Although terribly predictable and a bit too long, this film is kind of sweet. Ford shines as in his typical role of comically aloof and Ormand plays her lead well. Good chemistry and cinematography.
149 Reviews
Kind of sweet
Calicodreamin14 December 2021
OK but better the first time around with Audrey
s007davis26 January 2001
Passable but overlong remake of the classic Audrey Hepburn vehicle will play best for those not familiar with the original. The cast(Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, Greg Kinnear) performs well and its production values are high but director Sydney Pollack's pacing tends to flag. By contrast, Billy Wilder's direction of the 1954 version is much tighter and quicker. Interestingly this "Sabrina" is 15 minutes longer than its predecessor but thanks to Pollack those extra 15 minutes feel like 30. Also, Barbara Benedek's and David Rayfiel's script lacks the wittiness that scenarists Billy Wilder, Samuel Taylor("Vertigo") and Ernest Lehman("The Prize," "North by Northwest") provided the first time around.
Bottom line: 6 out 10.
Bottom line: 6 out 10.
The epitome of romantic!
TopDawg17 November 1999
Romantic is the word for this movie. The story, the settings, everything adds up to romantic. And it's clean - no gratuitous sex scenes or foul language! A rarity for a 90s movie. This movie has a timeless quality to it, and part of the reason is the (again) extremely romantic score! Many critics panned this version of "Sabrina", unfairly comparing it to the original Audrey Hepburn "Sabrina". Nobody could ever compare to Audrey Hepburn, but Julia Ormond is a fine Sabrina in her own right. She makes the transition from awkward teen to glamorous woman with subtlety and grace. Greg Kinnear shows a natural flair for acting in his first major movie role.
Harrison Ford has difficulties as romantic lead
SnoopyStyle11 July 2014
Sabrina Fairchild (Julia Ormond) grew up as the mousy daughter of the chauffeur (John Wood) of the wealthy Larrabee family on the north shore of Long Island. It was a grand estate and she would spy on their grand parties from a tree. Maude Larrabee (Nancy Marchand) inherited the Larrabee Corporation from her dead husband. Cold-hearted Linus Larrabee (Harrison Ford) took the company to even greater heights. David (Greg Kinnear) is the playboy son who Sabrina is completely infatuated with. She goes off to Paris to work on Vogue as a lowly assistant. She slowly moves away from her David infatuation to a love affair with a photographer. Meanwhile David is falling for Elizabeth Tyson (Lauren Holly) whose family business Linus wants to merge with. Elizabeth wants to marry David but he is reluctant to let go of his playboy lifestyle. Sabrina comes home and David doesn't recognize her at first. David becomes infatuated threatening to derail the marriage plans and Linus' big business deal.
The movie is asking too much of Julia Ormond. She looks too old to play a teenager. She is also too young to play the love interest for Harrison Ford. Their chemistry is way too cold. That is the biggest missing element. Greg Kinnear actually has better chemistry. They could have worked together in a romance. Harrison Ford is not good in this role. In fact, I have difficulty pointing to any good romantic leading roles for him that actually worked without an action thriller. However, the movie has the solid foundations of the '54 film. That much is there. It has some great scenes. It seems to always work when Julia Ormond gets emotionally walloped. She's possibly the best part of the movie. Ford just doesn't have that extra gear to be the sensitive romantic lead when the movie calls for it.
The movie is asking too much of Julia Ormond. She looks too old to play a teenager. She is also too young to play the love interest for Harrison Ford. Their chemistry is way too cold. That is the biggest missing element. Greg Kinnear actually has better chemistry. They could have worked together in a romance. Harrison Ford is not good in this role. In fact, I have difficulty pointing to any good romantic leading roles for him that actually worked without an action thriller. However, the movie has the solid foundations of the '54 film. That much is there. It has some great scenes. It seems to always work when Julia Ormond gets emotionally walloped. She's possibly the best part of the movie. Ford just doesn't have that extra gear to be the sensitive romantic lead when the movie calls for it.
Business before pleasure....but not love
helpless_dancer13 June 2002
Like Sandra Bullock in "Love Potion #9", Julia Ormond went from being an ugly duckling to a swan and capturing the heart of a wealthy man who had barely noticed her before. But love turned out to be a logjam to big business so a game of high stakes emotional chicanery was launched only to turn out with unintended results. I loved this one: makes me want to see the original.
Passable remake about a chauffeur's daughter romanced by a likable young and his older brother , an aging tycoon
ma-cortes4 June 2016
Light though overlong romantic comedy-remake (of the 1954 classic movie) with nice actors , luxurious scenarios and decent direction . The known story of Sabrina (this role is a good vehicle for Julia Ormond) , the chauffeur's daughter , who falls in love for a millionaire (Greg Kinnear in his film debut) , the handsome younger brother in the wealthy mansion where her daddy works . But then , his older brother (Harrison Ford a solid acting by this veteran actor) and their mother (Nancy Marchand) are opposed to this relation. As the older sibling attempts to woo her away for for strictly business issues .
Enjoyable romantic tale of a well-known story based on Samuel Taylor play titled ¨Sabrina Fair¨; it is packed with comedy , romance , agreeable situations and overall , emotion . Including some scenes from Paris which are particularly lovely and fun . Interesting and amusing screenplay based on the script written long time ago by Billy Wilder , Ernest Lehman and Samuel Taylor , being rightly adapted with surehand writing by David Rayfield and Barbara Benedek . Main cast is frankly excellent , though Julia Ormond as gorgeous young who has a longlife crush on Greg Kinnear -as a womanizer billionaire- are far from Audrey Hepburn and William Holden respectively . This fine cast works , giving acceptable interpretations , though inferior to original and classic picture (1954) by Billy Wilder and starred by Humphrey Bogart , Audrey Hepburn, , John Williams , Martha Hyer , Francis X Bushman . Support cast is pretty well , and plenty of familiar faces such as John Wood , Richard Crenna , Dana Ivey , Paul Giamatti , Lauren Holly , Fanny Ardant , Patrick Bruel , Elizabeth Franz , John Wood as the old chauffeur of the household where Sabrina falls in love , among others . Colorful as well as glamorous cinematography by Giuseppe Rotunno , Federico Fellini,'s regular cameraman . Marvelous and sensitive musical score by the great comp0ser John Williams , Spielberg's usual.
