I know this was a made for TV Movie, I've seen lots of them. This movie is all right. Not the greatest one, but very watchable to say the least. Trying to be by your wife's side when she goes into labor is grueling, but when total misunderstanding goes around, a media circus has erupted. Jimmy Kowalski(Viggo Mortensen) goes out on a race to see the birth of his first child. The state police and the FBI end up being on his tail when the chase starts. The FBI wants him bad. For what? Jimmy admits his innocence. Accusing him of being a right-wing militia man? I DON'T THINK SO! When he had that blowout, the snake handler helps him out with the rattler. And these other tribesmen let him expand his mind on life and help him elude the law. And that handshake was awesome. After that, his oil pan ruptures and he sees a woman on a motorcycle wearing a bikini top. He says, "Are you insane?" when he sees her like that. She asks the same thing. Looks who's talk now. The good news that he got to be with his daughter, the bad news that his wife dies while he gets to her. Either way or the other, one way leads to another, and it's not worth killing yourself after the spouse passes. He was the real good guy, the bad guys were the FBI. And this movie here is OK to watch, could have used a little more work done to it, but Oh Well. Rating 2 out of 5 stars.
Add a Review
-
GOWBTW27 March 2006
-
Hollywood_Yoda23 February 2008To start off with, since this movie is a remake of a classic, the rating has to be lowered already. Since this version stars Viggo Mortensen in the lead role of Kowalski, it helps.
Isn't this just like the United States government though, to terrorize one of its own citizens. Sounds like Jason Priestley's character from the movie! But it is the truth, the government would do anything possible to destroy a man's life for trying to get home to his wife. A wife, who is in labor no less, and may not make it.
"There was a time in this country that the police would escort a man to his pregnant wife." The words of the Disc Jockey.
There were some great shots of scenery in this film, and great car chases and a lot of spirituality. After much consideration, I gave this film a 7. -
papadea195311 December 2005Come on. Utah is known as the Bee Hive State. In the beginning, you show a license plate that shoes it as the "Monument Valley State"?????? How phony can you get?? And One of the plates actually shows "Delicate Arch" in Arches National Park. Why couldn't you do something real about THAT????? Your boys need to do a lot more research for the rest of your movies. As far as the rest of the movie. Not bad. Viggo did an excellent job in the role. I believe you could have done a lot more into why he had to go all the way into Arizona and then into Utah. The original movie did have many more "different" types of characters. For example: What happened to the black radio announcer, and what happened to the "snake" people in the middle of the desert. My opinion is that the plot should have had more of the eccentrics that were involved in the original.
-
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. -
Agent1017 March 2003Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film.
-
SPOILERS THROUGH:
I really am in the minority on this one but I liked this movie. It's not a classic but it's definitely involving and quite an adrenalin fueled ride. I definitely thought it was worth at least a 7 rating.
Perhaps the reason I liked it is because I haven't seen the original.Something tells me that with a movie like this it's strongest fans will be the people who have not seen the original version and thus, have little to compare it to. This was not a masterpiece but I did get into it quite a lot and it actually made me want to see the original.
There were a few things I liked about it. One was the casting of Kowalkski. Viggo Mortenson was superb and really brought a lot of charisma to the role. Since the bulk of the movie fell on his shoulders, he really needed to be excellent and he was. This was a great role for him.
Another interesting thing about Vansishing Point was the fact that it's made for television. I had no idea this was the case when watching it. It sure seemed like a major motion picture and I would never have guessed this was not a big screen release.
I also found the story to be very absorbing. I'm not one for action movies but I got sucked into this. Plus it was a lot more then an action movie in that there was drama, mysticism, a love story, quirky people every which way you turned. (I didn't even recognize Priestly.) And it was touching. This was not a great movie but it is watchable.
And then there's the ending. It packs a strong punch and if one's been involved in the story up to that point, it's very difficult not to be transfixed at the very end. I am not sure how I feel about the ending. The implication was that Kowalkski survived and though I'm highly skeptical of HOW that would be possible, it is a movie and realism isn't an ingredient that's always in the mix when making a movie.
So I'd have to say I found the end incredibly unrealistic but very touching in a manipulative kind of way, which I don't usually like but for some reason, is almost forgivable in this movie. Admittedly, a lot of things were just props for the plot(could the villains have been anymore stereotypical?) But the makers got a lot right even if they got many things wrong as well. However, having said that, I will admit I can understand why someone who's a major fan of the original would hate this version because, though I have not seen the original, I have seen many original movies I loved being remade with terrible results. (My big dislike is actually sequels.) But I can understand the low ratings if the original is of that high a quality.
