Rating: 
Summary: Just Plain Awful
Review: This is,frankly, just plain awful. I was so disappointed when I saw this on TV because Charles Dance and Diana Rigg are such wonderful actors, and they are wasted in this watered-down version of a great classic story. Even their vast talents combined couldn't make this watchable. The version done by the BBC in 1979 or 1980 was fabulous, with Jeremy Brett as Maxim de Winter but it has never been released on video or dvd. And the girl who plays the wife in the new version is actually the daughter of Joanna David, who played the same role in the BBC show.
Pass on the 1997 version--it's soap opera dramatics and hysteria.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible!
Review: This movie can't be compared to the two past versions. The version with Laurence Olivier is superb as is the one with Jeremy Brett. Faye Dunaway is no Mrs. Hopper. The actress portraying the girl (Mrs. DeWinter)did not know the character at all. Unwatchable. I turned it off before it finished.
Rating: 
Summary: enjoyable!
Review: This movie followed the book by Daphne Du Maurier pretty closely. The acting was well done and although some scenes seemed forced, it was still believable. Faye Dunnaway is wonderful as always. However, the original movie cast the part better to fit the books description of Mrs. Van Hopper. Being a minor character,this does little to take away from the story. Over all it was very entertaining and held the suspense 'til the end.
Rating:
Summary: Blech!
Review: This movie was horrible! It does not even compare to the original with Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine. Very bad--there are no words to describe my feelings about the 1997 Rebecca except-"go watch the original!!!!" :)
Rating: 
Summary: Superlative new telling of the mystery
Review: This stunning new dramatisation of the classic, part of the Mobil Masterpiece Theatre, is wonderful, boasting a great cast and a few surprises.Emilia Fox (PRIDE AND PREJUDICE), plays the never-named heroine who marries the moody and detatched Maxim de Wynter, played by Charles Dance (THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA). She is working as a "companion to the bosom", and is employed by Mrs van Hopper, played by Faye Dunaway (SUPERGIRL). Just before she leaves to become a wife to the man, van Hopper warns the naive girl that "maybe the Prince is not as charming as he seems. Do you really want a wolf in your bed?"..... Arriving at Manderley, she is immediately at odds with Mrs Danvers, played by Diana Rigg (THE AVENGERS, THE MRS BRADLEY MYSTERIES), who was very close to the first Mrs de Wynter (played in flashback by Lucy Cohu). She must fight the past in order to have a future with Maxim, and its something that will destroy her innocence forever.... A massive improvement on the still-classic and beautiful Hitchcock version with Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier, it follows the book wonderfully, and the story flows better with the new script and masterful direction by Jim O'Brien.
Rating:
Summary: Very creditable, with a few flaws
Review: Very entertaining, Faye Dunaway is perfect as the overbearing Mrs. Van Hopper - but that is a very minor role. Charles Dance is good as Max de Winter, but Emilia Fox is not quite believable as Caroline de Winter (too "spoilt brat cute" and not shy enough for the role - still a lot more believable than Joan Fontaine in the 40's movie version, though). But though some lines were taken verbatim from the book, the film-makers for some reason decided to change some details, specially the ending (why have Max risk his life to save Mrs. Danvers who, in the book, had already left the mansion?) I must say here that my favorite adaptation of this Daphne Du Maurier classic is the one shown on PBS in the late 70's or early 80's, starring Jeremy Brett as Max de Winter and Joanna David as the best Caroline de Winter I have ever seen, maturing as she did along with the character. Also, that version was much more faithful to the book, including starting with the same line, "Last night I dreamt I was back in Manderley". I would be eternally grateful to anybody who could tell me where to get THAT video version. Barring that, I guess we can make do with this one.
Rating:
Summary: Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
Review: When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?
Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.
First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.
Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!
Rating: 
Summary: Classic book adaptation and movie remake
Review: While I will always like the Hitchcock film better, this adaptation is a great example of how a book should be turned into a movie. This will always be a classic love story between a young woman and an older mysterious widower that changes and matures with tragedy and the revelation of secrets. As with the originial film, this movie is suspenseful, romantic, and tragic. This faithful adapation from the book expands on issues that were skimmed over in the orginial movie but should have been filmed in black and white. In the new adaptation, the feelings between Maxim and the new Mrs. de Winter are underscored with some blatant scenes where they are still laying in bed and with more dubtle touches, such as holding hands when they walk or when Maxin touches Mrs. de W's face while in conversation. However, Lawrence Olivier somehow portrayed a more tragic and angry Maxim than is seen in this version.
|
