Brilliant and touching

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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."

The second Mrs. DeWinter has no first name, and she was never given one for the film. Caroline DeWinter was the ancestor that the second Mrs. DeWinter dressed as for the costume ball. If this was not mentioned in the film, it should have been. It is mentioned in Alfred Hitchcock's masterful version of the book, by Dame Judith Anderson. Now, in context of the film, it was definitely closer to the book than Hitchcock's version (which you can blame David O. Selznick for the changes in the plot), and there is some very good acting, but it still seems like what it is, and that is a television film. Christopher Gunning provided a very emotional score though, with a heart wrenching theme for cello and orchestra.

I have not yet seen this movie, but my sister and I are reading through Rebecca right now, and I'd like to explain to those who misunderstood: Mrs. De Winter had herself announced as Caroline De Winter because she was dressed as that lady (the lady in the painting)and acting that part. I mean, it's a costume ball. She intended this to make everyone think, "Who?" and look to see. Caroline is not her name; the point is that you never even know what her name is.I have seen the old version of this movie, and in my opinion and that of my sister, as we read the book, Laurence Olivier is absolutely the definitive Maxim De Winter in every way.

It is impossible to review this film without comparing it to Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 version. This production has no romance, no mystery, no suspense, and no atmosphere -- all of the things that made Hitchcock's version a masterpiece.The only thing that makes this film watchable is Diana Rigg's new take on the character Mrs. Danvers. I found her to be the only believable character in the production -- different than Judith Anderson's interpretation nonetheless, but well done.If you've never seen a film version of Rebecca, watch the Hitchcock version instead of this one.