User reviews

As everyone who has reviewed this film here has mentioned, there are two versions of this movie, one Dutch, one American, both directed by the same fellow. Which should you see first? Which should you avoid, if any? Decide for yourself... I saw the Dutch version in 1994, and it absolutely blew my socks off. I was horrified, didn't want to keep watching it, but I was pulled in and couldn't stop until the brilliant, ultra-chilling, uncompromising finale. This was my first foreign film, and so I was completely unprepared for such a non-Hollywood experience. I will remember this movie for the rest of my life. Later on, I caught the American version in the theatres, watched it, a few thrills here and there, yadda, yadda. Jeff Bridges was pretty creepy, but quite frankly, I would have completely forgotten about it by now if it weren't for the original. It's not horrible, it just pales in comparison to a masterpiece.

Right off I was drawn into this picture by the performances from both Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland. Bridges appears first, and he captures the attention right away. He's off; something's not quite right about him. You know going in that the story revolves around a man obsessed with the search for his missing girlfriend. As you watch Bridges play Barney, you're left wondering right away - is he the guy looking for the girlfriend, or is he the guy who kidnapped the girlfriend. You wonder that, because you know that the other lead actor in this (although he's not yet been introduced) is Kiefer Sutherland as Jeff - who often (especially at this relatively early stage of his career) played fairly menacing characters. So there's a question right off. But the roles are the reverse of what you expect. Barney is "off" - and frighteningly so.

Jeff and his girlfriend Diane (an early role for Sandra Bullock, and a limited performance, restricted to the first third of the movie if that) stop at a convenience store while on a trip. She goes in to use the restroom and buy some beer. And she never comes out. Or, at least, she never comes back to Jeff. And Jeff becomes obsessed. Sutherland was superb. In this he's not a menacing character. He's completely vulnerable - haunted by Diane's disappearance, not able to move on. His vulnerability increases as the picture goes on, to the actually uncomfortable moment at which he finally breaks down when he gets the chance to confront Barney about what happened to Diane. It was an out of character performance for Sutherland, who was fantastic.

The movie is really his story of obsession. The mystery of Diane's disappearance is somewhat secondary, but it is the engine that drives the character of Jeff, and - like him - the viewer also wants to know what exactly happened to her. Admittedly, there were times when this movie seemed to drag the story out a bit; times when it seemed to be getting unnecessarily long. And yet - that probably helped the viewer (or me at least) get into Jeff's head a bit. This never-ending nightmare that he wants to get to the end of but that keeps going on. That's not really a criticism of the movie. It's interesting the whole way through. It's just an acknowledgement that at times the story was somewhat slow- paced.

After three years, the character of Rita comes into the picture as Jeff's new love interest. Rita was played by Nancy Travis. I have to admit that, for me, Rita was the weakest character of the movie. She came across to me as either unbelievable or unforgivable - and maybe a combination of both. I just found it hard to sympathize with her frustration over Jeff's inability to move on. She knew the story when she entered the relationship. If the woman I loved had suddenly disappeared with no clues and no trace, I might be able to move on and start a new life - as Jeff did - but I'd also be haunted by the question of what happened and I'd likely never stop looking for answers. Rita couldn't understand that? That didn't work for me. I didn't care much for the character. Of course, she does turn out to be the hero in the end - and her heroism is the thing that finally puts Jeff's demons to rest - but through most of the movie I just didn't like the character.

The revelation of what happened to Diane (which does come as the movie approaches its end) is horrible; the stuff of nightmares. The movie ends on a sort of happy note, with Barney dealt with and the mystery solved for Jeff.

It's a good movie. It is a bit slow paced at times, but it's driven (and driven well) by Bridges and Sutherland, who were both extremely good. (7/10)

I don't want to spend to much time on this review, because this movie doesn't really deserve it. This must be one of the worst remakes of a European film, although made by the same director, and the actors in it have tried their best, but even Bridges, Sutherland and Bullock did not make this movie fun to watch. The abductor in the original movie (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu as Raymond Lemorne) was creepy, but Barney (Jeff Bridges) was far from that! Also Kiefer Sutherland as Jeff wasn't as credible as Gene Bervoets (Rex Hofman) in the original. The original "Spoorloos" is absolutely superior to this one!

Movie is OK, nothing specially (better then the original, original is too slow,my opinion) but it's not so bad.

Acting is overall great.

Predictable, and without any twists, ending .... no spoilers.

