High Noon (TV Movie 2000) Poster

(2000 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not quite right
thniels12 January 2002
Comparing this movie to its predecessor is unfair but unavoidable. What I so liked about the old version was how much Gary Cooper loathed violence and how he was left completely isolated to face a duel on his own. None of this showed in this new version and sort of left it without much purpose. That said, I really think Tom Skerrit did a great job acting what was left of Will Kane's character.

Casting Dennis Weaver for this movie was a brilliant idea, by the way.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Poor Substitute for the Original
dale_durnell21 August 2000
Sometimes, a remake can be as good, or better than an original. The 1997 version of Titanic was award winning and the 1998 remake of Les Miserables was outstanding. But, I'm sorry to say that's not so with the TBS, made for television, version of High Noon.

Alright, so I grew up on the original -- but, it's still a classic!

I will admit that in the remake, some of the characters played their roles admirably: Tom Skerritt portrayed a viable Will Kane and Maria Conchita Alonso was superior as Mrs. Ramirez. Even Dennis Weaver was credible as Martin Howe, but I never felt for him and his circumstances the way I felt for Lon Chaney Jr. in the 1952 version. In fact, throughout the entire program, I never got to where I really cared for the characters as I did in the original.

Advance P.R. in the television guides said that the producers wanted a more "vicious" villain, and so cast Michael Madsen as Frank Miller. But, Madsen looks and acts more like Broderick Crawford in "The Highway Patrol" TV series than a villain in the old west. His twin nickel (or chrome) plated Remington revolvers did nothing to enhance the role for him.

In the 1952 version, Fred Zinnemann used a crane to back off and show the loneliness of Kane as he goes about the task before him. The director of the 2000 remake tries to do the same thing, but the effect is no where as dramatic. Something is missing.

In the final scene in the 1952 original, you can see Kane's contempt for the town on the face of Gary Cooper -- contempt for having been left alone, and abandoned. That emotion was totally lacking in the remake and so the ending is almost anti-climactic.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
OK, guys, let's get some brushes and touch up the MONA LISA!
bux21 August 2000
Is it possible to improve perfection? Why try? I saw the original HIGH NOON(1952) when I was six years old, and have seen it hundreds of times since. It is more than just a movie to me, it became the moral code for which I've lived my life. Making tough decisions, I would often (in my mind) hitch up my belt and walk out to face Miller and the old gang. So this new entry didn't have much of a chance with me, I guess. Legend says that the original was first produced without the quick shots to the clocks and the actors faces, and the great Tiomkin score and Ritter ballad. It was brought back in, re-edited and re-scored and a great movie was born. This one needed more than that. Too often in this newer version, the plot was tediously pre-chewed for us, and needless scenes inserted to let us know for sure what was going on. This new version cried out for someone to sing the ballad at the conclusion, but it was not there. However I did find some good points in the newer version. the casting was pretty good, and Madsen as Frank Miller was genius. Guess I'm stuck in the 50s, huh?
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Passable remake
mrm113823 August 2000
I was originally going to pass on watching this one, until I saw in the commercial that the climactic gunfights were filmed in Saving Private Ryan-O-Vision. (I know of no other way to describe this distinctive look--which I realize has been used well before Saving Private Ryan was ever released--and if anyone know how this style is achieved, please contact me via e-mail.) I'm kind of a sucker for that particular technique, so I figured I'd give it a try. Having seen the original only a couple days beforehand, I was fully prepared to be able to pick it apart like crazy.

