gavin6942 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?

TheMovieCritic_83 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.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU The idea is great since it comes from a master mind of suspense. The main actor is also great because he plays his own role as a crippled victim of a dumb accident. But at the same time something is wrong in the extraordinary exhibitionism of these Americans who do not know what a blind is and who broadcast every single of their sighs to the whole neighborhood through open windows and paper thin walls. It makes the voyeur in this case practically justified since there is no other way but hear and see. But that's too easy. It takes a lot of the secrecy of this voyeuristic knowledge out of the story. The suspense itself is even in many ways reduced, crippled. From a dark and frightening film we shift in this remake to a plain action film with a cripple as the main character who is beautifully rendered by Christopher Reeve, but that is not enough to make a great film. This remake is not really improving, nor even getting close to the original.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

bob the moo 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.