Review: The Vanishing

Young lovers Kiefer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock stop at a gas station whilst on vacation near Mount St. Helens. Bullock goes to buy cigarettes, and never returns. For the next three years, Sutherland refuses to give up his tireless search for her, but nothing pans out. He does, however, find companionship in waitress Nancy Travis, but he’s still secretly searching for his lost true love. Then one day, unkempt chemistry teacher and family man Jeff Bridges turns up, telling Sutherland that he can show him what happened to Bullock. The audience already has somewhat of an idea, having earlier seen Bridges experimenting with chloroform as a way of subduing women for abduction.

 

This 1993 remake of a 1988 Swedish film is a completely ineffectual film experience. It had a reputation as such back in 1993, and there have been few defenders since. I’m certainly not going to be championing the film myself. It’s terrible. However, where I differ from most detractors is in the reason for its failure. Most hate this film because its ending is a completely catastrophic re-write of a bleak, and supposedly masterful conclusion to the original. I’m sorry, but this film is a stand-alone failure that doesn’t even work leading up to the conclusion. Besides, the original film’s director George  Sluizer is at the helm of this remake (with an adaptation by actor Todd Graff), and he apparently didn’t like the ending of the original anyway (However, he was told that American audiences wouldn’t like the bleak ending). So if you liked the original film’s ending (based on a Tim Krabbe novel), you’re actually in disagreement with Sluizer himself (Sluizer’s career doesn’t seem to have recovered from this mistake, by the way). I have a feeling I wouldn’t much like the original in that case, because this is a seriously ridiculous film that might’ve worked as a macabre comedy-horror, but never for a moment works as serious thriller.

 

One of the biggest problems with the film is with the performance by Jeff Bridges, by far his worst to date (And remember, he was in the shithouse 1976 version of “King Kong”). Right from the opening scene, he gives an appallingly (and distractingly) mannered, hammy performance. It’s embarrassing. He also adopts a slight accent, the source of which I doubt even Bridges knows. It’s probably meant to be Swedish in honour of the original film, but it’s so slight yet so distracting that all it does is draw attention to the fact that the accent isn’t even remotely necessary. It’s just Jeff Bridges showing off, ‘coz he can. There’s absolutely nothing indicative in his Washington-born character (Very Swedish-ly named Barney Cousins) of any European/immigrant background whatsoever. It just gets in the way of what could’ve been an interesting idea of a seemingly normal, loving dad who has a hidden life as a serial killer. But Bridges’ adoption of this accent (and his shaggy, shabby physical appearance) is the first indicator that he is giving a far too blatant and overblown characterisation (Especially given that Bridges is marble-mouthed at the best of times, already). Imagine Ted Bundy being portrayed by Gerard Depardieu and you’ll have an indication of the bizarro world Bridges is taking us to at a complete kamikaze impact on the film itself. It’s all well and good to take a risk, but Bridges has taken the absolute wrong approach here. He does get one good line, however. When some people are talking about Sutherland’s missing wife, he remarks; ‘I do admire his perseverance’. That is not something a normal, well-adjusted human being would say in such a context, and yet it’s not something that anyone would see as a ‘red flag’, either. It’s the one moment of subtlety in an otherwise stridently ham-fisted, ridiculous film, and an otherwise destructively mannered performance from a miscast actor (Who should’ve played the role? Two words: Rutger Hauer. Yes, he sounds even more foreign than Bridges, but at least he’s capable of nuance and genuine menace. Go watch “The Hitcher”, especially the first half). The character seems smart and loves to toy with Sutherland, knowing he holds all the cards. But Jeff Bridges as an intellectual sociopath? Uh-uh, especially the slovenly, vocally slurred spin he gives on the character (And he gets increasingly ugly the longer the film goes on, ala “Cujo”).

 

The character is also underwritten, a major problem that helps to deflate any potential for tension. Bridges is only half the problem. This is among the flattest, most transparent mysteries of all-time, a complete botch-job. Worse still, is the film’s overblown and ridiculous final third. It appears to come from another film entirely, something along the lines of an Edgar Allen Poe-esque horror film. It also makes the Sutherland character a complete moron. I understand his ruthless dedication to finding out the truth and his possible serious grief, but I still cannot believe he’d go through what he went through in this film. There’s no need for him to go that far, none whatsoever.

 

This is such an embarrassing film that it’s amazing that the cast largely recovered. Aside from Bridges, everyone’s actually fine here, I must say. Sutherland is well-cast in material well beneath his talents, and the underrated Nancy Travis does her damn best with a dud role (which is among the biggest sources of complaint from fans of the original, where the role was comparatively nondescript). Personally I don’t think she does anything wrong at all here. The big surprise is to see a pre-“Speed” Sandra Bullock, and remember that she has charisma and a certain (limited) amount of talent. She’s easily the most memorable thing in the film.

 

When listing the worst remakes of all-time, there’s a bloody good reason why this film tends to be on most lists. It’s a complete disaster from start to finish, from several people who should know better. It’s also just an awful film, remake or not.

 

Rating: D