Penny Culliton
I recently viewed both the 1979 version (got a copy recorded off TV broadcast from somebody in Canada!) and the 1997 one, as well as reviewed the book. I have of course seen the '42 Olivier version as well.My verdict on this version ('97) is that everyone is wonderful except Charles Dance. Totally inappropriate casting. He's all freckled and spotty and not the slightest bit attractive.That being said, I have no idea why all the film versions skip (at least as far as I have noticed) the -- to my mind-- crucial scene in the book when the narrator finally tells Mrs. Danvers that she doesn't much care what the former Mrs. DeWinter would have done because SHE is Mrs. DeWinter now. This is after the "You should be the one who's dead" in Rebecca's room/shipwreck/Maxim's confession scenes.It may be that one version includes this, but I don't recall seeing it...Anyway, Charles Dance?! Cannot BEGIN to compare to Jeremy Brett's portrayal. He was simply superb. I am so sorry this version is not available (except as I obtained it) on DVD.
michelleeb
Totally miscast - Emilia Fox is too confident, beautiful and elegant to play the plain, awkward, painfully shy second Mrs De Winter. Charles Dance is too old to play Max De Winter (he's supposed to be 15 - 20 years older then her, not 30) and he lacks any sense of darkness or anger. Even Manderley itself is dreadfully unimpressive. Only Diana Rigg, as Mrs Danvers comes anywhere near creating a character similar to the book.The directing is of the 'point and shoot' variety, with no subtleties.The one trick, with Mrs Danvers and the light, is lifted straight from Hitchcock.In fact the whole thing has no sense of mystery or doom or tragedy. There is no chemistry between the leads, despite the script showing them kissing passionately at a time in the book when he barely touches her. There's no romance between them, in fact their kisses seem awkward and forced, and a bit disgusting, given how much older than her he looks (not to mention his lack of sex appeal and passion) The script itself is terrible, deviating from the book, having her challenging him at a time when in the book, she can barely speak to him.If you love the book, like I do, don't bother with this. Watch the Hitchcock version, with its great acting, sense of tragedy and doom, deep romance and a script practically lifted from the book, instead.
jhsteel
I have always found Lawrence Olivier's portrayal of Maxim de Winter to be distant and forbidding, which detracted from the Hitchcock version of Rebecca, although that film has so much to recommend it. This lovely, warm adaptation is blessed by Charles Dance who makes Maxim a much more attractive man worth fighting for and Emilia Fox is a wonderful actress, even at this young age. The difference in their ages is important to the story and the casting here is so convincing that the book is really brought to life. I am glad it lacks the sinister quality of Hitchcock because it's refreshing to see a different approach and in some ways a more modern take on the story, even though it is set in the correct period. Although I knew the story well, I was still gripped by it, and was surprised by some twists. I saw this when it was originally shown on TV in 1997, and have just seen it again - I think I liked it better this time. Well worth 4 hours of anyone's time, to do justice to such a great novel.
Jon Kolenchak
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.
AD
