See above. I have seen neither, and would like to know if anyone is a fan of the book, or one or both movies. If so, please let me know which version you favor, I got interested reading that the making of this movie was a stipulation of Bill Murray's before he would star in Ghostbusters.
Thanks in advance
I am a fan of the story and like both movies. The Bill Murray version introduced me to the story, I was 16 and connected with the film. Personally I think the characters were better developed in the newer version.
Tyronne Power, whom I like, was a bit too wooden and I had a harder time believing he was on a spiritual quest of such depth.
However, Gene Tierney absolutely owns the 1946 version and is IMO the best performance of either film. She is excellent in the original film. I do wish the original would have done a bit more with Sophie and Larry. That would have made the final act much more powerful.
While I think both have their flaws in story telling and in places acting, both are well worth seeing for a great story.
Both were ok...
now the 1946 version is slightly dated...
I liked the slightly different ending in the original.
and I missed the Maugham character.. it was clear all along what was going on.
Gene Tierney is impossible to replace...
and Clifton Webb was utterly amusing babbling on and on..
Typrone Power was slightly wooden.. but I think that was what was called for..
and Murray was not bad...
the scene with the children chasing Murray was a little overblown..
but funny... it happened to me similarly.
I normally do like like remakes, but this grew on me.
After watching the Murray version today, and the Power version last week, it occurred to me just what 'starline', above, said. That is, both movies together tell the story better than either alone. The older one had no scenes during the Great War, the newer had less about Larry's revelations in India. The close-ups of Power's face illustrate the progress of his quest; Murray tries to do this with body language. And so on.
Imagine two hands of cards; one has all the clubs and hearts, the other has only spades and diamonds. Together: a whole deck.
I didn't know Tyrone Power before I ran into this movie; I thought I knew all about Bill Murray until I ran into this movie. A good experience.
.
.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun.
Both versions raise the question of life and its purpose. I much prefer the 1984 version, and I thought Bill Murray did an all but flawless job playing the lead. In many ways, the lead character (Larry) seemed to be Murray's alter ego. Who cares if it's a remake? This is one of my favorite films (top 5), and I am troubled why other peole can't simply forget the comedy roles by Murray and enjoy the film at hand. In my view, it is a masterful movie.
shareI've seen both and tonight I watched the 1946 version again. I don't see why anyone likes the Bill Murray version, or any of the actors in it.
The original is much better, including the story line. The book of course is best of the three.
Life is a journey not a destination. Fear nothing.
I"ve recently seen both films but I haven't read the book in about 10 years.
The book and the 1946 version is really about a group of people whereas the Murray version focusses mainly on Larry and his life. The Murray film also deletes Somerset's Maugham's character completely which is a poor decision (IMO) because Maugham is essentially the narrator in the book and the 1946 film.
There is another female character in the book, Suzanne Rouvier who is never mentioned in either film.
The original has 3 great performances by Tierney, Baxter and Webb. Tierney should have been nominated for an oscar for her performance and Baxter actually won the oscar for her performance. Webb is excellent as the snobbish closeted homosexual Uncle Eliot.
The Murray version reduces the role of Uncle Eliot quite drastically. He's rather a large character in the book and the movie and his role in the Murray film is quite minor.
Catherine Hicks' performance can't hold a candle to Tierney's performance and she rather bland showing the ambitious and aggressive side of Isabela. Even though the 1946 version was made 40 years before the Murray version, there is much more sexual energy and tension in the Tierney/Powell version. I always thought Theresa Russell should have played the Isabela character. Hick's Isabela is much more wholesome and sweet than TIerney's version.
Baxter's version of Sofie is excellent and takes her from a simple woman in a loving relationship to a down and out alcoholic busted prostitute living in Paris. Theresa Russell looks like a runway model when she is supposed to a down and out alcoholic. She's absolutely stunning when we see her later in the film when she is actually supposed to look quite decrepit. It's also a little hard to believe that these gorgeous women would be fawning for Bill Murray.
