High Noon

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.

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.

Is it possible to improve perfection? Why try? I saw the original HIGH NOON(1952) when I was six years old, and have seen it hundreds of times since. It is more than just a movie to me, it became the moral code for which I've lived my life. Making tough decisions, I would often (in my mind) hitch up my belt and walk out to face Miller and the old gang. So this new entry didn't have much of a chance with me, I guess. Legend says that the original was first produced without the quick shots to the clocks and the actors faces, and the great Tiomkin score and Ritter ballad. It was brought back in, re-edited and re-scored and a great movie was born. This one needed more than that. Too often in this newer version, the plot was tediously pre-chewed for us, and needless scenes inserted to let us know for sure what was going on. This new version cried out for someone to sing the ballad at the conclusion, but it was not there. However I did find some good points in the newer version. the casting was pretty good, and Madsen as Frank Miller was genius. Guess I'm stuck in the 50s, huh?

To "remake" any picture is tough. However, to remake a such a classic Western feature for television is a brave assignment. The filmmakers should be commended for staying with the story line, not trying to "hip it up" and pulling off what so many other filmmakers have missed... a wonderfully updated version of an original that's worthy (of the original picture) as well as entertaining. In some ways this "remake" was better than the original. The photography was beautiful, the cast convincing and the direction never let us wander. Congratulations on the recreation of a wonderful classic.

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.