Clevercell Very disappointing...

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Prismark10 This version of Rebecca was meant to be Gothic and warped, instead it came out as lethargic and overlong with a disappointing first episode the moved at a snail's pace. Only Faye Dunaway's fruity acting as Mrs Van Hopper kept you awake.Charles Dance looks too old as Maxim de Winter, almost a cradle snatcher as he woos young, inexperienced and rather plain Emilia Fox and swiftly marries her, only months after the death of the first Mrs de Winter.When he brings his new bride to his mansion, Manderley, she is overburdened by the hovering spectre of his late wife who was beautiful and well liked especially by the demented housekeeper Mrs Danvers (Diana Rigg) who adored her.Max just sulks in the background as the new, young Mrs de Winter can do no right. However the truth about the first Mrs de Winter soon comes to light and Max has to reveal his dark secret.The second episode was much better than the first as we gets to the kernel of Daphne Du Maurier's story but then it is also Jonathan Cake's turn to ham it up.Dance and Fox have very little chemistry together and the whole thing looks a little too old fashioned even for 1997.

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.

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.

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.