High Noon

This one is worth watching but falls far short of the original. The absence of almost any music for much of the movie is disappointing. The intermittent injecting of Ritters singing and the distinctive "box drum" beat throughout the original is genius. The absence of the clock shots was catastrophic. That was the one thing that instilled the intensity of the moment. Remember, this story takes place in less than two hours, just a little longer than the play time of the movie. Michael Madsen, dressed as Woody from Toy Story, was hilarious. Tasselled gloves!!?? Good Lord..!! I did appreciate story line dedication. Set detail was perfect. Not sure why they chose mud instead of dust for the streets tho. All in all the characters were well portrayed.

This is a 2000 made-for-TV remake of the 1952 classic Western with Tom Skerritt in the Gary Cooper role. Both films are based on the novel "The Tin Star" by John W. Cunningham.

Skerritt plays just-retired, just-married Marshal Will Kane. He and his bride are informed that a man Kane put in the slammer years ago has been paroled; this owlhoot swore he'd kill Kane when he got out and he's coming in on the noon train. His henchmen are even waiting for him at the train station. Kane and his bride are encouraged to flee for their lives and start their new life together. Why not? -- he's not even a sheriff anymore. But the new Marshal won't arrive for another day or so and something in Kane prevents him from running like a cur with his tail between his legs. He has about an hour and fifteen minutes to marshal up help to make a stand. In addition to all this, his wife is a Quaker who doesn't believe in violence and threatens to leave him if he insists on staying and fighting.

One interesting facet of this Western is that the story plays out in real time. The film runs 88 minutes and Marshal Kane has just over an hour to prepare for the confrontation.

Skerritt does a good job depicting an aging man who is about to face a fight-to-the-death, most likely alone. I'm sure Marshal Kane has better things to do, like enjoy his honeymoon with his beautiful wife (Sussanna Thompson), but his manhood and sense of duty force him to courageously make a stand. This reminds me of times back in High School where I was scheduled to fight someone (after school or whatever). I knew at such-and-such time I was going to face so-and-so and a bunch of people would be watching. The anticipation wasn't fun but my manhood wouldn't let me back down. Of course there's no comparison since Marshal Kane is anticipating a gunfight wherein he could very likely die, not a mere fistfight, but if the anticipation before a fistfight is intense, how much more so a gunfight?

Some criticize the story of "High Noon" on the grounds that it makes the citizens of the average Western town out to be a bunch of cowards but, really, there are no less than four people who are willing to help the Marshal. Many of the others who decline have valid reasons for staying out of the fracas, although some are just plain yella.

Since Kane's new wife is a Quaker the film brings up the idea of total pacifism. While the idea is attractive and I understand her reasoning, total pacifism does not work in this present world. The New Testament does not support the idea of absolute pacifism. It teaches, rather, that pacifism is proper in certain situations and not in others. Jesus' ministry team had a treasury box with loads of money and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves and murderers. Also, Romans 13 clearly states that the righteous laws of human governments are God-ordained for the purpose of punishing criminals, including the right to execute when appropriate. Even in cases where pacifism is called for a disciple is not to idly sit on his/her rump but to fight on a spiritual level and overcome evil with good. The vast majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists who refuse to be BALANCED with the Scriptures on this subject and insist that conflict and especially armed conflict is NEVER appropriate. Kane's wife in the film is such a person, but perhaps she'll discover the error of her beliefs. In any case, "High Noon" makes an important point: Some people are so morally degenerate and evil that execution is the only just ultimate reaction (notice I said "ultimate").

There are quite a few good parts, e.g. Kane's brief talk with the wife of a coward, the church scene and, of course, the ending gunfight.

As for comparisons to the original film, I have no bias or nostalgia. It's been years since I saw it (the '52 version) so it's not fresh in my memory, but I don't see how this remake pales in comparison as many of the reviewers here contend. This rendition is in color, has a good score, good actors and locations (CL Ranch, Calgary, Alberta). What more do you want? It may not have the cinematic pizazz of modern Theatrical Westerns but, if given the choice between the two, I'd probably choose Skerritt's version over the original. Besides, I loathe black & white.

So, why not a higher rating? Despite the story's potential and the anticipation of the gunfight, something prevents "High Noon" (both versions) from being truly captivating. In fact, it almost has a laid-back vibe. Needless to say, those with ADHD should avoid like the plague. Don't get me wrong, I love great drama and intelligent dialogue-driven stories but something needed done to make it a bit more engrossing and emotionally stirring. Still, this is a very worthwhile Western.

GRADE: B

Sometimes, a remake can be as good, or better than an original. The 1997 version of Titanic was award winning and the 1998 remake of Les Miserables was outstanding. But, I'm sorry to say that's not so with the TBS, made for television, version of High Noon.

Alright, so I grew up on the original -- but, it's still a classic!

I will admit that in the remake, some of the characters played their roles admirably: Tom Skerritt portrayed a viable Will Kane and Maria Conchita Alonso was superior as Mrs. Ramirez. Even Dennis Weaver was credible as Martin Howe, but I never felt for him and his circumstances the way I felt for Lon Chaney Jr. in the 1952 version. In fact, throughout the entire program, I never got to where I really cared for the characters as I did in the original.

Advance P.R. in the television guides said that the producers wanted a more "vicious" villain, and so cast Michael Madsen as Frank Miller. But, Madsen looks and acts more like Broderick Crawford in "The Highway Patrol" TV series than a villain in the old west. His twin nickel (or chrome) plated Remington revolvers did nothing to enhance the role for him.

In the 1952 version, Fred Zinnemann used a crane to back off and show the loneliness of Kane as he goes about the task before him. The director of the 2000 remake tries to do the same thing, but the effect is no where as dramatic. Something is missing.

In the final scene in the 1952 original, you can see Kane's contempt for the town on the face of Gary Cooper -- contempt for having been left alone, and abandoned. That emotion was totally lacking in the remake and so the ending is almost anti-climactic.

Remaking a classic is always a tricky proposition, especially when the classic is so well known and has such a singular style of its own. The original HIGH NOON isn't just a story. It's also the excellent cast, the use of camera, and of course Tiomkin's score that acts like a Greek chorus commenting on the action.

The remake's cast labors nobly to recreate the story, but the camera work and score are missing. For example, the famous crane shot showing Will Kane absolutely alone on the dusty street is not there. It isn't essential, but that shot is part of what makes the original HIGH NOON what it is as a classic. In addition, while the score does express the moods, it is nevertheless conventional.

It was an interesting effort, but of necessity it fails in comparison to the original.

What got me to watch was the casting of Tom Skerrit as the Marshall. He's a great choice and one of our best actors. Susanna Thompson was equally fine as his new wife. What was lacking for me was not only the absence of Tiomkin and Ritter's contribution, but the essence that made it all work so well was that it was under Fred Zinnemann's direction. There are many fine points to the remake but the original should be used by film schools as a study in technique. The original may look a little dated by now but the impact is still enduring. It only looks dated because the pioneering format it created has been adapted to so many story lines since. I think Hardy did a fine job.