearing daddy's clothes and pretending to be a grown-up...
--
Grammar:
The difference between knowing your sh**
and knowing you're sh**.
For me the original is the better film. It has more style, a harder edge and having just watched it again I think there is more complexity and ambiguity in the characters. I do like the remake but this version is a borderline classic.
Also, and this may be a sign of my advancing years, I find Faye Dunaway more attractive these days. This was not always so as she always seemed too shiny and hard on earlier viewings. I have to confess I saw this film in the cinema when it first came out but I was very young (honest) and probably didn't understand a lot of what was happening. I suspect that early exposure coloured my opinion since.
This one is the one. It sparkles and sizzles while the other one sits tepidly.
shareSteve McQueen was a MAN and is the only Thomas Crown!
shareNot even close....the Brosnan version wins by a mile. The original doesn't hold up.
Better acting
Better soundtrack
Better style
Better everything
The original is dated and filled with plot holes as well.
Guys are going to rip off a bank then agree to being paid via an annuity by some anonymous guy? Right.
What's to keep the guy who's driving the Griswold's station wagon from simply driving off and keeping the money?
Dunaway kidnaps a small child to find a thief? She should go to prison for that alone and her character is supposed to be sympathetic? Please.
Instead of lying low with the loot for a few months McQueen immediately flies to Switzerland with the stolen cash. Smart!
And WTF is with the faux hair-bun Dunaway has bobby pinned to the back of her head? That had to be cheesy even in the 60's.
The Thomas Crown Affair has style, panache, élan reflective of the period in which it was made. It is far superior to the other film which carries the same name, which does not offer those characteristics because no-one would turn up to watch it.
I do smile (a lot) at your reasons.
Of course The Thomas Crown Affair is dated, because it is 45 years old. Singing in the Rain is dated too, and All Quiet on the Western Front.
An actress in a film should go to gaol for unacceptable and inappropriate and appallingly cruel behaviour? That was my favourite.
Dunaway's character is not portrayed as "sympathetic." She offers the mindset of a ruthless, unscrupulous insurance investigator paid on commission who rather enjoys the lifestyle that affords her.
What's preventing a fellow driving off etc etc. I don't know. He didn't though. Why didn't Rooster Cogburn arm himself with an Apache attack helicopter?
The way people dressed in the '60s is the way they dressed in the 60s - why are you so upset about this horrible reality?
What planet are you from? Here on Earth, you get caught kidnapping a child you're going to prison.
share