Sofie in the 1946 film is involved in a loving relationship with Bob yet in the Murray version they're supposed to antagonistic towards each other. I forget how the book wrote this part.
The 20 minutes of WW1 scenes do not exist in the 1946 film or the book. In the book Larry is an ex fighter pilot who is saved by a friend in the 1946 film it just says that someone saved Larry's life in the WAR.
Larry meets a Polish coal miner and French monk in the book who are condensed to the De-frocked priest in the 1946 version and in the Murray version it's an English coal miner.
There's a whole long excellent scene in the 1946 film where Tierney tries to seduce Larry in order to get pregnant to trap him yet she refuses to go through with the idea. In the Murray film Hicks has sex with Larry and then just disappears when she sees a cockroach and garbage in Murray's apartment.
There's also some excellent scenes where Tierney is very cruel to Sofie and manipulates Sofie to go back to drinking. It's handles very weakly and dull in the Murray version.
Overall the 1946 film is much better with far more depth and far superior acting.
The only things the 1984 film has better are location shots which are quite beautiful especially in India. A weak part of the 1946 film (IMO) is the part where Larry goes to India. Some parts just look like he's on a Hollywood sound stage and the transformation of Larry is rather quick and easy.
James Keach is much better playing Gray in the 1984 version.
The big problem in both films are the actors who played Larry. Powell is kind of stiff and wooden and it doesn't really feel like he's on a mystic journey. He's fair/good as Larry but not great. His looks however add to the sexual tension between Tierney and himself. That sexual tension is missing in the 1984 film. There's also a point in the 1946 film where you feel that Larry is doing Sofie a favor by marrying her. In the 1984 film it just seems like Bill Murray makes out like a bandit because he was able to get Theresa Russell.
Murray is kind of goofy in this film. It's hard to see him wear that Indian clothing and not think he's going into a comedy routine. Also, there are several scenes where Murray seems to being doing some comedy improve with the locals. There also seems like certain scenes where Murray is holding back because he doesn't want to go into a comedy improve.
I don't see how you can compare a movie made with 1946 standards to one made 40 ears later.
The fact that Murray is known as a comedian and you "expect" him to jump into a funny position while acting in a drama is on you, not Murray. Bill Murray is a remarkable dramatic actor and saying he was "miscast" is your opinion only.
Opinions that Russell's character didn't look as you expected when she went down the bend is also on you. I was quite able to follow that she was only several years older and just because you have led a life of "sin" doesn't necessarily age you while you are young.
Catherine Hicks played Isabel well; she was a character you weren't supposed to like, hence you didn't.
I found the film a wonderful story, with Murray leading the learning. Isabel will never be happy - she married for status, not love. She worshiped the man who paid for her lifestyle, yet barely used her husband for anything but children. Sophie was never strong enough to compete with her sister - who loved Larry far before Isabel. Isabel was determined that if she wasn't happy, no one would be, including Larry. Larry realized that Isabel was capable of anything to get what she wanted, and that answered all his questions, which is why he was able to return to America - there was nothing left in Paris to wonder about.
I suggest that many people are "movie snobs" - who will always choose the original over a remake, or a golden age actor over a contemporary one. This movie was beautifully shot, well acted and was quite enjoyable.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the original is better, and don't think of it as "dated" at all. In fact, it's closer in time to the events of the novel than the remake, and more in touch with its sensibility. Nor do I find Tyrone Power to be wooden, as some other posters do—it's a different style of acting, to be sure, but he seems to have a proper detachment for his character, still aware of & living in the everyday world, but also standing outside of it somewhat. And still searching, still growing, even at the end of the film.
Like Tyrone Power, Bill Murray really wanted to play Larry Darrell—Power was a returning WWII veteran & the role spoke deeply to him, just as John Belushi's death spoke deeply to Bill Murray. But Murray didn't quite have the tone needed for Larry at that point, balancing humor & seriousness just so. By the time he did Groundhog Day, he'd found that balance; that's when he should have played Larry.
The original has more scope & richness, with the feel of a novel. Just my own take, of course!