This motion picture reboot -acceptable if overlong for a romantic yarn- was professionaly directed by Sidney Pollack , but without originality . Polack (dead at 72) was a classic writer and filmmaker who wrote and directed several successes such as ¨Jeremiah Johnson¨ , ¨Three days of the Condor¨ , ¨Out of Africa¨, ¨The Keep¨, The interpreter¨ , ¨Tootsie¨ , ¨The Firm¨ and many others .
Enjoyable romantic tale of a well-known story based on Samuel Taylor play titled ¨Sabrina Fair¨; it is packed with comedy , romance , agreeable situations and overall , emotion . Including some scenes from Paris which are particularly lovely and fun . Interesting and amusing screenplay based on the script written long time ago by Billy Wilder , Ernest Lehman and Samuel Taylor , being rightly adapted with surehand writing by David Rayfield and Barbara Benedek . Main cast is frankly excellent , though Julia Ormond as gorgeous young who has a longlife crush on Greg Kinnear -as a womanizer billionaire- are far from Audrey Hepburn and William Holden respectively . This fine cast works , giving acceptable interpretations , though inferior to original and classic picture (1954) by Billy Wilder and starred by Humphrey Bogart , Audrey Hepburn, , John Williams , Martha Hyer , Francis X Bushman . Support cast is pretty well , and plenty of familiar faces such as John Wood , Richard Crenna , Dana Ivey , Paul Giamatti , Lauren Holly , Fanny Ardant , Patrick Bruel , Elizabeth Franz , John Wood as the old chauffeur of the household where Sabrina falls in love , among others . Colorful as well as glamorous cinematography by Giuseppe Rotunno , Federico Fellini,'s regular cameraman . Marvelous and sensitive musical score by the great comp0ser John Williams , Spielberg's usual.
This motion picture reboot -acceptable if overlong for a romantic yarn- was professionaly directed by Sidney Pollack , but without originality . Polack (dead at 72) was a classic writer and filmmaker who wrote and directed several successes such as ¨Jeremiah Johnson¨ , ¨Three days of the Condor¨ , ¨Out of Africa¨, ¨The Keep¨, The interpreter¨ , ¨Tootsie¨ , ¨The Firm¨ and many others .
Skip this one - Billy Wilder did it better
gcf412 February 2006
Sabrina - the Harrison Ford version. I'd never given this flick a chance until recently, because of the Bogart/Audrey Hepburn version. The story line is adjusted from 1954 to 1995, but with little respect for the earlier Taylor/Wilder script. Maybe it's a dumbing-down thing. In '54, the characters really didn't understand what was happening to and around them. That's half the fun of the script - figuring these people out, and then wondering when they'll get it themselves. No such thought-provocation in '95. Everyone knows just what they're thinking and doing and saying, and they play it out with the all subtlety of a Louisville Slugger. Nothing to figure out here. Apparently director Sydney Pollack can't trust his audience with that.
Still, there are a few laughs. It's not a waste of time unless you've got something better to do.
Still, there are a few laughs. It's not a waste of time unless you've got something better to do.
A romantic comedy doesn't get better than this
AnnikaLen6 March 2005
I saw the original "Sabrina" before ever seeing the remake. I adored Audrey Hepburn in all of her movies, and this was not an exception. Her comedic timing was perfect. She was completely believable as a young ingenue, and of course, she would not be Audrey Hepburn if she weren't absolutely breakthtaking on screen. But while I enjoyed the original, I have seen it only once, whereas I have seen the remake so many times I have lost count!
The 1995 "Sabrina" is a gem of a film. I keep hearing myself describe it as funny, but sometimes I wonder if that's even the right word. That's because except for that rather unexpected burst of laughter from Linus' secretary, which cracks me up EVERY time I get to that part, I have never found myself laughing aloud while watching this movie. But the humor is so cleverly written, it is impossible to ignore just how charming and comical this movie is.
The script is wonderfully brought to life by the outstanding cast. Harrison Ford is superb as Linus Larrabee. He plays Linus as a serious and almost ruthless businessman, and yet gains our sympathy as he gradually shows a tender and vulnerable side to Linus' cool exterior. Greg Kinnear is well-cast as Linus' dish of a younger brother, David. True, David is self-centered, careless, and carefree. But Greg Kinnear plays him with utter charm that we understand why Sabrina and women in general are so taken with him. And what of Julia Ormond? Well, I think she was absolutely perfect as Sabrina. If she had felt any trepidation essaying the role that had been so closely identified with an icon like Audrey Hepburn, none of her nerves translated on to the screen. She IS Sabrina. I think it's a wonderful combination of her beauty and acting skills that helped her succeed in this role. The sincerity of her performance makes Sabrina so appealing and completely lovable.
The performances of the three leads are complemented by a fine supporting cast made up of John Wood, Nancy Marchand, Dana Ivey, Richard Crenna, and Angie Dickinson. Some of the film's funniest moments involve their characters. And then there is the exquisite soundtrack composed by John Williams. The score is at once dreamy and intoxicating. Two songs that were written for the movie, "(In the) Moonlight" and "How Can I Remember?", are just as memorable and perfectly capture the feelings of romance and longing.
Hollywood has made a number of successful romantic movies, and I think "Sabrina" ranks as one of its best. Its charm never wears off. It sweeps you off your feet and makes your heart soar. It is a marvelous, marvelous film!
The 1995 "Sabrina" is a gem of a film. I keep hearing myself describe it as funny, but sometimes I wonder if that's even the right word. That's because except for that rather unexpected burst of laughter from Linus' secretary, which cracks me up EVERY time I get to that part, I have never found myself laughing aloud while watching this movie. But the humor is so cleverly written, it is impossible to ignore just how charming and comical this movie is.