People have compared this to Smoky and the Bandit. How about a road version of "Legends Of The Fall" meets "Thelma and Louese" as well? I sure felt touches of both films(both of which I'm a fan of.) I do not think however, that this was a great film. It was better then average to me but far from great. But it was an absorbing, adrenalin fueled, touching movie with excellent casting of the main character. My vote is 7 of 10. -
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. -
masercot13 October 2005Yuck! 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... -
qormi18 January 2010The original "Vanishing Point" was a great flick. Subtle motives, characters that seemed real and spontaneous.The remake was terrible. Preachy, overtly obvious; it missed the point as to why the original was a classic. The black Charger was cool, but even that couldn't rescue this flick. Why stick with a white Challenger? I didn't think that was the best choice back in '71. Some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious. Like when Vigo was standing on a cliff overlooking the canyon after his "Dream Quest". His Indian pal was standing next to him. Vigo was only wearing his white briefs. I'm sorry - it just looked silly - him surveying the vista in his Fruit of the Looms. Another scene was at the end - after the explosive crash into the bulldosers - the announcer said that the impact was clocked at 180 mph. Then he mentions that the cops said his remains weren't found because he vaporized, but some people believe he bailed out and was hidden by friends in the crowd. Then it shows him rolling out of the car at 180 mph! First of all, you couldn't open the car door at 180 mph. Secondly, the car would not continue to travel in a straight line for 100 yds. with nobody to steer it. It would promptly roll over about 30 times. Thirdly, if you hit the pavement at 180 mph, you would wind up in various squishy pieces. No matter, we see him at the end standing with his daughter. All in all, a movie that would insult anyone's intelligence.
-
morrisonhimself22 March 2006Any movie that shows federal PIGs (Persons In Government) to be the power-mad threats they are in real life has a lot to recommend it to me.
Alas, the script supervision and editing and even, at times, the directing are flawed so there will be people who will disparage the whole movie and ignore the good moments.
I saw the original way back when it was new and hated it, despised it, loathed it. Thought it was a terrible, irrational piece of junk.
Now, though, I don't remember why.
I believe the two should not be compared or even connected.
Consider them as two different movies.
Rate them as two different movies.
This "Vanishing Point" provides a rallying place, a banner for people who want to encourage individualism, who believe in human rights, who recognize the threat to freedom government can be and is, especially the federal government.
"The Voice" wears a cap bearing the state motto of New Hampshire: "Live Free or Die." At one time it would have been the motto of most Americans.
Despite its obvious flaws, "Vanishing Point" is a film to cheer. -
jmorrison-216 June 2005This 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.... -
Wizard-84 September 1999I 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!
-
connorarroyo-122 August 2008This movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original, i suppose. Which is really sad, because at a deeper level, the title 'Vanishing Point' the original, is so ironic. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but the original was filmed in 1970, and released in 1971. The REAL 'VANISHING POINT' was the end of an era, which pretty much ended in the early 1970s.
In this remake, all the counter-cultural elements have been stripped away, and been rendered more PC in an attempt to reach a broader audience, presumably. "Sanitized for your Protection"
Inserting the American Indian scenes was gratuitous, and the idea of a 'noble purpose' to the trip was subtraction by addition. I'm glad I watched it however, it made me appreciate the original that much more. The original is a cult classic and golden. This remake is dreadful. -
cobrabphat15 June 2005This 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. -
But even then, "Vanishing Point" is exceedingly uninvolving and surprisingly ill-advised in its selective updating. If you're updating Kowalski from Vietnam to Desert Storm, then why is he still driving the same (now-26-year-old) Challenger? Referring to the police as "The Man" meant something in the countercultural original. Here, not so much.
If you change a few key elements - the main character's name, his ride, different movie title - then you might have something: a guy who's trying to get home to his wife who's in labor. Work that out, and you might have something to hang a movie on. But watching this movie, and knowing that it's somehow connected to the original "Vanishing Point" [1971] just dooms it from the start. It's got no drive, no ambition. The original movie was greater than the sum of its parts, but the remake relies only on the iconic car and some superficial connections.
Just an extremely generic and boring affair.
