Before The Accident, there was Disappearance. If you watched the good old action movie with Kurt Russell and J. T. Walsh about how the main character, played by Russell, lost his spouse during their family road trip, know: there is another film on a similar topic, but it was shot much earlier than “Crash”.
Truth and Disappearance 1993 is not the original, but a remake of the European picture of the same name. Both versions were directed by the same director, George Slazer. And if you have seen the American version, I advise you to look at its European project, because it may shock you even more.
Stanley Kubrick called 1988’s Disappearance the most terrifying movie he’d ever seen. Even more intimidating than his own shining.
For myself, I can define “Disappearance” as one of the best thrillers that I have ever seen.
Jeff Harriman (Keefer Sutherland) and Diana Shiver (Sandra Bullock) are a couple in love. They went by car on a trip and at one of the gas stations the girl disappeared without a trace. All attempts by Jeff to find the bride do not lead to anything, and time goes by and the chances that he will find her alive are less and less.
Having pointed out above that "Disappearance" can shock, your humble servant did not exaggerate at all, because the film Sleiser does this from the very beginning, when it introduces the viewer to the villain. How coldly and calculatingly he prepares what he plans is shocking. You're watching him, trying to understand a little bit about his motive, what's driving him. And you act as a silent witness who knows everything, but this will not help the main characters.
The slicer shows Jeff Bridges, a teacher with a very soft name Barney Cosins, and every time he appears on the screen, an inner feeling of anxiety grows. You see the maniac approaching, you understand that everything he says is nothing more than a trick, but the victim does not know it and how coldly presented everything is terrifying. It is noteworthy that Barney Cozins, preparing for his case, obviously studied the habits and real maniacs and in particular Ted Bundy. After all, Barney in one of the scenes uses the same trick as Bundy – a fake cast in order to become more helpless and cause feelings of pity in women.
Barney Cozins’ revelations are shocking when he explains why he went to crime. "I became a hero in my daughter and decided to see if I could become a villain just as much as I was a hero." And you sit there thinking, "That's it?" Just because of this? And in connection with this you have distorted the fate of two young people, one of whom is looking for his bride?
Shocking one scene after the disappearance, when it becomes known how much time has passed since the disappearance of Diana. It is shocking to know Jeff Harriman.
During the film, he talks about letting Diana out of his heart if he knew what was wrong with her. If she was healthy and happy and just ran away from him. If she were dead. He would accept any truth and throw off an unbearable burden – the burden of ignorance.
You know, when couples break up and one of the parties breaks up for seemingly no apparent reason. And the other side is lost in guessing - why did this happen? What did I do wrong? And in "Disappearance" is still more tragic and sad, because here the main character loses his beloved missing at a busy gas station. And it torments itself for a long period of time precisely by ignorance.
The tagline reads: “If someone you loved mysteriously disappeared, how far would you go to find them?” And really, how far away?
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
“Disappearance” of the sample of the ninety-third year is a remake of the French-Dutch thriller of the same name, which is highly quoted by far from impersonal critics, from the same director who was at the helm of the original adaptation of the story “Golden Egg”.
In the story, Diane Shaver [Sandra Bullock] and Jeff Heriman [Keefer Sutherland] travel simulated as Barney Cousins [Jeff Bridges] develops a plan to kidnap a person. When the couple stops at a gas station, the girl goes to the bathroom and doesn't come back. The lover does not interrupt the search for three years, after which he manages to get an affair with Rita Baker (Nancy Travis), who insists that he get rid of the preoccupation with the unknown. And he almost manages to recant the memories, but soon Jeff receives a note from the intruder.
George Sluiser obtained permission for an American rethink on the condition that he re-draw the ending that once shocked the public. And in the end, the film was completely destroyed by the press because of the destruction of hypostasis.
The main claim: the Faustian theme of perversion from the desire to be filled with knowledge is completely lost with the observed development of the plot.
In the remake, the stories of the central characters move in parallel to make significant details in the timing; in the original, the emphasis on the “villain” shifts after several key events. In the remake, the new lover of the main character appears separately and longer; in the original - some mamzel just molds in the apartment for three seconds, tossing the news that the shura-murai with the protagonist. In the remake, more moments are allocated to the antagonist’s family in order to stapler the reasonableness of the finale; in the original – several fleeting video fragments accompanying the story of the criminal. But the main thing in the remake is the path of the maniac, including unsuccessful attempts, appears in a more developed version.
Barney, who jumped into the skin of a Raskolnikov, jumps above the teenage experiments of characterization and self-identification. He is fed up with the everyday life of an exemplary family man, he is eager to grasp the brass of governing human destinies, to test the strength of the essence of mere mortals. Yes, in the American film we will immediately find out who was involved in the tragic events, but the mystery of the incident will be completely covered with hapless “doubles” and the fact that Cousins, a simple chemistry teacher, still succeeded. In what way? Monoman will provide the answer: Diana was just lucky. The whole point is irony, even sarcasm over circumstances and fate.
The “disappearance” of the eighty-eighth year will not be mastered by every layman. These are not Die Hard (1988), Ghostbusters (1984), Indiana Jones: In Search of the Lost Ark (1981), Something (1982), or The Terminator (1984), which in modern realities can be seen and enjoyed. Here the eye does not cling to the acting performance, landscapes, film techniques. The narrative is interesting, but the problem is that everything is limited to a slow presentation, as well as a lightweight attempt at psychological analysis. From the film layers torn out details and events. At the most intriguing moment, everything ends.
