O Silêncio do Lago

This film is way inferior to the Dutch original (the fact that the same director directed both is another story). This movie has obviously been toned down for American audiences, which is insulting if you've seen them both (I stumbled onto the remake on cable late at night). The original is a thriller in the truest sense of the word, and is far more intelligent, disturbing, and scary than the Hollywood version. I bet the producers assumed American audiences couldn't handle disturbing well so they gave us a more friendly version, very insulting. If you're going to see this version, make sure you rent the original too and watch it first, just to see how much the remake pales in comparison. If you don't like psychological, disturbing, riveting, and no-downbeat-endings in your thrillers, the 1993 version is for you. But if you want to be truly blown away, the Dutch original is very highly recommended over this one.

Others have said it already, but since there still seem to be some people who think this remake is worth watching, I feel the need to reiterate: skip this movie and watch the original. Both films were made by the same director. The major difference between the two is an ending on the Dutch film that will chill you to the bone, versus the predictable Hollywood version of the story.

In 1993, Director George Sluizer got to give his Dutch horror/thriller Spoorloos (1988) the big budget Hollywood remake treatment, which meant that the script had to be heavily altered to suit, most notably the original film's downbeat ending being replaced by a new, more upbeat finalé. Sluizer's revamped thriller is slickly made with a great cast, and undemanding mainstream audiences will probably have a good time with it, but if you prefer your films to have a bit more of an edge, there's a good chance that The Vanishing's very American approach, with its predictable and far less shocking outcome, will leave you unimpressed.

Kiefer Sutherland plays writer Jeff Harriman, who puts his life on hold in order to try and find his girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock), who went missing during a stop at a service station. After three years of looking for Diane with no success, Jeff meets waitress Rita Baker (Nancy Travis) and romance blossoms. Jeff agrees to give up his search, but then he receives a message from a man named Barney (Jeff Bridges), who says that he is the one who abducted Diane, and if Jeff wants to find out what happened to his girlfriend, he must comply with his demands...

Bridges is a strange choice for Barney, the actor better known as a dashing leading man than for playing a psycho (with a bad haircut), and it takes a while to accept him in the role, but he eventually makes good; Sutherland, on the other hand, is perfect as the everyman thrown into a personal hell, his obsession driving him to take great risks, and Travis makes for a likeable heroine. Bullock is fine as the tragic Diane, but she isn't given a lot to do. Sluizer handles the action well enough, but the new 'happy' ending does take a bit of swallowing, and ultimately lacks the impact of the original movie. The Vanishing's finalé sees Rita tracking down Barney, using her guile to outwit the nutjob and save her man. It's formulaic stuff designed to appease the masses - nothing wrong with that, and I enjoyed it for what it was - but watch Spoorloos and see which one stays in the mind the longest.

In this remake of the 1988 Dutch film 'Spoorloos' writer Jeff Harriman (Kiefer Sutherland) searches for his girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock) who disappeared from a gas station during a road trip they took 3 years earlier.

His new girlfriend (Nancy Travis) tries to help him pick up the pieces of his life but gets increasingly frustrated over his fascination with the mystery. Diane's kidnapper Barney (Jeff Bridges) has his own interest piqued by Jeff.

There still persists the perception that remakes are inferior to originals and that European cinema is artistically superior to Hollywood. This movie is used to illustrate those points. But these are far from the only reasons it flopped.

The casting didn't follow the traditional route. It does not impact the quality of the production and should not be counted as negative. But it deflated the commercial appeal by ignoring the superficial tastes of moviegoers.

Kiefer Sutherland is an actor audiences more readily accept as a darker character than victimized nice guy Jeff. This is well-evidenced by his critical triumph in the movie 'Freeway' three years later as a kidnapper/murderer.

At the time he was also mostly seen bolstering ensemble casts rather than as a conventional male lead. His strong performance should have been enough to carry the film and it would have been had there not been other factors.

Jeff Bridges was more readily accepted by audiences as a nice guy male lead. He wanted to play a creep for a change and did an impeccable job here. But audiences had to look past over 20 years of typecasting to accept him in the role and most couldn't. As a result one of the finest characterizations in his long, distinguished career is overlooked.

No actress could have given a more convincing performance than Nancy Travis in the role of Rita, the heroine. But audiences liked Sandra Bullock better and have always wanted to see more of her which in this case would have meant giving her the more substantial role of Rita than the tragic role of kidnapped Diane.

At the time (1991-92 pre-production) how could anyone know that Sandra Bullock would soon top the box office like few actresses before her? Nancy Travis had been in a string of hits but then little-known Bullock would surpass her as a star within 18 months of the release of this film. Had they known, there can be little doubt Bullock would have played Rita.

The ultimate sin that North American film audiences could not forgive is obvious pandering to their own glaring superficial tastes when it comes to how movies end. The 1988 original European version haunted audiences and made them think because of its dark conclusion. That version didn't have a Hollywood ending and that was its payoff - one meant for an entirely different audience.

The Hollywood version not only wraps up the conflict between the characters differently (rewarding perseverance over intellect, good over evil in typical Hollywood tradition), it also includes a tacked-on, whimsical denouement. North American film audiences DO prefer happy endings with neat and tidy closure.

But expecting them to embrace the glaring implication that they can't handle scary and/or thought-provoking material is an unforgivable insult which could only elicit the kind of derision from reviewers that it has even though the action which leads up to it is far from boring or silly. Had the film been an original with a facile and obtuse resolution it would have been accepted if not embraced.

Hollywood studios obviously have final approval on the cut released to theatres in most instances. A trick some auteurs can employ when attempting to keep the integrity of a darker-themed film is to wait until the deadline before delivering the finished product and including two endings. One ending will be the darker one they want. The other will be the happy ending - one shot and cut so badly that the studio will presumably have to go with the darker ending. This ploy might work if studios cared more about the quality of what they were releasing rather than its box office p potential.

Then there is the release date - February, 1993. What happens in February in Western Culture every year? Valentine's Day! Does this look like a date movie to you? Everything about how this movie was made and marketed invited flop status.

As I said the action which leads up to the finale is far from boring or silly. In fact much of it is quite watchable and on par with (and in many cases identical to) the original. Where it actually improves upon the original is in its addition of a female lead.

Rita is much more interesting than Lieneke - the second girlfriend character in the original an incidental character compared with Rita. Affable, considerate, blessed with work ethic and self-deprecating modesty truck-stop waitress Rita is an unlikely heroine for a Hollywood film.

Indeed truck-stop waitress is an occupation designed for comic relief or passive anonymity in most Hollywood cinema. A female lead can usually portray one only if her character arc ends in her being beneficiary of an extreme reversal of fortune i.e. marrying a rich dude or becoming a supermodel.

Rita doesn't entertain herself with such fantasies but she does have aspirations. When Jeff walks in she remembers him from high school but he doesn't remember her. He pulls out a picture of Diane and asks if she has seen her. Rita says that her mind blots out most of the faces she sees. Yet she remembers him. This is a character that knows what she wants as unromantic as it may seem.

This isn't what North Americans look for in movie heroines if you go by box office and surveys. They may live their lives differently and they even may be happy. But they go to movies to see something else.

I don't get this. Either the studios think that US audiences must be protected from downbeat endings or hollywood just likes to spit in the face of the cast and producers of the orignal Dutch version (Spoorloos). What is the point of messing with a perfect film? This remake is an insult to the actors in the original - and the american actors in the remake should apologise for stealing the roles that were performed so well by europeans. WATCH THE ORIGINAL NOT THIS POINTLESS REMAKE!