The script is wonderfully brought to life by the outstanding cast. Harrison Ford is superb as Linus Larrabee. He plays Linus as a serious and almost ruthless businessman, and yet gains our sympathy as he gradually shows a tender and vulnerable side to Linus' cool exterior. Greg Kinnear is well-cast as Linus' dish of a younger brother, David. True, David is self-centered, careless, and carefree. But Greg Kinnear plays him with utter charm that we understand why Sabrina and women in general are so taken with him. And what of Julia Ormond? Well, I think she was absolutely perfect as Sabrina. If she had felt any trepidation essaying the role that had been so closely identified with an icon like Audrey Hepburn, none of her nerves translated on to the screen. She IS Sabrina. I think it's a wonderful combination of her beauty and acting skills that helped her succeed in this role. The sincerity of her performance makes Sabrina so appealing and completely lovable.
The performances of the three leads are complemented by a fine supporting cast made up of John Wood, Nancy Marchand, Dana Ivey, Richard Crenna, and Angie Dickinson. Some of the film's funniest moments involve their characters. And then there is the exquisite soundtrack composed by John Williams. The score is at once dreamy and intoxicating. Two songs that were written for the movie, "(In the) Moonlight" and "How Can I Remember?", are just as memorable and perfectly capture the feelings of romance and longing.
Hollywood has made a number of successful romantic movies, and I think "Sabrina" ranks as one of its best. Its charm never wears off. It sweeps you off your feet and makes your heart soar. It is a marvelous, marvelous film!
A wonderful retelling of a classic romantic comedy
=G=6 July 2002
"Sabrina" 1995 tells of a young chauffeur's daughter (Ormond) who grows up in the shadow of a wealthy family with two eligible bachelors; one all work (Ford) and the other all play (Kinnear). Forever in love with the latter as a girl, Sabrina studies in Paris and returns years later to the estate and the dreams of her childhood which she must now address as woman. A wistful contemporary Cinderella story with a solid cast and plenty of dreamy John Williams music, "Sabrina" is a must see for all lovers of romantic comedy. B+
The Salvation of Linus the King
TerrellFritz4 December 2004
Tempting though it may be to compare this film to the 1954 version, you will miss the point if you do. To understand the true magic of Sydney Pollack's masterpiece, read the Samuel A. Taylor play both films were based on. While I'm sure the play was a great evening out at the theater between martinis in the 1950s, it's somewhat incredible that two film versions so profoundly translated this lightweight romantic comedy, each in its own time.
In 1954, Billy Wilder used an incredible cast to entertain. No, Bogart should never have been cast. Cary Grant might have created the dynamic relationship with Audrey Hepburn we fortunately got to see later in Charade, but if Bogart had not been cast would the film hold its classic status? Hepburn transfixed an audience and brought to the world La Vie en Rose. William Holden is period eye candy, and the film will always be fun.
Forty years later, however, Pollack made an important film. Taylor's play is, after all, just a fairy tale, and this film fully realizes it. Ormond is enchanting. Kinnear ripens the always empty David. Fanny Ardant brings a french cinema quality to the film's Paris episodes. Marchand's "I didn't teach you this" culminates what may be one of the best written scenes in American film. You can watch this scene over and over and each time gain a better understanding of how great acting can define a relationship, this one between mother and son, for an audience.
But this film should have been called Linus. Harrison Ford's tour de force performance as the greater Larrabee fulfills Pollack's mission to tell a simple story of how a king is transformed by the love of a woman.
"It was a lie, then it was a dream."
In 1954, Billy Wilder used an incredible cast to entertain. No, Bogart should never have been cast. Cary Grant might have created the dynamic relationship with Audrey Hepburn we fortunately got to see later in Charade, but if Bogart had not been cast would the film hold its classic status? Hepburn transfixed an audience and brought to the world La Vie en Rose. William Holden is period eye candy, and the film will always be fun.
Forty years later, however, Pollack made an important film. Taylor's play is, after all, just a fairy tale, and this film fully realizes it. Ormond is enchanting. Kinnear ripens the always empty David. Fanny Ardant brings a french cinema quality to the film's Paris episodes. Marchand's "I didn't teach you this" culminates what may be one of the best written scenes in American film. You can watch this scene over and over and each time gain a better understanding of how great acting can define a relationship, this one between mother and son, for an audience.
But this film should have been called Linus. Harrison Ford's tour de force performance as the greater Larrabee fulfills Pollack's mission to tell a simple story of how a king is transformed by the love of a woman.
"It was a lie, then it was a dream."
Sydney Pollack is not Billy Wilder, or a world lost...
dollywest7 June 2019
Anyone who loves Billy Wilder's Sabrina from 1954 will be intrigued by this re-make of the classic, which has a certain amount of charm of its own. Unfortunately, it is a remake of a classic, and it only stands on its own feet if you've never seen the first Sabrina. One of the reviews I read points out that this later Sabrina is suited to its time, the 1990s -- granted. And the script cleverly updates a lot of details from the earlier period -- but... this is where it begins to lose seriously. And it's not so much the artistic prowess of director and actors but indeed the world of the 1990s as opposed to that of the 1950s, and what that earlier world had to offer in aspirations to style, to charm, to luxury. Anyone who ever crossed the Atlantic on an ocean liner and personally knows the difference between that experience and any airline flight, including the (now defunct) Concorde, is struck by what has been lost, and it is considerable indeed (even if the original 25,000 krone inflates to one million dollars)... The original actors -- the incomparable Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, William Holden (titans indeed) -- radiated the spirit of their time, imbued as they were with the style and luxury that was theirs. The very competent but -- inevitably by comparison -- bland Julia Ormond, Harrison Ford, Greg Kinnear offer up what they can from their time, the 1990s, but -- not any particular fault of theirs -- it's a paler world, and Sydney Pollack is not Billy Wilder, how could he be...
(Years later) just to say, Sabrina 1995 has grown on me... mainly by Harrison Ford's solid charm -- this remake could be called "Linus"... Audrey Hepburn entrances us with her magic sparkle, but here Harrison Ford holds everything together, and walks away with it.