4/10 -
z28odyssey3 July 2005Sure this was a remake of a 70's film, but it had the suspense and action of a current film, say Breakdown. He's running, desperate to be with his hospitalized wife, the police are the least concern. The chases were very good, the part with him being
cornered at a rest stop was well done, the end of the movie was a great cliffhanger. This is better than Bullitt, a boring movie with what, a muscle car chase that was filmed badly? Vigo's character knew what he had to do to escape Johnny Law, few movies had the effects-night vision, CB radio-okay I forgot the name of the movie, guy has 76'Caddy souped up, toys with guy he upset. The ending is great, you can't tell if he fakes his suicide or not, a very good did-he-make-it-or-not. -
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.
-
vektron-17 May 2001A film that shouldn't have been made. If you've seen the original 1971 movie you'll know what I'm talking about. The atmosphere is gone, the story which tries to explain everything totally demystifies the film. I won't lose a word on the soundtrack ;) And Viggo Mortensen isn't half as cool as Barry Newman. The only reason to watch this movie is the white Challenger. Only that lovely Challenger :)
-
Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.
This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.
Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.
The ending is absolutely unbelievable. -
This is definitely an appropriate update for the original, except that "party on the left is now party on the right." Like the original, this movie rails against a federal government which oversteps its bounds with regards to personal liberty. It is a warning of how tenuous our political liberties are in an era of an over-zealous, and over-powerful federal government. Kowalski serves as a metaphor for Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the US government, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, threw around words like "white supremacist" and "right wing extremists as well as trumped-up drug charges to abridge the most fundamental of its' citizens rights, with the willing acquiescence of the general populace. That message is so non-PC, I am stunned that this film could be made - at least not without bringing the Federal government via the IRS down on the makers like they did to Juanita Broderick, Katherine Prudhomme, the Western Journalism Center, and countless others who dared to speak out. "Live Free or Die" is the motto on Jason Priestly's hat as he brilliantly portrays "the voice," and that sums up the dangerous (to some) message of this film.
-
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. -
Demerest16 January 2001This film was Excellent, I thought that the original one was quiet mediocre. This one however got all the ingredients, a factory 1970 Hemi Challenger with 4 speed transmission that really shows that Mother Mopar knew how to build the best muscle cars! I was in Chrysler heaven every time Kowalski floored that big block Hemi, and he sure did that a lot :)
-
jr-daboss11 August 2011I'll start by stating that I have not seen the original 1971 "Vanishing Point", yet. I only picked this movie up from the library because the title stood out after I had remembered it mentioned several times in "Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof", and it was the only copy there. No original. So I took a look.
First off the whole religion/spirituality theme underlying the whole movie was very unnecessary and forced. Several people are seen performing the signs of the cross, Kowalski's conversion to Catholicism is very prevalent, and even the doctor he contacts at the hospital his wife is at, is named Nazren. Sounds a lot like Nazarene or Nazareth. So the whole religious side of the film was unnecessary.
The Flashback/Dream sequences were edited very poorly. It takes a second before you realize it's really a flashback/dream because they are edited into the current scene like it's similar scene or parallel moment somewhere else.
And finally the action. I love car chases in film. Movies like Death Proof and Gone in 60 Seconds have amazing car chases, with lots of crashes, side by side collisions, all the fun stuff. This film has some decent car chase sequences but they are split apart too many times to make way for the drama that it really tarnishes the adrenaline rush they should be evoking. Not only that but they are not spectacular. The first few are a bit of a rush because you he has his "mission" and he means to fulfill it. But after a while, with all the stops and drama, the action not only feels less engaging or tense but the action itself feels a little tired, as in the stunts and speedy feeling become less and less powerful and amazing.
The story was simple but with all the "hero" messages and religion "advertising" it started to feel too contrived and mixed up. Finish it off with a poorly written and COMPLETELY unnecessarily ambiguous ending and you get 1997 "Vanishing Point".
Again I have not seen the original (something I will get on top of ASAP), so I can't decided for myself how it holds up but my experience with this film has strengthened my powers of clairvoyance and they say: "It doesn't..." -
gord-farm27 August 2005I really liked this version of 'Vanishing Point' as opposed to the 1971 version. I found the 1971 version quite boring. If I can get up in the middle of a movie a few times(as I did with the 1971 version) than to me, it is not all that great. Of course, this could be due to the fact that I was only nine at the time the 1971 version was brought out. However, I have seen many remakes, where I have liked the original and older one better. I found that the plot of the 1997 version was more understandable and had basically kept true to the original without undermining the meaning of the 1971 version. In my opinion, I felt the 1997 version had more excitement and wasn't so "blase".(Boring)
-
Paul-30821 January 2003Watching 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.