I have just recently watched the original and the US version and have to say that the american version is much better. I thought Jeff Bridges was a much menacing character and his performance made, in my opinion the big difference. Admittedly the original ending was so much better and superior, while the remakes ending was typically american.
shareRaymond doesnn't need to be menacing. Ordinary people can do horrible things too. And the point was that Rex needed to know what happened to Saskia. He could not let it go and took the chance laying his life in the hands of Raymond in order to find out. If Raymond appeared that mennacing, he probably wouldn't have done that. But now he took the chance, his judgement muddled by Raymonds regular and sane appearence.
shareIts the fact that he seems so nice and normal that makes him even more menacing. The banality of evil.
share[deleted]
How do you know? Even evil people in real life who have done horrible things turn out to be the kind of people that other people say they thought would never do this or that because they just didn't seem like the "type" to do such and such. In real life,you're not going to see evil people giggling maniacally and looking evil all the time. Evil folks sometimes look exactly like everyday people some of he time---Nothing unrealistic about that. And,yeah, the original's better and creepier.
shareI completely disagree!!
The entire mystery of the film lies in what happened to Saskia. That mystery wouldn't be as intense if we had your typical 'bad guy' with his typical 'bad guy' ways.
In every day life, you cross such people in the streets and not knowing who is 'off' is what makes the scenario scary.
We've met before, haven't we?
Really!
The original version is better and awfully scary. i couldn´t sleep well for 3 days...
Having seen the US version first and thinking "meh", I just watched the original last night and thought "holy crap, how could they leave out the ending?" I mean, it kind of misses the whole point of the title of the film, which is the truly terrifying and sad part of the entire story.
For him to have a happy-ever-after is mind boggling stupid. I hate to say it, being American, but that was definitely a corporate / studio move. Disney should have been the distributor.
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out
I normally like Jeff Bridges,but his almost pantomime villain characterisation further ruins what could possibly be the worst reworking of any understated classic.And there have been a few!
shareThe American version is tailored for the average typical American who is less intelligent, less imaginative and less cultured than the average European and have to be spoon fed their movie dénouements.
If Europeans are so smart, why do they need the Nanny State to take care of them from cradle to the grave?
Absolutely, the European high culture and intellect is what has allowed them to arbitrate and live peacefully amongst themselves for centuries while poor, low brow Americans bumble about.
After all, the oldest continual film industry is located in Hollywood, Caledonia, right? Or is it in Belgium or Bulgaria? I get those mixed up.
I too prefer the remake to the original. I found the direction*, cinematography, pacing, and most of the acting of the original very bland. The remake did a much better job on those grounds.
That all said, I could actually take Donnadieu seriously (Bridges looked, sounded, and acted like a clown start-to-finish) and the bleak ending of the original was better than that forced and silly happy ending in the American version.
*Before anyone says anything, I already know both versions were made with the same director.
A Superman without trunks isn't worth watching or reading about.