(Years later) just to say, Sabrina 1995 has grown on me... mainly by Harrison Ford's solid charm -- this remake could be called "Linus"... Audrey Hepburn entrances us with her magic sparkle, but here Harrison Ford holds everything together, and walks away with it.
Hated it!
YorkvilleGirl4 October 2005
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, of course. Still, it just saddened me that so many people seem to prefer this to the original. Sure, in the original, Bogart was a bit miscast but hey! He was still Bogie. (anyhow, supposedly Cary Grant was an original choice and they even considered Holden for the Linus role instead) The point is - it was a single, cohesive storyline, with distinctly drawn characters and impeccable pacing. I really wanted to love the remake, but the most glaring flaw was the narcoleptic Julia Ormond. She has the uncanny ability to suck the oxygen out of any room. She actually seemed BORED with the role...as if it weren't artsy enough for her. She was just dull, lifeless and frankly, quite unexceptional. You never got what the fuss was about. If they had to remake it - why cast such a freaking LOX when there were so many delightful, charismatic young actresses who could have given the film a sporting chance? I just don't get what so many people seem to find so enchanting about this utterly forgettable bore.
Only for the absolute fans of romantic comedies.
philip_vanderveken22 June 2005
This movie is a remake of the original "Sabrina" from 1954 and it shows. I haven't seen the original movie yet, but I've got the feeling that, except for changing the cast and giving them some new costumes, they haven't done anything to modernize the movie. Some will say that's a good thing, but in my opinion a movie from the mid nineties shouldn't exactly feel the same as one from the mid fifties. Each time period has a different atmosphere and that should be shown in the movie. Now this looks like a very (yes, maybe even too) naive movie.
The Larrabees are a wealthy and prominent Long Island family who have their own driver. The driver has always lived on the estate with his family and while his daughter, Sabrina, was growing up, she spent a lot of her time hidden in a tree, watching the Larrabee family and their garden parties. She knew them all: Maude, the modern matriarch of the family and their company; Linus, the serious older son who has expanded the successful family business into the world's largest communications company and David, the most handsome one of the two brothers who hasn't worked a day in his life, who has had plenty of girlfriends and who is the center of Sabrina's young world. But David doesn't see her as a potential girlfriend and when Sabrina is sent to Paris, he completely forgets about her. Now, after working two years for Vogue magazine in Paris, Sabrina has returned to the Larrabee estate. But she no longer is the insecure teenager she was when she left. She has blossomed into a beautiful and sophisticated woman, making spin the heads of more than one man...
As I already said, the story and actually the entire movie is incredibly naive. I don't mind about that when I see it in a fifties movie, but this is a remake. This was shot in the nineties. So much more is possible. I'm certainly not saying she immediately should have started a sexual relationship with David, but the story should have had more than a slight face lift. On the other hand I must also admit that the acting in this movie wasn't bad. Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, Greg Kinnear and Nancy Marchand certainly know how to play their roles convincingly, but it just isn't enough to save the entire movie. That's the main reason why I give this movie a 6.5/10. This is only for the absolute fans of romantic comedies.
The Larrabees are a wealthy and prominent Long Island family who have their own driver. The driver has always lived on the estate with his family and while his daughter, Sabrina, was growing up, she spent a lot of her time hidden in a tree, watching the Larrabee family and their garden parties. She knew them all: Maude, the modern matriarch of the family and their company; Linus, the serious older son who has expanded the successful family business into the world's largest communications company and David, the most handsome one of the two brothers who hasn't worked a day in his life, who has had plenty of girlfriends and who is the center of Sabrina's young world. But David doesn't see her as a potential girlfriend and when Sabrina is sent to Paris, he completely forgets about her. Now, after working two years for Vogue magazine in Paris, Sabrina has returned to the Larrabee estate. But she no longer is the insecure teenager she was when she left. She has blossomed into a beautiful and sophisticated woman, making spin the heads of more than one man...
As I already said, the story and actually the entire movie is incredibly naive. I don't mind about that when I see it in a fifties movie, but this is a remake. This was shot in the nineties. So much more is possible. I'm certainly not saying she immediately should have started a sexual relationship with David, but the story should have had more than a slight face lift. On the other hand I must also admit that the acting in this movie wasn't bad. Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, Greg Kinnear and Nancy Marchand certainly know how to play their roles convincingly, but it just isn't enough to save the entire movie. That's the main reason why I give this movie a 6.5/10. This is only for the absolute fans of romantic comedies.
Paris is always a good idea. Remaking classics on the other hand...
MissSimonetta27 June 2020
My mother loves the original SABRINA with Audrey Hepburn and turned this one off after an hour. I was with her at the time and she said that the whole thing struck her as badly paced and much more poorly cast than the original. I picked up the rest of the movie on my own the next day, though I admit, I too was tempted to leave it unfinished. But I'm glad I didn't. SABRINA 1995 isn't that bad, but it is in every way a pale shadow of the original. Wilder's direction was much more assured while I don't think Sydney Pollack wholly believed in the material here-- the movie tries very hard to update the story to the 1990s, which ironically makes certain elements of the plot feel even more dated.
For me, the weakest parts are Julia Ormond and Greg Kinnear in the Hepburn and William Holden roles. Neither have the same charisma or romantic allure as their 1950s counterparts. David Larrabee goes from being a charming rogue in the 1954 version to an outright manchild in 1995, and Sabrina just seems like a deer in the headlights the whole time. I never bought her confidence at all. Harrison Ford pretty much carries the whole movie as Linus-- his performance as Linus Larrabee is the only improvement the movie has over the original (Bogart was good but so clearly did not want to be there). Unlike the original, I can see this Linus and this Sabrina living happily ever after in a relationship since, for all my complaints about Ormond, she does at least have chemistry with Ford.
I feel bad constantly comparing this movie to the original, but that's the price any remake pays when it's redoing a classic. The older film was simply better at telling its story, not wasting time with needless digressions such as another love interest for Sabrina in Paris. The newer version, though it has its charms, just cannot compare.
