Home
search
more | tips
IMDb > Vanishing Point (1997) (TV) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Vanishing Point (1997) (TV) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 36 comments in total 

26 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Proves that someone in Hollywood has a screw loose, 2 March 2003
Author: bux from Tecumseh ok

Why would anyone in their right mind want to re-make "Night of the Hunter"(1955), "From Here to Eternity"(1953), or "Vanishing Point"(1971)?

And if they felt compelled to remake one of these timeless classics, why would they go out of their way to make it some damn hokey?

There is none of the high energy music, devil-may-care attitude of the original in this tepid film about a guy trying to be at his wife's bedside during a difficult child-birth.

The original was about SPEED. Kowalski was running because of a bet over a handful of Speed. Speed was the essence and the ultimate high in the original. No big motives. No pre-chewed, silly little plot. And no Christian first name-"Jimmy" fer cryin' out loud!

This one is enough to make Paul Koslo (the ORIGINAL young cop) wanna break heads again.

Was the above comment useful to you?

22 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
You think it couldn't be this bad, but..., 4 September 1999
Author: Wizard-8 from Victoria, BC

I love the original movie. I knew that the remake couldn't possibly be that good, and that they would make some changes to the story. Still, I thought they would at least capture some of the atmosphere of the original. Uh-uh. They screw up in every turn (for starters, giving the hero a REASON for racing so fast!)! None of the characters are likable, the action is lame, and the ending is mind-boggling awful and manipulative. You should be ashamed of yourself, 20th-Century-Fox!

Was the above comment useful to you?

17 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Utterly forgettable, utterly pointless, utterly insipid, utterly dull, 9 March 2003
Author: roarshock from Oregon USA

What made the original Vanishing Point a classic was that everyone was free to read their own meaning into it... or read no meaning at all and just watch the Challenger roar through the desert. What motivates Kowalski? Decipher it from his actions and flashbacks, or just ignore the question entirely. The film is still magnificent either way.

But the studio thought this uncertainty made it too esoteric back in 1971, so it was cut and given a limited release in the expectation of a quick death. But far from vanishing, the original Vanishing Point became recognized as one the GREAT road movies of all time.

This remake shows that Hollywood hasn't changed much. They love remaking a classic (hopefully guaranteeing an audience), but they still think that everything needs to be made both very obvious and very very simple. So they get rid of all the classic elements and turn it into a generic chase movie. They give Kowalski a really REALLY simple, obvious reason for his drive, making his flashbacks and encounters purely superfluous. And being superfluous they are populated with trite two dimensional caricatures... boring fluff that could be disposed of without diminishing this movie at all, slight though it is. This is entirely unlike the original which had interesting, unusual people that added to the story and gave context to the nature and character of Kowalski.

And that clunky, mass market mysticism thrown into the remake? ANY film is better off without that!!!

They also decided to make a federal case out of Kowalski's run... literally. It's not enough that state cops will naturally chase people who run from them (as in the original, and assign a symbolic meaning - or not - to that if you wish). In the remake they pound you again and again with a clumsy blunt-object polemic about the government and militias, with the FBI, ATF etc ultimately all ganging up on Kowalski.

The people who spawned this remake obviously read their own meanings into the original... that's the quality it has that makes it great. But instead of opening up any meanings we might find in their new version for us to discover ourselves, they forced on us that single reading of theirs alone. Unfortunately, that one narrow focus vastly shrank the appeal of the remake to something less than a vanishing point. The end result wasn't worth the wasting of either the Charger or the Challenger, let alone the both of them.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
I think they missed the entire point of the original., 28 May 2006
2/10
Author: drewdane from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.

The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.

We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.

When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.

In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Did Somebody's Nephew Adapt This???, 13 October 2005
3/10
Author: masercot from Manassas, Va

Yuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.

This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.

There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry...

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
They're right...this guy was no hero., 30 March 2003
Author: James Prine (jsprine@aol.com) from New Orleans, La.

