If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

So many films have been remade in recent years, and I'm always fascinated as to why. The only justifiable reason that I can see for remaking a film, is if the original had potential, but was in the hands of the wrong director. In the case of 'Rear Window', Alfred Hitchcock's original version was close to perfection. That being the case, why did anyone feel a need to remake it? While sticking to the basic storyline of a man confined to his apartment and becoming suspicious that a neighbour has murdered his wife, there are a few changes. Christopher Reeve plays the lead character, who is not a photographer but an architect, and has been pompously renamed Jason Kemp. Also the lead female role, played by Daryl Hannah, is not his girlfriend (to begin with) but his colleague. And there are some other differences here and there, such as the lack of exploration into the complexities of relationships, and the fact that Jason Kemp has two medical assistants on call 24 hours instead of an insurance nurse that visits daily. I suppose the makers deviated in these areas so that the film would not look like an exact copy of the original, but these differences do very little, and in some cases let the film down.For a thriller, this film hardly manages to mildly scare. Jeff Bleckner's direction does not labour on key points in the film long enough to generate much tension, nor is there much atmosphere. The film's soundtrack also does not help matters. The best part of the film is Christopher Reeve, who does stand out from a cast with little substance. Thelma Ritter's character of an insurance nurse in Alfred Hitchcock's version, has more spark than the two medical assistants in this film put together. Then again, that may be largely due to the relatively shallow script that the actors have to work with.That being said, this was a very needless remake. Not all of Alfred Hitchcock's films were classics, but when it comes to his best films, I don't believe it's possible to improve on them. Apart from this attempt, 'Psycho' has been remade, as well as multiple remakes of 'The 39 Steps'. Let's hope it stops there.

Lets get one thing straight. Most reviewers have panned this because they say it loses what Hitchcock created. Fair enough, if the film had been trying to emulate Hitchcock. It isn't.After Chris Reeves' accident, there was only ever going to be one role he could ever play again and this was it. How many other movies have wheelchair bound heroes? So for Chris to return to the profession which he loved, this had to be the one. Now I know many people have a love affair with Hitch, but I must admit I never found Rear Window to be a classic like some of his others, the idea came from creating a movie on a single set. The camera never moves out of Jimmy Stewarts room, until he falls out of the window.While this was an interesting excercise and experiment, I find that not even the great Jimmy Stewart can keep his energy up throughout the film. It is as static as the camera.The modern version, although a technical remake with the same basic plot line, is not attempting to do the same thing. First of all it is a showcase for Christopher Reeves. This may sound like a vanity project but it is not. Reeves as Superman was a cult hero but never about to win an Oscar. This is a performance that if you accept it, because it is hard viewing watching him knowing that he is portraying his everyday life, will haunt you. Having lost the use of his body, Reeves shows everything through his face. The part where his air supply is disconnected was done for real, can you imagine performing while your entire life depends on the people around you. Reeves leaves you with no apology for his condition, asking for no sympathy but a simple laying bare of the human soul, his, trapped in a useless body. A sterling feat in a thriller.This is not just about chris or people in his condition, but about all paraplegics and quadriplegics trapped in a shell of a body. By the end, you will know what it is like to live like that, and perhaps you might change your attitude or appreciate what you have, just a little bit more.Other than that, the rest of the cast are decent and the direction is competent, the style is of a TV movie, but its the best TV movie you will see. It's not Hitchcock, it doesn't try to be and it shouldn't be compared to the original. But from Christopher Reeve, who sadly (or perhaps for him, a release), passed away not so long ago, it is the greatest performance of his life and a wonderful epitaph.

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)….

While nobody expected this to be anywhere near as good as Hitchcock's classic, I found the film surprisingly engrossing. Some people might say Reeve didn't stretch his abilities, but I would argue that he still convinced me that he was Jason Kemp. Reeve's character is absolutely helpless, whereas Jimmy Stewart could still use his arms, and this made Reeve's character all the more vulnerable. It made for a more suspenseful, edge-of-your-seat film. I've read that this film was simply a showcase for the gadgets that Reeve uses to live life, but I think that's an unfair criticism of a thoroughly enjoyable, not to mention educational, film.The rest of the cast provides solid support, but it's Reeve's show all the way. I'm glad the accident didn't keep him away from acting. He's always been an underrated actor, except as Superman, so it's good to see a different role provide him with a high profile opportunity to showcase his acting ability. (If you're curious about Reeve's other great roles, I'd definitely check out Deathtrap, where he stole the show from Michael Caine and Dyan Cannon.)