For me, the weakest parts are Julia Ormond and Greg Kinnear in the Hepburn and William Holden roles. Neither have the same charisma or romantic allure as their 1950s counterparts. David Larrabee goes from being a charming rogue in the 1954 version to an outright manchild in 1995, and Sabrina just seems like a deer in the headlights the whole time. I never bought her confidence at all. Harrison Ford pretty much carries the whole movie as Linus-- his performance as Linus Larrabee is the only improvement the movie has over the original (Bogart was good but so clearly did not want to be there). Unlike the original, I can see this Linus and this Sabrina living happily ever after in a relationship since, for all my complaints about Ormond, she does at least have chemistry with Ford.
I feel bad constantly comparing this movie to the original, but that's the price any remake pays when it's redoing a classic. The older film was simply better at telling its story, not wasting time with needless digressions such as another love interest for Sabrina in Paris. The newer version, though it has its charms, just cannot compare.
Bad remake
xredgarnetx22 April 2007
Harrison Ford takes on the Humphrey Bogart role in the Sidney Pollack remake of Billy Wilder's 1954 SABRINA. Greg Kinnear plays his younger brother, and Julia Ormond plays Sabrina, the free-spirited daughter of the chauffeur for the massive estate run by Ford and his mommy (Nancy Marchand). Sabrina comes home from a long stay in Paris at an awkward moment for the wealthy family, and it is up to the stuffy, aloof Ford to persuade her to return to Paris. Ford is much too old for his role, although he is very convincing in his portrayal of an obsessed business tycoon. You'd almost think he was appearing in another movie, something involving, say, a murder or kidnaping. Ormond is not nearly appealing as Audrey Hepburn from the original, and in fact she is less appealing than her costar Lauren Holly, who plays a doctor soon to marry Kinnear. So I don't buy that Ford eventually falls for Ormond at all. I also didn't give a hoot about the details of the family business. Kinnear, who is actually pretty funny as Harrison's kid brother, is inexplicably left out of the entire middle of the movie so that it can focus on Ford wooing the confused Sabrina, who thinks she loves Kinnear but then decides she loves Ford. Yuck. Imagine kissing the wrinkly-faced Ford. I would have some fun with Ormond's lackluster performance and undistinguished appearance right about here, but instead let it be said that it simply was a bad idea to remake this film. SABRINA 1995 was not Ormond's fault.
Cinderella has nothing on her
DennisLittrell17 December 2002
I was surprised at how good this movie is. A remake of a movie starring Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart and William Holden, directed by one of the greats of American cinema, Billy Wilder, is not exactly the kind of task for the faint of heart. The fact that Sydney Pollack (They Shoot Horses Don't They? (1969), Tootsie (1982), Out of Africa (1985), etc.) decided to do it must have raised a few eyebrows in Hollywood land.
And let's just say I had preconceptions as I sat down to watch this. No way could this be anything near as good as the original. And for the first twenty minutes or so I was not dissuaded. Julia Ormond, who was given Miss Hepburn's title role, seemed nothing far removed from ordinary; and Greg Kinnear, who played the playboy David Larrabee, seemed a poor imitation of William Holden. Of course Harrison Ford, I told myself, is another story, since he is the embodiment of the fulfillment of the desire of many woman, and a fine, accomplished leading man. He would be, I suspected, the lone bright spot. In the original, Humphrey Bogart, a little past his prime, and in not exactly the best of moods, and not entirely pleased with the relatively inexperienced Audrey Hepburn, played the cool tycoon Linus Larrabee with some distracted forbearance in what many consider one of his lesser performances. Surely Harrison Ford could improve on that.
He did, but what really surprised me was just how diabolically clever the oh, so romantic script by Barbara Benedek and David Rayfiel turned out to be. I mean, Cinderella move over. Sabrina could not have achieved a more glorious existence had she died and gone to heaven. It is hard to imagine a more fulfilling fantasy for a chauffeur's daughter than what transpires here.
Quickly here's the premise of this celluloid fairy tale/romance: Pretty but ordinary Sabrina, born of working class parents, her father the chauffeur of the ultra rich Larrabees, grows up living above the garage in the palatial Larrabee estate. She watches the lavish parties thrown by the Larrabees from a spot in a tree and falls madly in the kind of puppy love that never goes away with the younger of the Larrabee brothers, David, who is the kind of guy who gives playboys a bad name. When she comes of age, she goes away to Paris (apparently to work for a fashion magazine: in the original Sabrina, she goes to a cooking school in Paris), picks up confidence and a new kind of eye-popping sophistication, comes back and...well, gets noticed.
The basic skeleton of this, the story from the first Sabrina (1954), which is dreamily romantic enough and then some, is greatly augmented here with some very fine psychological touches including developing Sabrina's character beyond the pretty and stylish to something bordering on the wise and heroic. Suffice it to say that we come away feeling she deserves every rainbow's end she gets. I can see Benedek and Rayfiel exclaiming with riotous joy as they are writing the script (trading e-mails perhaps): "They want romance, they want woman's fantasy? They want Sabrina to have a pot of gold and true love everlasting? How about riches beyond counting and the doting attention of the two handsome, very rich brothers? She can take her pick. We've give 'em romance, we'll give 'em dreams come true!" And they do. Not only that, but they keep us guessing about who gets the girl until the last possible moment, and they do that very cleverly.
Of course it helps to have professional direction by Sydney Pollack and a fine cast including Harrison Ford--at his best, by the way--and Julia Ormond, a hard-working and talented actress (I recall her from Smilla's Sense of Snow, 1997), who knows how to be cute without fawning, supported by Greg Kinnear, Nancy Marchand, John Wood and Angie Dickinson. I mention Miss Dickinson because, as the mother of a perspective bride about to throw an incredibly lavish wedding, she gets to deliver this "let them eat cake" line: "We thought we'd use recycled paper" (for the wedding invitations).
The script is full of similar witticisms, some verbal, some like eye candy. For example, when Sabrina removes her glasses (the usual Hollywood signal for the adolescent ugly duckling to become a beautiful swan) after gaining sophistication in Paris, she quotes aptly but surprisingly from Gertrude Stein: "America is my country and Paris is my home." (Of course Gertrude Stein never heard of Paris, Texas--but that is another film, and besides, I digress...)
