grantss Okay, but not as good as the original.The Larrabees are a wealthy family, living in a palatial estate on Long Island. Oldest brother Linus (played by Harrison Ford) is the formal, dour businessman, running the family company. David (Greg Kinnear) is a playboy. Among the staff living on the estate is the family chauffeur, Fairchild (John Wood), and his shy, awkward, plain daughter, Sabrina (Julia Ormond). Sabrina has had a crush on David for most of her life but he has hardly noticed her. Sabrina goes to study in Paris and comes back, two years later, a changed woman. She's sophisticated and beautiful and soon catches David's eye. However, David is engaged to Elizabeth Tyson (Lauren Holly), the daughter of a business mogul whose company Linus wants to merge with that of the Larrabees. If Sabrina wrecks the David-Elizabeth relationship it would likely spell the end of the business merger. Linus sets out to prevent Sabrina from getting in the way but in the process falls for her himself.The original Sabrina was released in 1954 and was pretty good (though not brilliant). Directed by one of the all-time greats, Billy Wilder, and starring Humphrey Bogart as Linus, Audrey Hepburn as Sabrina and William Holden as David, it oozed class and style ( though substance was in shorter supply). Plot was charming though a bit clumsy and not entirely solid. Some elements were too convenient or too contrived. Bogart and Holden were too old for their roles but Audrey Hepburn more than made up for this, capturing the beauty, sweetness, charm and elegance of Sabrina perfectly.This 1995 remake faithfully follows the original plot, while updating the settings, technology etc to 1995. However, the director and writer didn't seem to put much effort into updating the characters, as all they seem like they are 1950s characters in a 1990s movie. There's a stuffiness to it all that is quite irritating. Some contemporisation of the characters was in order.Where this stuffiness is most noticeable is with Julia Ormond as Sabrina. Sure, it would have been impossible to find someone to fill Audrey Hepburn's shoes, but Ormond doesn't even come close. She is beautiful and elegant but lacks Hepburn's charm, sweetness and warmth, coming across as aloof and wooden.Overall, a reasonable romantic-drama, but not a must-see.

eliza andrews Well I know that usually the remakes of such classic films are destined to be heavily criticized and to be expected with prejudice. But in this particular case, that kind of attitude would be definitely wrong and unfair. The 1995 version of Sabrina by Sidney Pollack is by far better in my opinion. The story is of course the same. A young and inexperienced girl goes to work in Paris and "reinvents" her personality and her style. When she comes back, radically changed, she finally catches the attention and the romantic interest of the man she has been in love with since her teenage years. But his strict and workaholic brother is determined not to let the romance evolve at any cost out of fear that this could destroy his business plans! As far as the characters are concerned, the truth is that there has been a little but important change. For example, Julia Ormond's Sabrina is stronger, more confident, independent and eloquent than the character of the 1954 film. Audrey Hepburn played a naive and more intimidated girl. Greg Kinnear's David in in exactly the same mood as in the original, meaning a good-hearted, charming, but a little superficial and irresponsible playboy. Now, in my opinion, the most interesting character is the older brother, Linus, who in this film is portrayed as having a much darker, cynical and introverted (almost rude) character than in the original. I personally like this change because I think it makes the plot and the hero more interesting (I think the line "the world's only living heart donor" is hilarious and a classic!) At this point, we should absolutely give an honorable mention to Harrison Ford's performance(for which he was nominated for a golden globe that year). He plays the sort of "villain" of the story in a most convincing and elegant way. Contrary to most of his roles, this time Ford adopts harsh facial expressions (almost not smiling at all) and a very severe look. this is why his attempt to soften a little bit in order to approach Sabrina creates- an almost adorable- contradiction. Personally, I think that Ford and Ormond have definitely more chemistry than the original couple of Bogart and Hepburn and that they are way more convincing. Finally, I would like to mention the magnificent music of John Williams and the songs of Sting- all these create a really romantic but still modern fairytale. I highly recommend the movie since it's romantic, funny and quite clever actually. I give it a 9/10.