This review is only because I am IMPRESSED with performance of Nancy Travis. She was BRILLIANT, Excellent !

I think, one of the best performance ever (female).

WATCH IT because Nancy Travis produced magic in this movie.

I can't recommended this movie for any other reason, but I am not unhappy at the end.

Released in 1993 and directed by George Sluizer from a novel by Tim Krabbé, "The Vanishing" is a crime drama/mystery/horror about a man (Kiefer Sutherland) whose girlfriend goes missing during a trip in Washington State (Sandra Bullock) and he searches in vain for her for years. After he starts a relationship with a new girlfriend (Nancy Travis), the abductor (Jeff Bridges) finally contacts him. Will he find his former girlfriend?

This is the second time the director shot this same story; the first time was the 1988 Euro film of the same name. The stories are identical except for the final acts and the fact that this newer version has a better character/part for the new girlfriend (Travis). Both films are worth catching, but I prefer this one for reasons explained below. Fans of the first movie object to the changes, arguing that the producers of this version were pandering to North American tastes. While this may be true, it's also likely that the director didn't want to make the same exact movie. After all, we already have the first version, why make an exact duplicate with different actors and locations? Besides, what's wrong with appreciating BOTH versions? My comments below reveal why Sluizer wanted to change things up a little with this version.

Audiences may have rejected the film at the box office on the grounds that they weren't used to Bridges playing a contemptible villain or Sutherland playing the good guy, but they're both fine in these roles, particularly the former, who's great and fascinating to observe. One thing that keeps you watching during the drama of the first two acts is to find out what his motivations are. But, as hinted above, it's Travis who steals the show, at least as far as protagonists goes. Perhaps audiences didn't receive her or the movie well because her character's merely a waitress whose story arc doesn't end in a reversal of fortune, which is in contrast to the typical movie heroine. Who knows? I think she's awesome.

In any case, if you like psychological drama/thrillers like "Fatal Attraction" (1987) and "Single White Female" (1992) you'll appreciate "The Vanishing."

The movie runs 109 minutes and was shot mostly in Washington State, but also Cody Tunnel, Cody, Wyoming (the tunnel sequence) and La Canada and Long Beach, CA (the diner and pool hall scenes respectively).

GRADE: B+

***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further unless you've watched the movie)

While the first film could be interpreted as a commentary on nihilism, since the villain wins and the hero loses, it doesn't HAVE to be interpreted this way. After all, it's a simple fact of life that sometimes evil wins a battle now and then; and sometimes A LOT of them, but this doesn't mean evil wins the war, so to speak. If there's ultimate good then evil will eventually have its day of reckoning.

In any event, the 1988 movie ends on a decidedly downbeat note. And this is why I appreciate this newer version: While it is also downbeat, and evil wins to a point, the changes in the final act show good triumphing over evil, not to mention perseverance over intellect and love over absence of love. The subtext is all about freewill – freewill to kill for no good reason and freewill to kill for good when absolutely necessary. The theme of the first movie is limited in that it drives home the first point whereas this version drives home both, and is the better for it.

This film is Underrated the acting is top notch a fantastic cast and a excellent story. It keeps you entertained and engaged through the whole film. No down time and it builds to a excellent ending. Jeff bridges acting is so diverse hes the ultimate hero yet a very disturbing villian. If you enjoy thrillers the 1990s provided some of the best!! Watch and enjoy!! Also watch breakdown, and search 1990s thrillers and watch them all.

A remake of a 1988 Franco-Dutch film, also directed by George Sluizer, 'The Vanishing' does deliver some thrills & an unbelievably menacing performance by Academy-Award-Winning Acting Legend, Jeff Bridges. One of THE Most Versatile Actors in History, Bridges proves his status yet again by playing a loathsome villain with such intensity.

'The Vanishing' Synopsis: The boyfriend of an abducted woman never gives up the search as the abductor looks on.

'The Vanishing' is interesting in parts. The film begins well, it has moments that genuinely arrest. However, the last 20-25 minutes don't leave much of an impact. The finale, especially, needed to be stronger & far more superior. Todd Graff's Screenplay does work, but falls deeply in the last half-hour. George Sluizer's Direction is absorbing. Cinematography & Editing, are worth a mention.

Performance-Wise: Obviously, Bridges rules the show with an unbelievably menacing performance. The actor plays the loathsome villain with great intensity & unpredictability. It's a character that you love to hate, and Bridges makes him exactly that. This performance clearly proves what a Magical & Versatile Actor Bridges is. Kiefer Sutherland delivers a sincere performance. Nancy Travis fills the bill. Sandra Bullock does well in a cameo.

