GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

a_baron This TV film is adapted from a well-known Gothic novel. Gothic? Well, that's what some people call it; this is not the first such adaptation of course, and it would be difficult for it to be worse than anything directed by Alfred Hitchcock, having said that, it makes a full-blooded attempt. Its saving grace is an early appearance by the gorgeous Emilia Fox as the ingénue. When you've said that, you've said it all. Not having read the book and not intending to ever, I can say only that any allusions to lesbianism in a mainstream novel of the day published in either the US or the UK would have been veiled, to put it mildly, promiscuity was frowned upon in the cinema too under the Hays Code in the US and even more stringent censorship in the UK. No, "Rebecca" misses the boat, and would even the dumbest of blondes be quite so blindingly loyal to a wealthy husband she suspected of murdering his first wife?

TheLittleSongbird I do see that this TV version of the wonderful Daphne Du Mourier book has those who both love and hate it. I personally did love it. I do prefer Hitchcock's film(one of my all-time favourite films) and the 1979 series, but this stands on its own. The story is more faithful(if not entirely) in tone to the Hitchcock film and the romance possibly broader, and is dealt with in an atmospheric manner and is just as suspenseful as the previous two versions. It looks wonderful visually, Manderly is imposing, the scenery is beautiful and the photography is remarkably good. There is also a haunting, emotional score(especially the cello and orchestra theme) by Christopher Gunning, a tight script, a lot of interesting characters lead and supporting and, while slow, fluid pacing. The acting was mostly fine to me. Charles Dance might be too old for Maxim and I did find Jeremy Brett more believable, but I did in a way find him attractive and thought he captured the darkness and angst of the character quite well. I actually found the weak link to be Emilia Fox, I do have huge affection for Joan Fontaine in Hitchcock's film and I also much prefer her mother Joanna David as an actress so I may be biased, but Fox for a character as shy as the second Mrs De Winter seemed too beautiful, elegant and dare I say wan. The supporting cast are even better, Faye Dunnaway is always a pleasure to watch, and Jonathan Cake is a suitably smarmy Jack, but top honours go to Diana Rigg as a sinister yet also humane Mrs Danvers. Other than Fox, my other complaint was the flashbacks with Rebecca. I can understand why they were included and they were interesting enough, but I much prefer it when Rebecca is mysterious and just omnipresent, it is more suspenseful that way. Overall, I loved it but I do prefer Hitchcock's and the 1979 series. 9/10 Bethany Cox

mlktrout I wanted so much to like this version of "Rebecca." I had seen both the Hitchcock movie and the 1979 Jeremy Brett/Joanna David/Anna Massey version, and read the book countless times. A new version with another talented cast seemed like a great idea.Unfortunately it didn't work. Charles Dance is nobody's idea of Maxim de Winter. He doesn't look like the description in the book, nor does he sound right in the part -- "de Whiner," maybe. He's totally ineffectual in the role. Ms. Fox -- the daughter of Joanna David, repeating her mom's role -- is not bad but not too good either. And poor Diana Rigg! I had thought she would make a wonderful Mrs. Danvers. To my shock, she was terrible. Someone please tell her that "bad hair" does not automatically equate with menacing!The casting is bad enough, but what in heaven's name possessed the writers to go tampering with the plot? Du Maurier's plotting was masterful. Apparently someone wanted to put his own individual stamp on this version, and in the process changed a couple of key parts of the plot. And we can't even blame the Hayes Code! The Hayes Code of the 1930s and 1940s said "good guys" couldn't deliberately do bad things, so the Hitchcock version's key plot change was a concession to Industry Standard. This 1997 version has no excuse. Possible spoilers: Someone deliberately, gratuitously, changed the method of Rebecca's death. Why? And why give Maxim some sudden inexplicable desire to rescue Mrs. Danvers from the chaos she created? Did the writers not read the book first? Or did they decide that the book, which had been a classic and a commercially viable success for almost 60 years, needed improvement?VERDICT: If you haven't read "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier, this may seem like a serviceable, if not very thrilling, story. It probably won't drive you into the bookstore either, though. (The 1979 version sent people scurrying in droves to the bookstores.) If you HAVE read du Maurier's wonderful book, you probably already know that the version truest to her story (the one du Maurier herself called truest to her story) was the 1979 version. Run, don't walk, to find it. Unfortunately that will take some doing, since the BBC in its infinite wisdom has given us the 1997 version on DVD while refusing to make the far superior 1979 version available. The last time the Brits made such a bad choice, the American colonies revolted. Maybe we should do it again and not watch anymore Brit TV until they give us a proper version of "Rebecca."

E. M. After reading the book I was interested in seeing the different versions of Rebecca. This version boasts a line of brilliant actors (although some of them were slightly oddley cast. Charles Dance is a brilliant actor but one is forced to wonder who on earth cast him as a romantic lead?)I was expecting a good film, but this movie was disappointing in every aspect.The characterisation was poor and the writing was dull. The original book was full of suspense and one felt so involved in the fate of the characters, but this film failed in both those respects. The film was not able to capture the warmth, romance or intrigue of other versions.