Secuestrada

For all his intellectual credentials, Hannibal Lecter was just a pretentious dandy. The true thinking man's psychopath is Jeff Bridge's "Barney" in this story about one man's (Kiefer Sutherland's) obsessive, years-long search for a girlfriend who disappeared during a vacation. Barney is also perhaps the nerdiest, most passionless movie psycho ever, and for all these reasons one of the most terrifying. This film is light on gore and action (some might say "slow-paced"), but it is a disturbing look at the "banality of evil." I'm told that the original Dutch film of the same name is far more disturbing than even this.

Somehow, everything happened too fast in this movie.. which took away from the suspense and made it so awfully predictable. Trust me, the Dutch original is the way to go.

I don't get this. Either the studios think that US audiences must be protected from downbeat endings or hollywood just likes to spit in the face of the cast and producers of the orignal Dutch version (Spoorloos). What is the point of messing with a perfect film? This remake is an insult to the actors in the original - and the american actors in the remake should apologise for stealing the roles that were performed so well by europeans. WATCH THE ORIGINAL NOT THIS POINTLESS REMAKE!

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.

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.