Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

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.

this film was originally made by tbs (superstation) and stars tom skerritt as marshal of hadleyville, will kane.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.

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.

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?