I was immediately stricken by the opening shot. The silhouettes of Frank Miller's gang against the desert sky was a beautiful image that impressed me right out of the gate. Unfortunately, it became all too apparent that it was made for television, using the many simple, money-saving camera techniques seen in many made-for-TV movies. Aside from that, something just seemed missing from this film, and I just can't put my finger on it. It didn't have the spirit of the original film, nor did it involve me emotionally as the 1952 version did. The aforementioned gunfights were very well-filmed, and a tad bit more exciting than the original, but due to the emotional content, they were much less engaging. Still, though, it was an enjoyable movie.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A noble effort but...
mermatt21 August 2000
Remaking a classic is always a tricky proposition, especially when the classic is so well known and has such a singular style of its own. The original HIGH NOON isn't just a story. It's also the excellent cast, the use of camera, and of course Tiomkin's score that acts like a Greek chorus commenting on the action.

The remake's cast labors nobly to recreate the story, but the camera work and score are missing. For example, the famous crane shot showing Will Kane absolutely alone on the dusty street is not there. It isn't essential, but that shot is part of what makes the original HIGH NOON what it is as a classic. In addition, while the score does express the moods, it is nevertheless conventional.

It was an interesting effort, but of necessity it fails in comparison to the original.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A remarkable remake
bootsnspurs30 September 2000
To "remake" any picture is tough. However, to remake a such a classic Western feature for television is a brave assignment. The filmmakers should be commended for staying with the story line, not trying to "hip it up" and pulling off what so many other filmmakers have missed... a wonderfully updated version of an original that's worthy (of the original picture) as well as entertaining. In some ways this "remake" was better than the original. The photography was beautiful, the cast convincing and the direction never let us wander. Congratulations on the recreation of a wonderful classic.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gary Cooper is still "Will Kane."
ktmphd22 August 2000
This is a very good movie and Skerrit & Alonso give Cooper & Jurado a run for their money. But, it is not up to the drama, tension & insights into human nature of the original movie. Besides, what is High Noon without the song by Tex Ritter?

Michael Madsen is the definitive bad man. It is too bad his time on screen is so limited.

For what it is, this is a dandy and should be seen & enjoyed by all. Just don't think it will be taking over for the original! No way!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
pathetic and naive (effort)- Do not bother to see.
emanuel4215 April 2006
There is nothing to Say for this film. This is a pathetic , not even appreciated effort to create a replica of an old story and a silver screen success of past giants such as actor G.C and director F.Z . Ther is not much to comment about the acting, either- this one is certainly lifeless. Had not the original 1953 version been made and this one was the first to be created with the same title and plot,no impact would even be made on movie goers (or TV observers in this case). It lacks in-depth struggle between the good and the bad, the personal dilemma's the 1953 contained and leaves absolutely no social message....waste of time, switch over to the next channel...
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
worthy remake
Wuchakk12 March 2014
This is a 2000 made-for-TV remake of the 1952 classic Western with Tom Skerritt in the Gary Cooper role. Both films are based on the novel "The Tin Star" by John W. Cunningham.

Skerritt plays just-retired, just-married Marshal Will Kane. He and his bride are informed that a man Kane put in the slammer years ago has been paroled; this owlhoot swore he'd kill Kane when he got out and he's coming in on the noon train. His henchmen are even waiting for him at the train station. Kane and his bride are encouraged to flee for their lives and start their new life together. Why not? -- he's not even a sheriff anymore. But the new Marshal won't arrive for another day or so and something in Kane prevents him from running like a cur with his tail between his legs. He has about an hour and fifteen minutes to marshal up help to make a stand. In addition to all this, his wife is a Quaker who doesn't believe in violence and threatens to leave him if he insists on staying and fighting.

One interesting facet of this Western is that the story plays out in real time. The film runs 88 minutes and Marshal Kane has just over an hour to prepare for the confrontation.

Skerritt does a good job depicting an aging man who is about to face a fight-to-the-death, most likely alone. I'm sure Marshal Kane has better things to do, like enjoy his honeymoon with his beautiful wife (Sussanna Thompson), but his manhood and sense of duty force him to courageously make a stand. This reminds me of times back in High School where I was scheduled to fight someone (after school or whatever). I knew at such-and-such time I was going to face so-and-so and a bunch of people would be watching. The anticipation wasn't fun but my manhood wouldn't let me back down. Of course there's no comparison since Marshal Kane is anticipating a gunfight wherein he could very likely die, not a mere fistfight, but if the anticipation before a fistfight is intense, how much more so a gunfight?