Despite the numerous lists ("100 Greatest Horror Movies according to Slant Magazine", "105 Best World Cinema Films according to Empire Magazine"), where "Disappearance" from the Netherlands is crammed, I dare to recommend a remake if I suddenly liked the "mysterious" description from Wikipedia.
"You'll be lucky today, I feel ..." (the phrase should be pronounced with external charm and inner sarcasm in Bridgesque)
I have a peculiar tradition of watching first remakes of films, and then the originals. With the film “Disappearance” there was a classic story – turned to the Hollywood version of Director George Slazer, who a little earlier shot the original European version.
This film caught my attention with its cast (still quite young Kiefer Sutherland, Jeff Bridges, Nancy Travis and Sandra Bullock) and the year of its creation (1993). More than once I was convinced that films shot in the 80s and 90s in this genre, for some reason I like more than modern ones (maybe I am already getting old). So, rubbing my hand with delight, I watched this psychological thriller from the beginning to the end, never once pressing a pause and not being distracted by any nonsense (this is expensive for an amateur viewer who is tired of this genre).
The story itself is set out in simple cinematic language, but left behind not just a place for reflection, but a bottomless ocean of assumptions. What's this movie about? About a pervert who imagines himself to be Napoleon or at least Raskolnikov, who turned out to have few adolescent experiments with suicide attempts or self-identification as a strong personality. The hero of Jeff Bridges does not live quietly in a simple and quiet family, he needs a double life. He wants to be the ruler of fate, to test a person for strength, without giving him even a chance for salvation. And this "superman" decides to conduct his first experiment, coolly and even with a certain sense of humor. About how and where, the crime will occur, the viewer will learn almost in the final. All the while, Kiefer Sutherland’s hero will search for his lost love desperately, selflessly, on the verge of insanity.
The film draws on its plot. The viewer from the first minute knows the maniac in the face, his intentions and failed first attempts. But it is the mysterious disappearance of Diane (Sandra Bullock) that will be key in this film. I want to know in detail how this crime happened, why there were no witnesses, why the girl did not resist, because there were so many people around. One of the main answers will sound in the mockingly said phrase of the hero Jeff Bridges that Diane was lucky on this day. This is ironic and even sarcasm over circumstances and fate, because the victim of a maniac could be a completely different woman.
As for the heroine Nancy Travis, she is a real “bait” and the bravest of all in this film. For the sake of love, she is capable of much, you can envy her character.
“Never Talk to Strangers” is a piece of advice that comes to mind after watching this movie. Of course, do not go to extremes and shy away from everyone and everything. But in this thriller there is a lot of realistic, taken from life, so it is better to be alert, trust your intuition, think with your head. God will protect you.
Absolutely stunning, not much like the scene at the beginning of the film, where the hero of Jeff Bridges gives free rein to his fantasies, just as he tries on a new image, leaves a strong impression. And there are many such unusual, but interesting ideas within the genre. It is a pity that not all of them are brought to mind - in this case, the film would probably be better known to the general public. An interesting feature is that the criminal is known from the very beginning - there is no mystery and reason to spoil the experience. Just the essence of this thriller, its tension, intrigue in another. The search for truth even after a long time and unwillingness is tolerated - that is what the emphasis is on here.
I loved the scenery, the place where the young couple went first. A cross between the real American hinterland and tourist centers. Some scenes offer magnificent views. You think that this is a picture and editing, but if you look closely - such beauty really exists and it is a field shooting.
Jeff Bridges is a very bright, memorable character. A man living a double life. In one he is a caring family man, in the other - a man who decided to go to the extreme to test himself.
Kiefer Sutherland - I have never been a fan of his acting talent, which I can say about this film. Played well, as notes, but the character is quickly forgotten, although you believe in obsession in his eyes.
Sandra Bullock - a very small role then still little known actress. In the frame, she appears briefly, but makes a pleasant impression, looks very young.
I consider this film a “dark horse” in the pleasant sense of the phrase. I'm sure he hasn't been seen by many people, and even in the filmography of three famous actors, he never really stood out. However, I watch it a second time and do it with pleasure - a good, interesting thriller.
7.5 out of 10
Another movie I learned about watching Sandra Bullock’s filmography.
This is not a movie you should watch before going to bed. In some places it contains all the elements of a real horror movie. And, since I did not expect this and watched this movie in the middle of the night, it was quite difficult to pull myself together and appreciate the whole point.
Also, as a fan of Sandra Bullock’s talent, I didn’t have enough scenes with her participation. In my opinion, the main character of the film was Rita (Nancy Travis), although at the very beginning it did not foreshadow anything.
The story itself is very interesting, but, in my opinion, still too beaten. We knew from the beginning who the maniac was, so I wouldn't call it a detective. You've been trying to figure out his motives for the whole movie, but for me personally, they've remained a mystery. Although, perhaps, mentally ill people have their own reasons, which normal people do not understand. I would consider "The Disappearance" as a psychological thriller. Unfortunately, it is one of the few genres that I do not like or watch. However, I try to be objective.
It’s an interesting movie, especially if you like this genre. Advice for the faint of heart: don’t watch at night. Or at least not alone.