As the original "Thomas Crown Affair" stood in roughly the same relationship to real-life crime as the James Bond films do to real-life espionage, the current 007 Pierce Brosnan was perhaps a natural choice to star as the new Thomas Crown. He brings to the role a similar combination of cool sophistication with a hint of toughness as Steve McQueen, the King of Cool, brought to the original. (I have always thought that McQueen would have made a great James Bond if the producers had ever felt they wanted an American in the role).
The new film follows roughly the same plot as the 1968 version, with one or two minor variations. The setting is transferred from Boston to New York, and the millionaire tycoon Crown is British rather than American. The most significant change is that the robbery which Crown organises is not of money from a bank but rather of a priceless Monet painting from an art gallery. As in the original, he is pursued by an attractive female insurance company investigator with whom he becomes romantically and sexually entangled. As in the original, the trappings of Crown's millionaire lifestyle are much on display- his expensive cars, his exclusive New York residence (even more luxurious than was McQueen's), his private glider, his yacht. (In this version Crown is a yachtsman rather than a polo player, although he is still a golfer). Even the theme song "The Windmills of Your Mind" comes in at the end and Faye Dunaway makes a cameo appearance as Crown's psycho-analyst.
Despite the similarities in plot, I felt that something was lacking compared with the original film. That film is one that you watch less for its plot than for its atmosphere of style and sophistication, the epitome of sixties cool. The remake never really captures this. To take an example, it dispenses with the famous game of chess during which McQueen is seduced by Faye Dunaway; instead the investigator (here called Catherine rather than Vicki) seduces Crown after they have been dancing together. To make a game as intellectual as chess sexy was quite an achievement on the part of the actors and director; it is much less of a challenge to do the same for dancing, an activity which has been described as the vertical expression of horizontal desires. The chess scene is memorable precisely because it is so unexpectedly erotic; the dancing scene is much more forgettable. The director John McTiernan dispenses with Norman Jewison's use of the split screen; that was probably the right decision, as that technique used today would probably have given the film a very dated feel, but McTiernan does not come up with anything equally distinctive to replace it. Pierce Brosnan is good as Crown, but I was less taken with Rene Russo's Catherine, who I felt (surprisingly for an actress who is a former model) lacked the sophisticated elegance of Faye Dunaway's Vicki.
I make no apologies for comparing this film to the original version; film-makers who remake earlier movies are deliberately inviting such comparisons. It would be wrong to say that I disliked the newer version. In some respects it is superior to its predecessor; it has, for example, a more coherent plot. There are some humorous touches such as the scene where Catherine thinks she has recovered the missing painting, only to find that it is a fake painted over "Monet's unknown masterpiece- Dogs at Cards". There is also a neat twist at the end when Crown (helped by a number of accomplices, all identically dressed with bowler hats and briefcases) succeeds in replacing the painting on the walls of the gallery under the noses of Catherine and the police. Seen as a romance/comedy/thriller, the remake is not a bad film. It is, however, a routine one. The original was not a great film, but it was never routine. It had its own quite distinctive style and personality, something the remake lacks. 6/10
The new film follows roughly the same plot as the 1968 version, with one or two minor variations. The setting is transferred from Boston to New York, and the millionaire tycoon Crown is British rather than American. The most significant change is that the robbery which Crown organises is not of money from a bank but rather of a priceless Monet painting from an art gallery. As in the original, he is pursued by an attractive female insurance company investigator with whom he becomes romantically and sexually entangled. As in the original, the trappings of Crown's millionaire lifestyle are much on display- his expensive cars, his exclusive New York residence (even more luxurious than was McQueen's), his private glider, his yacht. (In this version Crown is a yachtsman rather than a polo player, although he is still a golfer). Even the theme song "The Windmills of Your Mind" comes in at the end and Faye Dunaway makes a cameo appearance as Crown's psycho-analyst.
Despite the similarities in plot, I felt that something was lacking compared with the original film. That film is one that you watch less for its plot than for its atmosphere of style and sophistication, the epitome of sixties cool. The remake never really captures this. To take an example, it dispenses with the famous game of chess during which McQueen is seduced by Faye Dunaway; instead the investigator (here called Catherine rather than Vicki) seduces Crown after they have been dancing together. To make a game as intellectual as chess sexy was quite an achievement on the part of the actors and director; it is much less of a challenge to do the same for dancing, an activity which has been described as the vertical expression of horizontal desires. The chess scene is memorable precisely because it is so unexpectedly erotic; the dancing scene is much more forgettable. The director John McTiernan dispenses with Norman Jewison's use of the split screen; that was probably the right decision, as that technique used today would probably have given the film a very dated feel, but McTiernan does not come up with anything equally distinctive to replace it. Pierce Brosnan is good as Crown, but I was less taken with Rene Russo's Catherine, who I felt (surprisingly for an actress who is a former model) lacked the sophisticated elegance of Faye Dunaway's Vicki.
I make no apologies for comparing this film to the original version; film-makers who remake earlier movies are deliberately inviting such comparisons. It would be wrong to say that I disliked the newer version. In some respects it is superior to its predecessor; it has, for example, a more coherent plot. There are some humorous touches such as the scene where Catherine thinks she has recovered the missing painting, only to find that it is a fake painted over "Monet's unknown masterpiece- Dogs at Cards". There is also a neat twist at the end when Crown (helped by a number of accomplices, all identically dressed with bowler hats and briefcases) succeeds in replacing the painting on the walls of the gallery under the noses of Catherine and the police. Seen as a romance/comedy/thriller, the remake is not a bad film. It is, however, a routine one. The original was not a great film, but it was never routine. It had its own quite distinctive style and personality, something the remake lacks. 6/10