Some criticize the story of "High Noon" on the grounds that it makes the citizens of the average Western town out to be a bunch of cowards but, really, there are no less than four people who are willing to help the Marshal. Many of the others who decline have valid reasons for staying out of the fracas, although some are just plain yella.

Since Kane's new wife is a Quaker the film brings up the idea of total pacifism. While the idea is attractive and I understand her reasoning, total pacifism does not work in this present world. The New Testament does not support the idea of absolute pacifism. It teaches, rather, that pacifism is proper in certain situations and not in others. Jesus' ministry team had a treasury box with loads of money and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves and murderers. Also, Romans 13 clearly states that the righteous laws of human governments are God-ordained for the purpose of punishing criminals, including the right to execute when appropriate. Even in cases where pacifism is called for a disciple is not to idly sit on his/her rump but to fight on a spiritual level and overcome evil with good. The vast majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists who refuse to be BALANCED with the Scriptures on this subject and insist that conflict and especially armed conflict is NEVER appropriate. Kane's wife in the film is such a person, but perhaps she'll discover the error of her beliefs. In any case, "High Noon" makes an important point: Some people are so morally degenerate and evil that execution is the only just ultimate reaction (notice I said "ultimate").

There are quite a few good parts, e.g. Kane's brief talk with the wife of a coward, the church scene and, of course, the ending gunfight.

As for comparisons to the original film, I have no bias or nostalgia. It's been years since I saw it (the '52 version) so it's not fresh in my memory, but I don't see how this remake pales in comparison as many of the reviewers here contend. This rendition is in color, has a good score, good actors and locations (CL Ranch, Calgary, Alberta). What more do you want? It may not have the cinematic pizazz of modern Theatrical Westerns but, if given the choice between the two, I'd probably choose Skerritt's version over the original. Besides, I loathe black & white.

So, why not a higher rating? Despite the story's potential and the anticipation of the gunfight, something prevents "High Noon" (both versions) from being truly captivating. In fact, it almost has a laid-back vibe. Needless to say, those with ADHD should avoid like the plague. Don't get me wrong, I love great drama and intelligent dialogue-driven stories but something needed done to make it a bit more engrossing and emotionally stirring. Still, this is a very worthwhile Western.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good job...
dmckenna-930 September 2009
What got me to watch was the casting of Tom Skerrit as the Marshall. He's a great choice and one of our best actors. Susanna Thompson was equally fine as his new wife. What was lacking for me was not only the absence of Tiomkin and Ritter's contribution, but the essence that made it all work so well was that it was under Fred Zinnemann's direction. There are many fine points to the remake but the original should be used by film schools as a study in technique. The original may look a little dated by now but the impact is still enduring. It only looks dated because the pioneering format it created has been adapted to so many story lines since. I think Hardy did a fine job.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gary Cooper made High Noon his own...
michaelt-4141520 July 2019
This is the first time I felt the need to review a film before I even see it. Tom Skerritt is a super actor, but in High Noon he is no replacement for Gary Cooper. No actor today could have replaced Gary Cooper in a remark, albeit somebody tried, and failed miserably as far as im concerned. In the original Gary Cooper was scared, frighted to death with what he knows he had to do, and Ned Washington's superbly crafted words in the song title convey this superbly, to Dimitri Tiomkin's insightful and beautifully haunting melody.

As a Western, this movie may indeed work, but that's it..

Gary Cooper's hound dog manliness made this movie for me....

I do plan to watch this up to-date version when I can get a copy.

I want to see how it differ's from the original in any other ways.?

