IMDb > Vanishing Point (1997) (TV) > IMDb user reviews

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

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 37 reviews in total 

31 out of 38 people found the following review 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?

24 out of 30 people found the following review 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?

20 out of 28 people found the following review 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?

11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
I think they missed the entire point of the original., 28 May 2006
2/10
Author: drewdane from United States

*** This review 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?

11 out of 15 people found the following review 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?

14 out of 22 people found the following review 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?

5 out of 7 people found the following review 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?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, 16 June 2005
1/10
Author: jmorrison-2 from Farmington Hills, MI

This is just plain bad. Sometimes remakes, even if they stray from the original, are good on their own. They can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. This was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. This wasn't any good even standing on it's own. Viggo Mortenson is a top-notch actor, but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. The original "Vanishing Point" was such a thrilling, psychological adventure; this is not an adventure at all, and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. This was made from a by-the-numbers approach to film-making, stuffing in plot points that someone in Hollywood believes will please what they see as today's film-going audience. Basically, they see us as a bunch of idiots. It's insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film, and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. The manipulative plot devices, the "make-it-obvious-so-they-don't-miss-the-point" aspects, ridiculous dialogue, stereotyped characters, amateurish direction...

This is plain bad....

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Just horrible, 21 January 2003
Author: Paul-308 from USA

Watching this movie on TV was just painful.A sham that fed off the legendary film from 1970 that bears the same title.The 1970 Challenger is there (albeit a Hemi this time,and with sport mirrors and quick fill gas cap...not in the 1970 movie)and a lead character named Kowalski but not much else.Lousy acting that was only offset by some fast action chase sequences,and a 1968 Charger named "beast".Implausable getaways,finding a 426 Hemi oilpan in a junkyard (sure....right),and a ridiculous crash at the end (180 mph into dozers and no dents on the "crash" car).Jason Priestly acted like an idiot with an accent (as opposed to Cleavon Little's excellent "hip" portrayal in 1970).His radio station manager was kinda cute but there wasnt much else.....although it was TVs first real glimpse of "La Femme Nikita's" Peta Wilson out in the desert.I dont know whatever happened to Barry Newman's (1970 Kowalski) plans to remake VP before this travesty (he was planning to buy the movie rights and do a back story into Kowalski's past life),but you can bet he has now washed his hands of any further VP comebacks thanks to FOXs coffin-nailing finale to the cult classic.Hopefully they wont ever release this on VHS/DVD.If you missed it,thank your lucky stars you did.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review 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?
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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