Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

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

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Leofwine_draca This remake of Hitchcock's classic tale can't equal the master's work, but is a suspenseful and interesting little movie with plenty of thrills for the modern audience. A real-life disabled Christopher Reeve (as a result of a fall from his horse) takes the lead role originally played by Jimmy Stewart, and manages to create a warm and sympathetic character despite the fact he's a voyeur who enjoys watching the private antics of the people living opposite him. Although the film is packed with plot contrivances and skimmed-over holes (WHY didn't anyone else hear a scream that night, anyway?), it's easy to forgive these and concentrate on the strong use of lighting and the riveting story woven in only a few separate locations.Okay, so the film does have many problems, like the tacked on, rather silly, Reeve vs. killer finale and some cloying sentimentality which threatens to become distasteful, but on the whole this is a harmless and watchable television movie with a lot more subtlety - and intelligence - than most of its ilk. Daryl Hannah plays the female love interest and it's a revelation to find that she can actually act instead of just playing a blonde bimbo; okay, so she's not great, but she'll do. Veteran Robert Forster also turns up playing a cop as always, putting in a nice cameo. The killer is enjoyably hissable and there are plenty of interesting minor characters whom we only ever see through the windows of the apartments caught up in their own little worlds.REAR WINDOW is at its strongest with the characterisation, and the prevalence of realism over special effects or action makes it down-to-earth and appealing to a family audience. Like Reeve's character, the film manages to hook you into getting involved with the machinations of the people we only witness through the glass. There are a couple of spooky bits involving good use of shadows (memorably highlighting a girl's face, turning her into a grinning demon) and unnatural phenomenon (welding sparks causing a room's ceiling to flicker mysteriously), although I could have done without the twist downbeat ending which just seems to have been tacked on for the sake of it (as a homage to Hitchcock perhaps; a final joke at the audience's expense?). Otherwise, REAR WINDOW is an agreeable watch even if not up to the level of the original classic.

leplatypus Even if it's based on a true story, a movie is always a fictive work. So, the cast acts and not live the story (above all, today with all those blue screen sets…). But, sometimes, there are magical exceptions, when a movie transcends its make-believe content to show a truth in all its purity.This is the case here with the exceptional performance of Christopher Reeves: he didn't play the tetraplegic because he WAS tetraplegic.Did people ever wonder what this difficult state implies and all the efforts and dedication Mr. Reeves had to reach for his job. It's a Superman's task. And he delivered it successfully, because his acting of this "strange" watcher was truly convincing. It reminded me of the best moments in the Superman's saga where he was also remarkable… Sure, you will be stunned by the first twenty minutes, especially if Superman was the last time you saw him. It's deeply moving to remember him as the more powerful human. And then, you will be delighted for the next hour, because with his big heart and craftsmanship, you will forget his physical condition to only see the story he had to tell.So, it is a shame that he didn't get the Golden Globe for this role, even if he was nominated. I wonder how the winner could accept the Globe while knowing he was in competition with such an inspired colleague. Fortunately, Mr. Reeves will later win the SAG award.And for those who pay attention to the direction, the director's choice to actually shoot literally the title of the movie (at least, a third of the movie has the rear window for setting) is a good bet.Finally, it is not a movie that you will watch over and over, but it deserves at least ONE TIME and you won't ever forget it (like Mr. Reeves)….

TheisticRug This movie was the best! I don't care what other people have been saying. The acting was top-notch. I have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER seen such a good made-for-TV movie in my life. Christopher Reeves is the best actor out there. I loved the Superman films, and to see him on his feet again is just great. I hope he keeps on acting in the future, and he WILL WALK AGAIN! The supporting cast was just as good. It was Darryl Hannahs best role since Kill Bill (Volume 1 & 2). And Christopher's caretakers weren't too bad either. I don't see why lots of people are hating this film. Better than Titanic any day. And I was so happy to see that his co-worker became his lover. All in all, the best film I've seen all year.

tlaycock-3 It is not just another remake. They destroyed what was a good story line.Christopher Reeve plays on everyone's sympathy because he was paralyzed. He should have stopped acting before he made this show. It was pure trash. Next try to make something.