I also liked it when Sabrina is in the arms of her Paris would-be lover who kisses her, and--noticing that she is not as engaged as she might me–observes with perfect decorum, "I'm embarrassed that you're somewhere else."
Memorable was the shot of Harrison Ford momentarily looking jealous and hurt. By the way, he has a number of good lines, and he delivers them well.
I especially liked it when he sadly confessed: "I was sent to deal with you. I sent myself."
It is probably better if you haven't seen the original and can experience this on its own merits without the odiousness that sometimes comes with comparisons. Comparing Audrey Hepburn with Julia Ormond is like comparing Grace Kelly with Jennifer Lopez. They really are very different people. And comparing Billy Wilder's 1954 film (from the play by Samuel Taylor) is a little like comparing Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera with Andrew Lloyd Webber's.
Bottom line: see this for both Harrison Ford who wears the business-first character of the "only surviving heart donor" very well, and for Julia Ormond whose intense and beguiling performance makes us forgive her for not being Audrey Hepburn.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
And let's just say I had preconceptions as I sat down to watch this. No way could this be anything near as good as the original. And for the first twenty minutes or so I was not dissuaded. Julia Ormond, who was given Miss Hepburn's title role, seemed nothing far removed from ordinary; and Greg Kinnear, who played the playboy David Larrabee, seemed a poor imitation of William Holden. Of course Harrison Ford, I told myself, is another story, since he is the embodiment of the fulfillment of the desire of many woman, and a fine, accomplished leading man. He would be, I suspected, the lone bright spot. In the original, Humphrey Bogart, a little past his prime, and in not exactly the best of moods, and not entirely pleased with the relatively inexperienced Audrey Hepburn, played the cool tycoon Linus Larrabee with some distracted forbearance in what many consider one of his lesser performances. Surely Harrison Ford could improve on that.
He did, but what really surprised me was just how diabolically clever the oh, so romantic script by Barbara Benedek and David Rayfiel turned out to be. I mean, Cinderella move over. Sabrina could not have achieved a more glorious existence had she died and gone to heaven. It is hard to imagine a more fulfilling fantasy for a chauffeur's daughter than what transpires here.
Quickly here's the premise of this celluloid fairy tale/romance: Pretty but ordinary Sabrina, born of working class parents, her father the chauffeur of the ultra rich Larrabees, grows up living above the garage in the palatial Larrabee estate. She watches the lavish parties thrown by the Larrabees from a spot in a tree and falls madly in the kind of puppy love that never goes away with the younger of the Larrabee brothers, David, who is the kind of guy who gives playboys a bad name. When she comes of age, she goes away to Paris (apparently to work for a fashion magazine: in the original Sabrina, she goes to a cooking school in Paris), picks up confidence and a new kind of eye-popping sophistication, comes back and...well, gets noticed.
The basic skeleton of this, the story from the first Sabrina (1954), which is dreamily romantic enough and then some, is greatly augmented here with some very fine psychological touches including developing Sabrina's character beyond the pretty and stylish to something bordering on the wise and heroic. Suffice it to say that we come away feeling she deserves every rainbow's end she gets. I can see Benedek and Rayfiel exclaiming with riotous joy as they are writing the script (trading e-mails perhaps): "They want romance, they want woman's fantasy? They want Sabrina to have a pot of gold and true love everlasting? How about riches beyond counting and the doting attention of the two handsome, very rich brothers? She can take her pick. We've give 'em romance, we'll give 'em dreams come true!" And they do. Not only that, but they keep us guessing about who gets the girl until the last possible moment, and they do that very cleverly.
Of course it helps to have professional direction by Sydney Pollack and a fine cast including Harrison Ford--at his best, by the way--and Julia Ormond, a hard-working and talented actress (I recall her from Smilla's Sense of Snow, 1997), who knows how to be cute without fawning, supported by Greg Kinnear, Nancy Marchand, John Wood and Angie Dickinson. I mention Miss Dickinson because, as the mother of a perspective bride about to throw an incredibly lavish wedding, she gets to deliver this "let them eat cake" line: "We thought we'd use recycled paper" (for the wedding invitations).
The script is full of similar witticisms, some verbal, some like eye candy. For example, when Sabrina removes her glasses (the usual Hollywood signal for the adolescent ugly duckling to become a beautiful swan) after gaining sophistication in Paris, she quotes aptly but surprisingly from Gertrude Stein: "America is my country and Paris is my home." (Of course Gertrude Stein never heard of Paris, Texas--but that is another film, and besides, I digress...)
I also liked it when Sabrina is in the arms of her Paris would-be lover who kisses her, and--noticing that she is not as engaged as she might me–observes with perfect decorum, "I'm embarrassed that you're somewhere else."
Memorable was the shot of Harrison Ford momentarily looking jealous and hurt. By the way, he has a number of good lines, and he delivers them well.
I especially liked it when he sadly confessed: "I was sent to deal with you. I sent myself."
It is probably better if you haven't seen the original and can experience this on its own merits without the odiousness that sometimes comes with comparisons. Comparing Audrey Hepburn with Julia Ormond is like comparing Grace Kelly with Jennifer Lopez. They really are very different people. And comparing Billy Wilder's 1954 film (from the play by Samuel Taylor) is a little like comparing Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera with Andrew Lloyd Webber's.
Bottom line: see this for both Harrison Ford who wears the business-first character of the "only surviving heart donor" very well, and for Julia Ormond whose intense and beguiling performance makes us forgive her for not being Audrey Hepburn.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
Lacking a likable lead
aliholly-6281911 January 2022
The movie is pretty good, and there's nothing I don't like about it, except for Julia Ormond. Ormond just doesn't cut it as a Sabrina. What, about her version of Sabrina was worth all the fuss? Nothing, quite frankly. No charm, grace, or elegance.
