Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

jpclifford I accidentally came upon this version. I had seen Hitchcock's version and it came to as "dubious, questionable". But this version really makes it a horror. The picture on the front of the case shows a woman with a "naughty glance". But if you wait you see behind this an absolute determination of immense cruelty. And that is not she but Mr. de Winter.Is it "sophisticated amusement"? For who?

Leofwine_draca This two-part TV adaptation of the famous Daphne Du Maurier benefits hugely from a pitch-perfect piece of central casting: Charles Dance as the mysterious Maxim de Winter and Emilia Fox as his new wife. Dance is all suaveness mixed with a little sensitivity, while Fox is mousey and subdued, and the two actors share a genuine chemistry at all times.Given the nature of the three hour running time, the pacing of this is slow and unhurried. I wasn't bothered: there are enough interesting supporting characters (the friendly gardener, the mad fisherman, the caddish acquaintance) to keep the attention hooked, and the sumptuous locations make this a delight to look at.The nature of the mystery kept me guessing right until the end, and it helped that I hadn't read the novel or seen any of the other adaptations (including the famous Hitchcock film). It also goes without saying that Diana Rigg makes for a masterful villain as Mrs Danvers, putting memories of her pin-up days long in the past. She's truly hissable, and it's testament to the quality of the storytelling that by the end you can only empathise with rather than hate her character.

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."

didi-5 I thought this was marvellous, and that Charles Dance as Maxim, Emilia Fox as The Second Mrs De Winter, and Diana Rigg as Mrs Danvers, were note perfect - but that's before I saw the 1970s version with Jeremy Brett, Fox's mother Joanna David, and Anna Massey.However, this 1990s version runs a close second. It isn't as involving to watch, and Dance has a certain dryness that perhaps does not work all through the piece - but the cast do well (including Faye Dunaway as Fox's chaperone). Set pieces are excellent, there's beautiful scenery, and a tight script, and all this is good.You rarely see watchable literacy adaptations of this quality, and this version of 'Rebecca' does not really disappoint. It's just that it has already been done better before - and it is a shame that the 1997 version is the only one now widely available for viewing.Watch it by all means - but try to seek out other versions as well.