On the whole, 'The Vanishing' is a decent thriller. Watch it Bridges!

When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.

Skip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original "Spoorloos", or by the English title also called "The Vanishing". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the "successful formula" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful "The Scarlet Letter" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be "the feel good movie of the year" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.

Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess.

This film is way inferior to the Dutch original (the fact that the same director directed both is another story). This movie has obviously been toned down for American audiences, which is insulting if you've seen them both (I stumbled onto the remake on cable late at night). The original is a thriller in the truest sense of the word, and is far more intelligent, disturbing, and scary than the Hollywood version. I bet the producers assumed American audiences couldn't handle disturbing well so they gave us a more friendly version, very insulting. If you're going to see this version, make sure you rent the original too and watch it first, just to see how much the remake pales in comparison. If you don't like psychological, disturbing, riveting, and no-downbeat-endings in your thrillers, the 1993 version is for you. But if you want to be truly blown away, the Dutch original is very highly recommended over this one.

The boyfriend (Kiefer Sutherland) of an abducted woman (Sandra Bullock) never gives up the search as the abductor (Jeff Bridges) looks on.

What I find so interesting about this film is how much they made it like the original. Sure, you have the same director (a nice touch), but it seems some small concessions could have been made. Bridges did not have to be European. Or, if you wanted a European, perhaps one could have been cast (though I suppose the idea was to get a bigger name).

All in all, though it is not as dark or as powerful as the original, it still makes for a good film. Bridges shines, and it may stand as one of the strangest abduction stories ever told.

A man faces the man who kidnapped his girlfriend three years earlier. I watched this movie because I was intrigued by the concept. For three years Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) never gave up looking for his girlfriend Diane (Sandra Bullock). The kidnapper (Jeff Bridges) was so impressed with Jeff's persistence that he decided to reveal himself to him.

The movie had some good moments, and I think Jeff Bridges did an excellent job playing a psycho. The overall acting of Kiefer Sutherland and Jeff Bridges helped this movie out a lot. The movie had low points in my opinion. Without giving too much away, I'll just say that intelligence wasn't running rampant in Seattle.

The movie was good enough to hold my attention, but had some short falls to make me complain a bit so I have to give it a 6/10.

Sorry, sorry, sorry...

this goes out to all who are P***** of by this movie and wrote their opinion by giving it an 1 or a 2. I have also seen the original and like it very much, however I totally disagree calling the American version as pure s***. I think The Vanishing is as good as the original or even better, especially Jeff Bridges as Barney is incredible which alone makes it worth to watch this movie. And there are quiet many people who agree to me and think that this a good thriller, for sure not perfect but very exciting, all in all intelligent and interesting. To those of you who permanently try to compare it to "Spoorlos" and who seem to be so disappointed I can only say, what did you expect? How could George Sluizer make you feel satisfied when he directed "The Vanishing" in 1993? I would agree; it's a typical Hollywood thriller but it's a good one; if you tried to regard it more individually I would suppose you to agree. I mean I only think it's a pity that those who haven't seen this movie and might be interested to watch it get such an underrated opinion of it just because some of you are showing their personal disgust to Hollywood remakes in a such a low way. I also use to enjoy Europeen cinema very much. Generally prefer it to so called blockbusters from Hollywood. But this remake is great and deserves a better vote. I give it a 9 and at least some of those who watched this movie should agree. Everyone who is able to comment movies without prejudices should be able to diversify "The Vanishing" from real crap giving it at least a 5 or a 6 even if he or she doesn't like it so very much.

I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.

I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.

I have to say that the remake to The Vanishing, is an exciting, tense well acted thriller. I have seen the original and enjoyed it, but I felt there was something missing. I do like the original ending of The Vanishing, but with this version, the ending they used worked with that version. Jeff Bridges goes from sympathetic(you actually like the guy) to scary, Keifer Sutherland does a great job playing a normal guy strung out on too much coffee, but the real star is Nancy Travis. Her no B.S. attitude really plays well and she does it with such percision that she actually steals the movie. This is the movie that shows how well she can act. Plus the score also makes the thriller very moody and showy.

Give this another chance.

It gets four stars from me.

Four out of Four Stars ****

Carl J Grasso

This is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think "what's the harm?" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.

If only I could give this a zero.