Sabrina is one of the finest movies I've seen...
ms95410 November 2004
Many won't agree, and the critics may have panned it, but I feel this fantastic , feel-good movie exemplifies what all great movies should be: entertaining , intelligent, thoughtful, with touches of comedy, pathos, and respect for the human condition.. I find myself watching this magnificent work over and over and over, and never tiring of it. I feel Harrison Ford delivers his best performance, bar none, and really shows that he is one our best actors. Julia Ormond: well, what can I say. Just absolutely the most beautiful, sexy, wonderful actress living today... I fall in love with her all over again each time I watch the movie. Greg Kinnear is a very believable co-star and funny, funny... the players are selected very well , each contributing mightily to the final effect! The director really knew what he was doing and keeps the movie going strong.. congratulations to all. I wish there were more works like this, and would really like to see another done with Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond in the title roles, oncemore!. Bravo! Bravo!
An Enjoyable Remake
atlasmb3 July 2019
This remake of a Billy Wilder film is directed by Sidney Pollack. The best reason to remake the 1954 film is to cast an actor in the Humphrey Bogart role who feels like a better choice for romance with Sabrina. In this version, Sabrina is portrayed by Julia Ormond---five years older than Audrey Hepburn was in the role, but still fresh-faced and endearing.
Harrison Ford takes on the Bogart role as Linus Larrabee, the older of two brothers charmed by Sabrina. He feels like a better fit than Bogart. Greg Kinnear plays David Larrabee, the younger brother, with exuberant charm, even if David is not the best choice for Sabrina's Prince Charming.
As in the original version, each of the three main characters has something to learn from the other two. And the story is, ultimately, a fairytale.
Though Ford fits the story better, I prefer the original film. But both films are enjoyable.
Harrison Ford takes on the Bogart role as Linus Larrabee, the older of two brothers charmed by Sabrina. He feels like a better fit than Bogart. Greg Kinnear plays David Larrabee, the younger brother, with exuberant charm, even if David is not the best choice for Sabrina's Prince Charming.
As in the original version, each of the three main characters has something to learn from the other two. And the story is, ultimately, a fairytale.
Though Ford fits the story better, I prefer the original film. But both films are enjoyable.
Didn't watch the original but still think this was tripe
seagull_200627 October 2021
Most of the complaints here about the comparison with the Audrey Hepburn original.
Well , I can't comment as I never saw that one.. but I watched about half of this tripe on Netflix and had to give up.
The acting was horrendously bad, especially from Julia Ormond - I have rarely seen such dull dispirited and dead acting with fake "breathy "'tones as if she was trying to copy Marilyn Monroe.
As someone else said , the clothes and fashions were ugly as hell ... the 90s were not THIS bad !!!
Disappointed in Harrison Ford and the one who acted as the part of his brother
Came across as one of the cheapest of the cheap rom coms ... totally forgettable.
Well , I can't comment as I never saw that one.. but I watched about half of this tripe on Netflix and had to give up.
The acting was horrendously bad, especially from Julia Ormond - I have rarely seen such dull dispirited and dead acting with fake "breathy "'tones as if she was trying to copy Marilyn Monroe.
As someone else said , the clothes and fashions were ugly as hell ... the 90s were not THIS bad !!!
Disappointed in Harrison Ford and the one who acted as the part of his brother
Came across as one of the cheapest of the cheap rom coms ... totally forgettable.
lovely
Kirpianuscus24 August 2018
The temptation to compare it with the 1954 version is not small. And it is a good thing because the film has the force to use its voice. Julia Ormond is realy Sabrina. And Harrison Ford is a revelation as Linus. But, for me, the authetic good points are Miriam Colon as lovely Rosa and Nancy Marchand as wise,fascinating Maude Larrabee. Short, a seductive film.
Solarium
daisukereds26 May 2022
It feels like the stakes of the story they wanted to tell should be higher than what is portrayed on screen.
Still, it's quite an enjoyable little romance on the context of rich families, whose tone is never heavy and there's even a comedic/unrealistic perspective on life. Julia Ormond and her interactions with other actors is the crutch of the film, and the journey for her character is quite appealing to watch. Wouldn't know who to recommend it to, but I wouldn't mind watching it again in a couple of years.
Harrison's constant breathing into the mic is a turnoff.. which is weird, as it only seems to happen with him.
Still, it's quite an enjoyable little romance on the context of rich families, whose tone is never heavy and there's even a comedic/unrealistic perspective on life. Julia Ormond and her interactions with other actors is the crutch of the film, and the journey for her character is quite appealing to watch. Wouldn't know who to recommend it to, but I wouldn't mind watching it again in a couple of years.
Harrison's constant breathing into the mic is a turnoff.. which is weird, as it only seems to happen with him.
A good romance!
rebeccalucy16 November 2017
I accidentally watched the remake instead of the classic one first. Still a very beautiful film though, the sets and costumes are very pretty. In particular Sabrina's dress is stunning. Most of the acting is good like the two main leads, it is nice to seen Harrison Ford in a different type of role. The romance is quite cute, watching the couple grow closer. All of the music is so good, really worth a listen to.
The cinematography is quite typical, nothing amazing but nothing terrible either. Plus, I never really understood why Sabrina loved David, he seems to caught up in his own world. But other than that a decent film, just wondering if it holds up to the original.
The cinematography is quite typical, nothing amazing but nothing terrible either. Plus, I never really understood why Sabrina loved David, he seems to caught up in his own world. But other than that a decent film, just wondering if it holds up to the original.
I don't buy it
Thulemanden23 January 2007
I was surprised to see so many love this film. As I have not seen the original I will not compare them, nor do I think it is fair to compare remakes to an original. A movie is made to be itself and should be evaluated as is.
While they may have tried to modernize the movie it was not modernized enough. It seeps through the screen that it is based on values and images decades ago. Take the architecture of the corporation premises which so clearly is designed to convey the common man of the 50's awe respect for the 'corporate giants' of his days. The architecture is an echo of the 50's not the 90's. An interesting fact is the lack of other employees in the offices apart from the secretary. But of course it can symbolize the loneliness of the corporate all-business shark.
