jpclifford I accidentally came upon this version. I had seen Hitchcock's version and it came to as "dubious, questionable". But this version really makes it a horror. The picture on the front of the case shows a woman with a "naughty glance". But if you wait you see behind this an absolute determination of immense cruelty. And that is not she but Mr. de Winter.Is it "sophisticated amusement"? For who?

Catharina_Sweden It is no wonder this story has been so popular ever since it was written. It is the ultimate dream for lonely, shy and insecure girls! Who did not wish for something like this (minus Mrs Danvers of course!) to happen, when one was in the same age as the new Mrs de Winter..? That some handsome and attractive man, rich and powerful, and intensely more eligible than even the most popular boy in school who was off-limits to oneself, should come and whisk oneself off - far away from monotonous jobs, mean bosses, gossipy and slutty work-mates, bad living conditions..? To some more glamorous life as the châtelaine of an old, mysterious mansion...The thing which is the most alluring, is the fact that the second Mrs de Winter at first cannot believe that she can compete with the first Mrs de Winter, who - seemingly - had it all: beauty, courage, many accomplishments and talents - and first and foremost the ability to manipulate others, to make herself popular with everybody. Exactly as the popular girls at school.But then it turned out that some people in fact had began to see through the first Mrs de Winter, not least her own husband, and that he really loved the second Mrs de Winter - because of her inner qualities that he was able to see through her shyness and awkwardness... No wonder this story was such a success! Of course, in reality it can never happen. The Rebeccas of this world win every time...This movie is a very good rendering of the story, better than even the Hitchcock version. First of all the three hours are needed to be able to include all the events from the novel. Also, it follows the novel very faithfully - except for the fire scene in the end, in which the producers must have become temporarily insane..? In the novel Mr de Winter was not there in time to try to save Mrs Danvers, and even if he had been - why should he..? After all the evil that she had done..? To give the accident in the fire as an explanation to why Mr de Winter could not father children, is also very silly - and especially as it was not in the novel. There was no need for such an explanation. Maybe the couple did not want children - it is understandable if they did not want to bear the heir to the Manderley estate, as they could not themselves go back there. Maybe Mr the Winter wanted his line to end with him, after all the tragedies.I miss one thing in this version though: the eeriness, spookiness. The suggestion - which is also there in the novel - that the first Mrs de Winter is still in the house. Either as a ghost, or (this thought at least struck me when I read the novel) that she is not dead, but that she staged the accident and is keeping herself hidden somewhere in the house, to come out sometimes at night and make a disturbance in the house. Maybe to find out how fast Mr de Winter would remarry if she died..? There is no suggestion at all of anything like that in this version, and no ghostly atmosphere at all - the creepiness comes altogether from human beings.The interiors and exteriors are all quite right. Emilia Fox is good in the role as the second Mrs de Winter, although maybe a bit too cheeky towards Mrs van Hopper in the beginning, before she new that she would be able to quit her job. I had pictured the new Mrs de Winter as more insecure and nervous. Charles Dance is quite right as a mysterious, debonair lord of the manor, of course, but I find the age difference (which is about ten years larger than between the characters in the novel) a little off-putting. A 20 years older man when you are 20 is experienced and exciting - at least if he is handsome - but a 30 years older man in that age is a dirty old man...Diana Rigg is as scary as she should be as Mrs Danvers. The supporting staff is quite alright. The only actor I find entirely miscast is Faye Dunaway as Mrs van Hopper. She is still too youthful and beautiful there, for this role. The "thing" with Mrs van Hopper was that everybody should find her pathetic when she is laying herself out for Mr de Winter. Because it would be entirely impossible that he would want this fat old woman. But in this movie, at that point I thought that they would be quite well-matched - and that it was instead strange and wrong that he should start to form an attachment with a young and innocent girl...All in all, this is a very good production of "Rebecca"!

broadway_melody_girl THe 1997 BBC adaption of the renowned romance/suspense novel REBECCA was an interesting take on the novel. But not a very good one. The lighting and photography do nothing to set the suspense and sense of dread in Manderley that is supposed to be the lingering spirit of Rebecca, very unlike the book and 1940 movie. This miniseries focused more on the romance. However, I think that the "spirit of Rebecca" that is supposed to be almost "haunting" Manderley did not come across very well. They did show Rebecca in some flashbacks, which was unique but I thought sort of ruined the "Rebecca mystique". The acting was pretty much all excellent and solid but Charles Dance as Maxim was VERY different. I don't think his portrayal of Maxim was deep enough, it didn't show enough (for total lack of a better word) angst about what was happening. Diana Rigg as Mrs. Danvers was also different, but it worked, she was a great Mrs. Danvers. Emilia Fox as "I" was good too.If you liked the book Rebecca see the Hitchcock version also and compare the two. I find the Hichcock version superior, it is more faithful to book even thought a vital part of the book's plot is slightly distorted.

mollie84 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.