I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Modern remake of "Rear Window" in which the lead character (Christopher Reeve) is paralyzed and lives in a high-tech home filled with assistive technology.This film gets a lot of criticism because it is not Hitchcock. And yes, that is true. It probably had no chance of matching the original. But viewing it not as a remake but as a film by itself, it is not all that terrible. It was made for TV, but seems to be of a highest quality than that. And you have to admire that someone wanted to give Christopher Reeve a starring role when his ability became so slim.The "hacking" a guy's computer when he's one room over is a little silly, because you know... um... people can hear that?

A recently paralyzed architect, Jason Kemp, believes he has witnessed a murder from his apartment window. Jason's colleague, Claudia, quickly becomes his partner in trying to solve the mysterious puzzle that lies in the apartment across the way.The more-than-patient detective, Moore, grudgingly responds to their repeated calls and accusations, but believes Jason's imagination is getting the best of him. Determined to uncover the truth, Jason continues to dig deeper - eventually finding himself locked in a deadly game of cat and mouse. TV remake of the classic. Doesn't that say enough? It's simply horrible.

As is par for the course with remakes of classic films like Hitchcock's "Rear Window", this made for television effort is not a shadow on the original.This particular re-working has updated the original premise to the modern era, and Christopher Reeve's bed-ridden voyeur is afforded the luxury of video surveillance and computer technology. Although creative in its new adaptation, this is about as good as it gets. Too much time is spent laying the foundations of the plot, and not enough time is left to make it work.Christopher Reeve, it must be said, puts in an amazing effort as the paralysed architect who believes he has witnessed a murder. I understand they actually turned the actor's oxygen off for real! Richard Forster is good too, but Daryl Hannah….well, she didn't really have enough to do.Friday, March 19, 1999 - T.V.

Having survived a car crash, Jason Kemp is left paralysed from the neck down and his only comfort is the fact that his high paying job has allowed him to have his flat kitted out with loads of assistive technology. Trying to cope with the loss of his body, Jason is determined to stay busy but soon finds himself becoming fascinated with the apartment block across the road from his own flat. He spots a woman across the road getting into a domestic with her boyfriend and call the police on him. Being just as nosey, one of his helpers, Antonio, feeds his interest by getting him a camera and monitor set up. However when the boyfriend comes back something happens and the woman he has been watching seems to no longer be in the flat Jason suspects murder.The term "vanity project" could be applied to this film since it is more about Reeve himself than his character, but in this case it would be a hardhearted person that would attack the film on this ground. The film has a certain amount of novelty value due to the presence of Reeve but outside of that it is hard to ignore how inferior it is to the Hitchcock original. I know some reviewers have been so moved by the presence of Reeve that they have found it difficult to review the film as what it is meant to be – which is something of value in its own right. As such this remake isn't actually that good because it lacks tension, character and originality. It isn't terrible of course, because it is reasonably engaging but, aside from the novelty value, I can't see why anyone would chose to watch this in place of the original.Reeve is pretty good in the lead role. He is natural enough and convincing in his sense of panic but he is hardly given that great a performance. I can understand why viewers would be sympathetic in their judgement of his performance but perhaps they have been a bit too generous – it is brave, but not brilliant. Talking of "not brilliant", good to see Darryl Hannah still churning out the wooden performances. Forster is a nice "pre-Jackie Brown" find but doesn't have much to do, while I didn't care for Santiago-Hudson that much.Overall this is a so-so film that benefits greatly from the presence of Reeve. Aside from his return to the screen there isn't a huge amount to make this worth a look – particularly when it has been done so much better elsewhere.