Much has said about the wonderful, original "Vanishing Point"; I finally got to see the TV remake of the 1970 classic...and it was a shame. The original had Barry Newman, who somehow had the unique talent to come across as a guy who'd 'been there and done that'...and survived it all with wit, humor, and integrity as well as fantastic driving skills.

The bozo in this tepid rehash looks like he'd be out of his weight battling a soggy airmail envelope. Most of the time, while driving, he looks as if he's a 12-year-old punk out joyriding his older brother's car...and about to lose control of it, at that.

Even the little technical details were goofy beyond reason. "Jimmy" Kowalski managed to buy a police radio scanner, and somehow it doesn't need an antenna to receive signals. Better yet, since it's a crystal-controlled radio, 'magic crystals' cut for the correct radio frequencies used by cops in FOUR STATES somehow magically install themselves during the asphalt festivities. Better yet, the radio doesn't even stop scanning when a transmission is received!!!

Kowalski was supposed to be a former Army Ranger, and at one point he's in uniform, in front of a Captain who's dressing him down for his being an 'individual'. He's wearing a pair of army jump-wings, which means he's an Airborne Ranger (I guess), but no Combat Infantry Badge, despite being a decorated combat veteran. Interesting.

In short, the numerous flaws of this movie far outweigh its virtues.

On the other hand, the southwestern U.S. looked as lovely as it does in real life. Some nice footage of the area's scenic beauty was most welcome.

They made the point...several times...during this flick that Kowalski wasn't a hero...just an 'ordinary guy' involved in 'extraordinary events'. Well, the REAL Kowalski (Newman) in the original was an extraordinary guy performing extraordinary feats. The big mistake here was trying to give us too much backstory on the mysterious and intrepid Mr. K, instead of letting us fill in the details ourselves.

If you want to see a true American classic...a unique snapshot of early 1970s America, as it were, stay away from this T.V. travesty and watch the original instead.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Boring, 15 June 2005
2/10
Author: cobrabphat from United States

This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up.

It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved.

The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.

Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Very speedy, very empty. Mortensen was pretty good., 18 February 2002
Author: Mika Pykäläaho (bygis80@hotmail.com) from Järvenpää, Finland

I gotta admit that I've never seen the original "Vanishing point" (1971) - at least right now I have no recollection of it. Therefore I unfortunately can't compare the two and it's naturally pretty much impossible for me to estimate if this is good or bad film only as a remake. Still I have the courage to assume that this new version is just a pale shadow of the original 70's classic. If you want to see one practically an endless car chase you'll get it from here too but wild speeding and charisma of Viggo Mortensen can't keep a movie together too long if it's all the film has to offer. I watched "Vanishing point" all the way through and it had some entertaining and enjoyable scenes here and there. If you're looking for a simple, brisk action movie with lots of police cars, dusty road and a chance to marvel Mortensen's bushy sideburns this is all you need. But the plot sounded so great I honestly expected something bit more exciting. If I ever get a chance to see the original I would very gladly check it out. It would be quite interesting to find out if it's any better than this and how much better.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
I own it on VHS, want it on DVD....and still think it stinks!, 11 January 2004
Author: JWRosa from New Jersey

I can't add much to the comments already made to bash this terrible remake. Lousy at every turn, from plot to script to casting. With Jason Priestley and Christine Elise, both from 90210, why didn't they just toss Brian Austin Green into the driver's seat as Kowalski? Luke Perry could have been the antagonistic Charger-driving cop, and when all was said and done, Shannen Doherty would still have been glad to have left this sorry troupe of yo-yos behind. A mindless waste of time and money- a prime example of everything wrong with the Hollywood system. Simply stupid. Next up- Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer bring you Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera in the high-octane remake of 'Dirty Mary Crazy Larry'...the story of a budding NASCAR wanna-be and a hooker that steal Wal-Mart's money to pay for his mother's alzheimer's treatments. Can they get there before she forgets who they are?!? Tune in!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
You can bet THIS one doesn't end like the first one..., 10 May 2005
1/10
Author: joreill21

Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history