ElMaruecan82 1995 saw the release of a great American romantic comedy in Hollywood tradition, "The American president", but it's Pollack's "Sabrina" that deserves the title because it's based on the 1954' classic, directed by Billy Wilder and starring Audrey Hepburn, William Holden and Humphrey Bogart. Yet, there's more in "Sabrina" than a simple remake.There is a natural reflex from every movie buff, which is to prefer any "original" film to its remake. It often has to do with the classic status reached by the first movie, inevitably dismissing any attempt to remake it. But at the risk of sounding like another heretic, I thought Sydney Pollack's remake, if not better, is a solid match to the original acting-wise and more than anything, storytelling-wise.I insist on the storytelling department because it contradicts the idea of the original's greatness relying on its monumental cast, incomparable to the Sidney Pollack, Harrison Ford, Greg Kinnear and Julia Osmond's quartet. Yet "Sabrina" approaches the two myths of Cinderella and the Ugly Duckling and ask for us to root for Sabrina, a woman who never attracted men, yet ended up being in the middle of a business scheme, until winning the heart of a businessman. No matter how fairytale, the material is, its convincingness is not to be taken for granted, and no matter how great are the actors, their transformation, their chemistry is still something that depend on the storytelling, more than the acting.And it's extraordinary how Pollack not only remains faithful to the fairytale aspect of the story and to the sensitivities of the 90's in the same time, starting with the heroine herself. Sabrina is supposed to be the Ugly Duckling, she's the chauffeur's daughter who spent most of her time in David's shadow, before finding herself during her trip in Paris. The problem with Audrey Hepburn is that she was incapable of being unattractive no matter how hard she, or the make-up and costume design, tried. Julia Osmond, on the other hand, being that unknown brunette with the same sweet charm as Juliette Binoche, with small glasses and long hair, is convincing as the not-too attractive girl on the surface.And the new script doesn't insult our intelligence by labeling her as a 'dog', she's just a shy, insecure person who had to discover her inner attractiveness before ever trying to seducing. And the Paris' transformation give much more depth and consistence to her evolution, when she comes back, we know Sabrina hasn't turned into a glamorous woman but as a confident one. Paris' effect is really palpable and makes it strangely believable that David wouldn't recognize Sabrina. I'm not saying that these details hurt the original film, but Pollack, probably moved by a humble desire to pay tribute to the 'untouchable' classic, compensated the modest cast through a particular attention to human details, that inevitably highlighted the original's flaws.And the real masterstroke comes with the casting of Harrison Ford as Linus. Ford exudes the perfect mix of seriousness and vulnerability. He easily passes as a grown-up man who spent so much behind the office that someone had to show him the preciousness of life, and how it can't afford to be wasted. And all through his interactions with Sabrina, we keep on wondering if he's aware that he's falling in love, and if it's reciprocal. Both Linus and Sabrina are part of a hypocrisy that betray an endearing defenselessness, and makes them two persons ironically fitting one another. And while Pollack could have kept the movie's track and bring David to make the deal possible, he also develops his seemingly one-dimensional personality.I liked Holden in "Sabrina", and his chemistry with Hepburn was so sincere it really veiled any hint of sentiment toward the elderly Bogart. But Holden's shining moment when he accepts to marry his fiancée almost felt like a deus-ex-machina. How could David finally give Sabrina up so eagerly? Well, Pollack gave me satisfying answers by making David grow up in maturity, by taken into consideration that his character's arc had to be closed by the fact that for the first time, he'll allow his brother to live his life. And strangely, the romantic comedy, also turns into a subtle and positive satire about family relationships in business, allowing Nancy Marchand to shine as the authoritarian, yet compassionate mother.What I admire most in the remake is Pollack's attachment to make the story more believable and endearing by today's standards, he knows he won't reach the same legendary status as the original, but he knows that this very status asks for believability. His characters are extremely well-developed, he gives a spectacular supporting cast to his movies, and the whole film is such a delight to watch, that nothing could have ruined it. The ending was the only hit-or-miss, and while I thought the hug between Hepburn and Bogart was awkward, just a kiss in Paris wouldn't have been enough to ruin the whole efforts.But I wasn't surprised, that Linus would apologize to Sabrina, considering the scene where he broke her heart, a scene whose emotionality clearly surpasses the original. I loved that he asked for her help, because he needed her, and in return open her heart on how much she needs him. That's what I call, a beautiful romance, comedic or not, it was the perfect conclusion for a movie that had so much to prove to be respected, and that even managed to be superior to the original film, and it's one of the rare instances where I'm not hesitant to give it a higher rating.It doesn't diminish the classic status of Billy Wilder's "Sabrina", Julia Osmond is not Audrey Hepburn, and Harrison Ford isn't Bogart, but like I said for the previous film, good ingredient don't necessarily make a good meal, what matters is how the director makes his interactions believable and emotionally appealing. And Pollack brilliantly succeeds in both exercises.

movie-viking Will go back to reread some of the quality IMDb user comments here. A couple of high level commentators can be viewed---above...Is Mom (1954) or Daughter (1995) "SABRINA" better?While I like Daughter SABRINA a tad better---I love both. There are NO LOSERS in this gentle debate...Both SABRINA versions not only have quality leads---they have great supporting casts. Here, maybe I like 1995 SABRINA a bit more---since the supporting characters are more familiar to me...As I write this, Nancy Marchand (as the Larrabee Matriarch) has made yet another one of her dry quips... Angie Dickinson well portrays the emptyheaded once-trophy wife of David's fiancée's equally wealthy family - with Richard Crenna as her husband -And Lauren Holly is the result of the Tyson merger of beauty to brains/wealth - the smart yet beautiful Elisabeth Tyson, MD. - the first sensible female that woman chasing younger brother David has ever fallen for!!!The dialogue in 1995 is silky, gently ironic...and hey...all you would be scriptwriters, movie producers, etc. Study BOTH SABRINAS for how to make quality romantic films. +++++ (NOTE Amazingly, only one (clothed) short pre bedroom scene is in the 1995 version. 99% of this movie succeeds with just great script, production, casting, acting!!! What a novel concept!)Don't waste too much time debating what essentially is personal preference over which wonderful visual desert (Sabrina 1954 or Sabrina 1995) is better....Just see both!!!