Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

danzellmer As the critics of the time remarked, Bogart and Holden were a bit too old to be playing opposite Hepburn. Altough each was entertaining, it really didn't fit, and the result was only cute rather than good. But, the remake was among the most polished works of art that I have ever seen arise from the film industry. From the light touch of the entry music to the bombastic climax in which they prove that "he loves her," every scene has the right background, the right attire, the right attitude, and the perfect fit into a portrait that belongs in The Louvre of film. In this version, Sabrina becomes Sabrina Fair. The interplay between the characters is so subtle that clever lines seem appropriate, as though all conversation was so brilliant and interesting. Ormond steals the movie, but only because she is the centerpiece of the portrait. She is, as Miriam Colon remarks, a princess, and she is displayed as such throughout the post-Paris part of her existence. The interplay between Ormond and Ford works because it is carefully brushed with gentle touches. Unlike the Holden character, Kinnear's character is real and sympathetic. Every member of the cast performs brilliantly, and you celebrate in the success of character actors in pulling off their roles so well. Just sit back and relax and let Wilder take you on a delightful ride that will be among the most enjoyable you have ever had. Listen to the music. Watch the details of every scene. You will still enjoy it after seven or eight trips, and you will want to keep it nearby to provide a few minutes pleasure on a stressful day.

bbewnylorac The lovely locations are the best that can be said about this tepid, half-hearted 1990s remake of the 1950s Audrey Hepburn vehicle. Julia Ormond is a good choice for the title role, but the script just doesn't crackle and fizz like it should, and the story plods along without inviting much interest. And to cast Harrison Ford as Linus, the love interest? I mean, he is too old. Greg Kinnear, as his brother David, is also too old to play a young playboy. And he doesn't have the playboy look. The dialogue is as stilted as a 1940s B-movie. But this is the 1990s. The film's creators seem determined to exclude all signs of modern times, except for the flat screen TVs Linus sells. And this world of society dinner parties and dumb barbie doll women really jars for me in this era. But the biggest anachronism for me is how Sabrina's value and happiness Is portrayed as resting solely in her looks and poise. I mean, the poor girl seems to have no identity in her own right. It's as if her problems will be solved once she hooks a man. She doesn't have any life of her own, and her sappy father, the chauffeur, looks on weakly. Sabrina is living in a daytime soap! And it's boring - for her and for us.

vincentlynch-moonoi There's nothing wrong with this film. It's a good film. With fine actors and performances.But, no matter how wonderful he is, Harrison Ford is not Humphrey Bogart. Julia Ormond is not Audrey Hepburn. And Greg Kinnear is not William Holden.And I think the difference is most easily seen between Bogart and Ford. Ford is one of my favorite actors, and Bogart often wasn't (but every once in a while he was magnificent). But there was something very special and unique about Bogart in the original. Perhaps that it was so against type...making the transformation at the end so much more stunning. But just because you put a pair of professor-style glasses on Harrison Ford, doesn't mean you make him not-sexy (at least nearly 20 years ago when this film was made).People often ask is the story the same in the old and new versions. Superficially, yes. But in reality, there is a key difference. In the Bogart/Hepburn version, Bogart rather suddenly realizes he is in love with Sabrina. In this version, the love grows gradually and is fully realized by Harrison Ford...and confuses him.Another difference, in my view, is what each film "is". This version is a romance movie. The older version was a fairy tale.Harrison Ford is excellent here, and it occurred to me several times while watching the film that it's too bad we didn't see him more often in romantic roles during this career. Julia Ormond was excellent, as well, and it occurred to me that I hadn't seen much of her in recent years...but in looking it up I see that she has remained busy, but mostly not in leading roles. Greg Kinnear was one of those actors who kinda snuck up on me; this was his first significant role, and it made me realize that he was much more talented than I would have thought based on my former experiences seeing him on "Talk Soup".Angie Dickinson has a "nothing" role as the mother of "the other woman", and Richard Crenna's role as the father of the "other woman" was probably the least impressive work he has ever done on celluloid; he was really a very talented supporting actor. It was always a treat seeing Nancy Marchand in a film, and no exception to that here. John Wood as Sabrina's father...very good. A real gem of a performance, which may be often overlooked, is that of Dana Ivey, the secretary! I recommend both the original and this remake, although I doubt the remake will end up being the classic that the original was.

kyle-cruse "Sabrina" is a pretty easily likable romantic comedy, a genre of which I am a fan, even though it is hard to find good ones. This is a decent film, but now that I am comparing it to the 1954 original, it is easier for me to be critical. This movie has a good plot, some humor, and decent romance. Also, I am pleased to find movies like this with so little objectionable content, making it appropriate for the whole family, though the younger ones may not be completely interested. I hate to complain about this movie, but there are a few downsides. It runs too long overall, and it slows down too much toward the end. If you ask me, Harrison Ford doesn't really fit his role and seems to old and lifeless for the part he is intending to play. Also, I'm afraid Greg Kinnear simply cannot fill the brilliance of William Holden's shoes in the original. Julia Ormond takes Audrey Hepburn's role fairly well, but none of these three can possibly compare to the excellence of the original cast. The old film really was not outdated and didn't need to be updated, as films like "The Shop Around the Corner" or "The Parent Trap" did. Despite those things, I'm not going to criticize this film any more. It's good for a date film or when you don't want to think too hard but just want to be entertained and happy. I give it a slight recommendation, but I'd suggest the original with more priority.*** out of ****