terrible... so disappointed.

Please don't spend money on this.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I don't like the 1955 version. There. I said it. William Holden was great in movies where he played a guy who was too smart for his own good, but in Picnic he seemed to me like a guy who was given a pass on the brain problem due to his study bod. Maybe that's how it works but I don't have to like it.This remake takes the position that all these country-fried boobs could be brainy in a universe created by a playwright. So, in this version, they are. They're even pacifist and have weird liberal ideas and actually decide to reject things like materialism and money grubbing.Needless to say, this rubs some folks the wrong way. They prefer the incoherent 1955 version where everybody is motivated by good old American lust without the ding dang lib- tard poly-ticks.I boosted the rating for political reasons.

I know it's become a cliché to pour scorn on movie re-makes and it's probably unfair to compare a TV movie with one made for the big screen, but this version of "Picnic" is so inconsolably bad that I feel it deserves no excuses. The original (1955 version) was magical in the way it moved all of a part, as though nobody was directing it. This re-make has a steely, contemporary feel to it; the acting is stiff and self-conscious and the cinematography heavy and uninspiring. Please watch William Holden as the charming bum-in-town and Kim Novak as the wistful country girl in the 1955 version (directed by Joshua Logan) and you'll see what I mean.

This version moved a little slow for my taste and I suppose I have problems with this play to begin with. But first the movie, it's a typical TV movie version of a play which means it doesn't have the flair of the original film version with William Holden. What they couldn't afford to hire more than twelve people as extras? Why move the movie up to 1966? So you could give the little sister a line about the Vietnam war protests? Why not 1963 and give her a line about the civil rights movement?As for the casting, some hits some misses. Jay O. Sanders hit the right notes for his character especially with his scenes with Josh Brolin. Brolin on the other hand miss a lot of the notes. He's believable as an ex-BMOC jock but he doesn't have the raw sensuality of William Holden. I always thought Brolin looks a little bit like a gorilla to have all the women in town go ape over him (pardon the pun). Gretchen Moll was lovely but she seemed a little too wise for the character she played. She didn't project the innocence or ignorance that the character required. Maybe it's because she and Brolin were about 5 years older than the characters should be. But then again Holden was ten years too old. Bonnie Bedelia was rather forgettable as the mother and Mary Steenburgen can't seem to make up her mind whether she was playing Blanche duBois or Katharine from "The Taming of The Shrew".As for Mr. Inge's play, I always felt that stories like this of a young woman choosing passion over practicality always needed an epilogue. "The Twilight Zone" I believe offer a likely epilogue with the episode, "Spur of the Moment" where a young Diana Hyland was being chased by a bitter older Diana Hyland, because the younger Diana Hyland chose to run off with a guy similar to Hal Carter.

Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.