So is the glamour girl style of Sabrina, styled over the romantic ideal for a 50's young woman. They put in a 1950's girls personality in a 1990's woman. Sabrina of the 1990's would appear much more modern and critical of the men and their behavior and not such a push-over, a willing vessel for the men's admirations. Also she would have been engaged in education and career not only seen as an object destined for the role of a wife, as was more common in the 50's.
Is Ormond doing a good job? Perhaps. If she was trying to follow the director's desire to portrait a 1950 girl. I just find her personality archaeic and out of time and place. The character is simply not believable for its time. Why portrait a classic Hollywood movie star and not a modern woman? (I think they perhaps tried too hard to make her look like Julia Roberts)
Also not believable as a corporate shark was Harrison Ford. If the director had pushed him a little more to the nerdy side, it would have worked well with the bow-tie. He did look a little funny with the old fashioned hat, black&white and the mobile phone of it's days with the immense antenna. But as with Sabrina the conversion to 1990's is only half lived. Not totally committed.
The best and most believable performance was actually the mother although also she was clearly cut out of the 1950's dominant mother. I came to think of the 30's Groucho Marx's favorite victim, Mrs. Dumont.
The pattern goes on with the immense staff of the household, which with today's salaries would be outrageously expensive and eccentric. Even for the 50's it would be a grotesquely big staff even more so for a modern family. I think we would have to go all the way back to the 30's to believe in this household.
Also unbelievable is the lightening transformation of a teenage school girl to a dazzling sophisticated self assure young woman overnight who even manages to acquire an exquisit French wardrobe on a meager photographer assistant's wage, which surely would have been meager because so many would want the job. I am not sure she would have been paid all together. "Working for the honor."
What remains for me is an uncommitted attempt to remake a(ny) success which seems picked out of coincidence; - the film doesn't show WHY it was remade and modernized. It doesn't claim its own right so to speak. It seems simply like a blind, ill thought through refreshment with no care for details or cinema art. It's neither the 50's nor really the 90's really. Not a pure romance and not really a comedy.
One overseen joke in the comments or trivia is the painting behind David in his little used office. It is actually a Pollack painting, the same name of the director. Jason/Sidney Pollack. Well, actually and actually, I simply mean it is in the Jason Pollack style. Don't know if it is an actual reproduction or copycat.
I agree with one of the other comments. This film is simply a mess. And an uncommitted one as well. It should have been burned, not released. I was too nice giving it a 6.
While they may have tried to modernize the movie it was not modernized enough. It seeps through the screen that it is based on values and images decades ago. Take the architecture of the corporation premises which so clearly is designed to convey the common man of the 50's awe respect for the 'corporate giants' of his days. The architecture is an echo of the 50's not the 90's. An interesting fact is the lack of other employees in the offices apart from the secretary. But of course it can symbolize the loneliness of the corporate all-business shark.
So is the glamour girl style of Sabrina, styled over the romantic ideal for a 50's young woman. They put in a 1950's girls personality in a 1990's woman. Sabrina of the 1990's would appear much more modern and critical of the men and their behavior and not such a push-over, a willing vessel for the men's admirations. Also she would have been engaged in education and career not only seen as an object destined for the role of a wife, as was more common in the 50's.
Is Ormond doing a good job? Perhaps. If she was trying to follow the director's desire to portrait a 1950 girl. I just find her personality archaeic and out of time and place. The character is simply not believable for its time. Why portrait a classic Hollywood movie star and not a modern woman? (I think they perhaps tried too hard to make her look like Julia Roberts)
Also not believable as a corporate shark was Harrison Ford. If the director had pushed him a little more to the nerdy side, it would have worked well with the bow-tie. He did look a little funny with the old fashioned hat, black&white and the mobile phone of it's days with the immense antenna. But as with Sabrina the conversion to 1990's is only half lived. Not totally committed.
The best and most believable performance was actually the mother although also she was clearly cut out of the 1950's dominant mother. I came to think of the 30's Groucho Marx's favorite victim, Mrs. Dumont.
The pattern goes on with the immense staff of the household, which with today's salaries would be outrageously expensive and eccentric. Even for the 50's it would be a grotesquely big staff even more so for a modern family. I think we would have to go all the way back to the 30's to believe in this household.
Also unbelievable is the lightening transformation of a teenage school girl to a dazzling sophisticated self assure young woman overnight who even manages to acquire an exquisit French wardrobe on a meager photographer assistant's wage, which surely would have been meager because so many would want the job. I am not sure she would have been paid all together. "Working for the honor."
What remains for me is an uncommitted attempt to remake a(ny) success which seems picked out of coincidence; - the film doesn't show WHY it was remade and modernized. It doesn't claim its own right so to speak. It seems simply like a blind, ill thought through refreshment with no care for details or cinema art. It's neither the 50's nor really the 90's really. Not a pure romance and not really a comedy.
One overseen joke in the comments or trivia is the painting behind David in his little used office. It is actually a Pollack painting, the same name of the director. Jason/Sidney Pollack. Well, actually and actually, I simply mean it is in the Jason Pollack style. Don't know if it is an actual reproduction or copycat.
I agree with one of the other comments. This film is simply a mess. And an uncommitted one as well. It should have been burned, not released. I was too nice giving it a 6.
Sabrina
henry8-316 May 2020
Chauffeur's daughter and plain Jane Ormond returns from Paris with a hair cut and some make up on. Zillionaire idiot Kinnear falls for her, threatening his engagement to a girl which is crucial to a merger deal brother Ford is organising. Ford sets out to sort Ormond out and falls for her.
Done with Pollack's usual Hollywood glitz, this starts off nicely enough. However Ormond's character is dreadfully naive and Kinnear and Ford are both pretty unpleasant, so the predictable putting everything right in the end is so U turn as to not be entirely convincing. Smoothly done overall though.
Done with Pollack's usual Hollywood glitz, this starts off nicely enough. However Ormond's character is dreadfully naive and Kinnear and Ford are both pretty unpleasant, so the predictable putting everything right in the end is so U turn as to not be entirely convincing. Smoothly done overall though.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
