Sabrina

Although terribly predictable and a bit too long, this film is kind of sweet. Ford shines as in his typical role of comically aloof and Ormand plays her lead well. Good chemistry and cinematography.

The temptation to compare it with the 1954 version is not small. And it is a good thing because the film has the force to use its voice. Julia Ormond is realy Sabrina. And Harrison Ford is a revelation as Linus. But, for me, the authetic good points are Miriam Colon as lovely Rosa and Nancy Marchand as wise,fascinating Maude Larrabee. Short, a seductive film.

Julia Ormond is sensational as the young Sabrina Fairchild, daughter of the chauffeur (John Wood) of a wealthy family. Sabrina has been in love with playboy brother (of wealthy family) David (Greg Kinnear) all her life, and is dismayed when her father sends her off to Paris to get a new view of the world. However, years later, when she returns as an older woman, David then realizes how 'right' she is for him, even if he's finally setting a date with one of his two-week lovers. Behind this interaction, older brother and businessman Linus (Harrison Ford), whose pleased about David's engagement, seeing that he's marrying the daughter of wealthy business competitor Mr. Tyson, knows that Sabrina just might end the marriage and the merger. To make things work out, Linus pretends to start being interested in her. This is a delightful tale about love with beautiful music and visual shots that will make you very pleased. The movie is unique enough to be considered a film of individuality, not another version of the same film. Both Sabrina (1954) and Sabrina (1995) are well done, just different. Rating: 4 1/2 out of 5 Stars.

Passable but overlong remake of the classic Audrey Hepburn vehicle will play best for those not familiar with the original. The cast(Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, Greg Kinnear) performs well and its production values are high but director Sydney Pollack's pacing tends to flag. By contrast, Billy Wilder's direction of the 1954 version is much tighter and quicker. Interestingly this "Sabrina" is 15 minutes longer than its predecessor but thanks to Pollack those extra 15 minutes feel like 30. Also, Barbara Benedek's and David Rayfiel's script lacks the wittiness that scenarists Billy Wilder, Samuel Taylor("Vertigo") and Ernest Lehman("The Prize," "North by Northwest") provided the first time around.

Bottom line: 6 out 10.

Many critiques on this site suppose that it is somehow superior to the original. I am not sure how this can hold up. While Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear are fine actors in their own right, comparing them to the coupling of Bogart and Holden is ridiculous. Just because a movie is OLD does not make it better, but if it is impeccably filmed and acted superbly, what is the point in redoing it to inferior standards? I suggest that the state of movie-making has in fact declined, as the art form has given way to popular sentiment, over-the-top portrayals of characters, and remakes which attempt to market themselves on previous successful attempts. To say that someone who repainted a Michaelangelo has made it somewhat made it better because painting has "evolved" is equally as stupid as saying any remake improves. And while Audrey Hepburn is not the world's finest actress, she has a unique cinematic quality which cannot be imitated or reproduced, much like her co-stars in this film. Please Hollywood, stop reproducing classics simply because there is a drought of originality and screenplays. Try rereleasing these classics so the public can see movies as they were meant to be viewed.