The ending in the original when all the towns folk came out from behind their shops and houses as the frightened cowards they were, angered me and put a lump in my throat, then Gary Cooper through his tin star in the dust and walked away with his wife, made me weep inside. Although English in England, I feel America is very much like this today, people just dont care about anybody else.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
There are stories that can always be told!
tmwest21 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There are stories that can always be told. The original "High Noon" had the advantage of the technology of a time where westerns were almost mass produced. And it is one of the best westerns ever made. But this version is worth seeing, and more versions should be made as time goes by, including a version with an alternate ending where the whole town would fight against Miller and his gang. This story has an universal appeal. History tells us that sometimes populations stand up against injustice and sometimes like in Hadleyville they do not. Susanna Thompson is excellent as Amy, Tom Skerrit does a good job but it is hard to forget Gary Cooper. Good shootout at the end, a bit hard to believe, but then this is a movie we have to allow for some fantasy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Liked very much
lucca42027 April 2005
Tom Skerritt was excellent as Will Kane. Though this production differed from the original, it was very enjoyable mostly due to his performance. I believe he is one of films most underestimated actors. His performance caught the agony of Will Kane's dilemma. His immersion into all his roles came through in this performance also. It is always difficult to reproduce a classic but this was an excellent stab at it. I enjoyed this production very much. Though it could not measure up to Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly, it still was a good redo. Tom Skerritt just gets better with age. I hope this production will be shone again soon. It was worth the watch.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
flimbuff22 June 2002
This may seem blasphemous but the original performance of what most people regard as a western classic is actually very dated with the exception of Grace Kelly's performance. This made for TV remake is well done and sticks to the basic plot of the original. Tom Skerrit is well cast as is Michael Madsen. Both give fine performances and for students of film and directors the contrast should between this and Gary Cooper's original should be noted as an example of how a remake should be done. The problem here is that this was made for TV on a limited budget and with some network's approval so don't expect real quality. Just observe and critique how acting and cinematography have developed and you may actually enjoy this and the time honored classic plot.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Give it a 5!!
jd-ford-hd29 July 2012
This one is worth watching but falls far short of the original. The absence of almost any music for much of the movie is disappointing. The intermittent injecting of Ritters singing and the distinctive "box drum" beat throughout the original is genius. The absence of the clock shots was catastrophic. That was the one thing that instilled the intensity of the moment. Remember, this story takes place in less than two hours, just a little longer than the play time of the movie. Michael Madsen, dressed as Woody from Toy Story, was hilarious. Tasselled gloves!!?? Good Lord..!! I did appreciate story line dedication. Set detail was perfect. Not sure why they chose mud instead of dust for the streets tho. All in all the characters were well portrayed.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Comparison with Original 1952 version
a-haines1411 January 2010
I saw the original version in 1952 when I was 11 years old. I have since seen it so many times that I know the script word for word. I prefer the original version.

Cinema is all about creating 'moments' for fans. For one of the best moments in cinematic history - in my opinion - please have a look at the scene in the original, where Cooper asks for help, between Gary Cooper and Lon Chaney Jnr. Some people said that Chaney wasn't really an actor - he was!! This scene proves it. I also think Katy Jurado is more of a firecracker than Maria Alonso. Classics are hard to remake - this 2000 version tries hard.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent remake!
Movie Nuttball13 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Minor Spoilers

This remake of High Noon is another good western with a big build up that delivers with Gladiator-like camra work and is arguably better than its predecessor. Tom Skerritt, Dennis Weaver, Michael Madsen, and Maria Conchita Alonso. All was good and Maria looked great! Michael Madsen played the bad guy really well. Good remake and if you are a fan of the original then you`ll love this!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
the coolest western ever
theborg1228 May 2001
this film was originally made by tbs (superstation) and stars tom skerritt as marshal of hadleyville, will kane. the 1952 version of HIGH NOON which starred gary cooper i liked. i watched it in school and read the screenplay before we watched it. but the problem with the original high noon was the fact that they played only the high noon theme by tex ritter. in the film with tom skerritt they did not repeat any songs.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed