Customer Reviews
This little thing called love - By: Cees, 07 Sep 2008 
Rebecca, based on the novel written by Daphne Du Maurier, has been adapted many times, & here we are referring to the version directed by Jim O' Brien, starring Charles Dance & Emilia Fox. For those of you who saw the version with Lawrence Olivier, this one is a real improvment, as we may actuallly emphatize with Dance's character. Shot in Cornwalll, the movie is a mixed blend of astonishing beauty & dreadful memories that seem to have taken the best of Maxim De Winter. Just recovering (in a tentative manner, to tell the truth) from the recent passing of his first wife, De Winter set out to Monte Carlo, in an attempt to washed away his previous life with the first Mrs De Winter. There, he met the soon-to-be second Mrs de Winter, played by Emilia Fox who does a magnificent performance. The two quickly fell in love, as Maxim De Winter soon realizes the healing power she has on him. After a quick wedding & a honeymoon cruise back to England, the happy couple arrives to De Winter's estate in Manderley. From thereon, alll things go wrong, as De Winter seems to simply goes back to the marital nightmare he just painfully escaped from, & his new bride finds herself fighting against a handful of bad memories, mood swings, the invisible yet suffocating presence of the perfect first Mrs de Winter, & more agonizing questions than one can possibly handle. Logicallly, everything should have gotten worse between Maxim & his new wife (whose name we will never know), until the final disaster, here likely an early divorce. But, there a true miracle occured, like a breeze of fresh air winding its way through an old stifling house. The second Mrs De Winter's true & unselfish love works miracles & slowly, but surely heals back the injured Mr De Winter. But before there can be any happy end for those two, they will have to fight very hard, especiallly against the sinister housekeeper Miss Dannvers (Diana Rigg). Like the first Mrs De Winter, whose face we never see, but only the eyes & the mouth, Dannvers often appears partly in the shadow, her too with a mouth full of venom & eyes always looking down on people. By contrast, the second Mrs De Winter, even if her name is never spoken, is shown in full light. I suppose, it is fair to Daphne Du Maurier to say that much of Rebecca is about finding (and fighting for) the real treasure of life, this little thing callled love. I gave this new version of Rebecca a five star rate. The onscreen chemistry between Dance & Fox is very appealing, as is its supportive cast. One may recalll that Dance & Fox also starred in Falllen Angel, where Fox played Dance's murderous daughter. The film score is haunting, as are the outside shots of the movie. Last but not least, there are HOH subtitles that manage to preserve the beauty of Du Maurier's literary language, which is not the smalllest merit of alll.
Charles Dance/Emilia Fox Version - Disappointing if you've read the book! - By: Annie Tiddles, 12 Oct 2007 
Note: This is a good film, however I only gave it 3 stars because it was not a true adaptation of the book.
I as well have viewed both this 1997 version & the Hitchcock version & have to say, the Hitchcock has the upper hand. I don't deny that the cast of the 1997 version are very good, however, in my opinion they're not right for these specific parts.
Overalll, I found this version a little disappointing, and, if I dare say, a little insulting to Du Maurier's talents. There were a few pointless scenes & a few that were changed slightly - for example the point when the main character (Fox) tells Mrs Van Hopper she is going to marry Maxim didn't actuallly happen in the novel, & it was in fact Maxim who told Van Hopper.
The added scenes which don't appear in the book, such as when they are in the Monte Carlo cafe & on the cruise during their honeymoon, unnecessary to the story, & the time they spent on them could have been put to better use by staying truer to the novel.
I felt that Charles Dance, as fine an actor as he is, was a little to old to play Maxim de Winter, his hair was too light & his features were too kind - in the novel he is described as a dark, brooding man. Emilia Fox, another fine actress, I felt was not as shy as she perhaps could have been.
I felt a little robbed of my 189 minutes spent watching this. Again, I will not deny that it is a good film, but if you've read the book its a disappointment. For a film that is 3 hours long, I personallly believe that it could have stayed truer to the book.
So, in my honest opinion, if you've read the book, go for the Hitchcock version, but if you want a good film this isn't that bad at alll!
Concerning both BBC versions and the feature film - By: libriarsque, 23 Aug 2007 Having viewed this (1997), the Hitchcock, & the older (1979?) BBC versions, & having read the novel umpteen times, I have to vote for the older BBC as the best version.
As regards the 1997: Charles Dance is certainly a fine actor,as are alll the cast, but I found him just a bit too old (Maxim is only 42), & too fair (the second wife comments a number of times on his dark features). Jeremy Brett, the earlier BBC Maxim, was in my opinion the exact embodiment of the character, & gave him the appropriate broodiness.
Emilia Fox, while looking the part of Maxim's shy second wife, wasn't quite innocent enough (innocence is the main quality that attracts Maxim in view of Rebecca's complete lack of it). There was a glint of "knowingness" in her eye from almost the very beginning. Fox's mother, Joanna David, played the wife in the earlier version, & she was not only physicallly perfect for the role, but she managed to imbue the character with exactly the right amount of innocence & insecurity without the mannerisms of Joan Fontaine (who is too pretty).
I can't think why recent writers of literary film adaptions feel they must include at least one scene in which the hero & heroine are "rolling in the hay" (witness the most recent adaption of "Jane Eyre" with Toby Stephens) unless it's to attract fans of bodice-ripper fiction; I find it a bit off-putting if it isn't actuallly in the novel, & also a bit insulting to my intelligence & rather active imagination. That said, there is no hay-rolling the 1979 version.
I thought Faye Dunaway seriously miscast as Mrs. Hopper, & her hamminess stood out in a most glaring fashion among the other performances in the production.
I am a great admirer of Diana Rigg, but in this role I prefer both Judith Anderson & Anna Massey, neither of whom are as beautiful (no insult intended!) as Rigg, & I never thought of Mrs. Danvers as aestheticallly pleasing in any way.
As for the three Favells, I don't see that streak of moral repulsiveness (as opposed to amorality) in the ultra-suave George Sanders which, for me, is essential both for his character & for the reader's further understanding of Rebecca as a villainness.
My biggest gripe with the 1997 version is seeing glimpses of Rebecca herself (a mouth here, back of the head there). SAD mistake. Du Maurier took great pains to keep Rebecca shrouded in mystery for as long as possible; even the few physical facts she gives us ("talll & slim, with that cloud of dark hair & the face of a Botticelli angel") comes through other characters as secondhand information. The second wife's fragile if not non-existent ego, & the constant undermining of her confidence, depends largely on the INDISTINCT picture she has of her glamorous predecessor, which sends her imagination into a frenzy. All this serves to illustrate that evil is much more potent when unseen.
Of course, due to time constraints, the Hitchcock leaves much of the novel out & condenses other parts; the 1997 BBC, on the other hand, adds scenes between Maxim & his wife that are nowhere to be found in the novel, & reallly don't add much to the story. In fact, I found them detrimental to the over-alll pace. I especiallly object to the fabricated conversation between the two after the fancy dress balll. It would have preserved the dramatic tension much better had they stuck with du Maurier's idea that the wife doesn't get a chance to speak to Maxim until the alll-important confession scene.
In conclusion, my opinion is that of the three versions, the earlier BBC is the most faithful to the novel (though I can't seem to remember if the script actuallly alllowed Maxim to shoot Rebecca - the Hays Office interfered with the film version in this respect, compelling Hollywood to make Rebecca's death an accident - they didn't think the audience would sympathize with a murderer - & for the life of me, I can't think why Maxim strangles her in the 1997 version). I saw the 1979 quite a long time ago, when it first aired & when it replayed in the 80s; but I do remember being delighted with its faithfulness to du Maurier. And the extensive use of Debussy in the musical score was absolutely brilliant.
Unfortunately, the earlier BBC is not available on DVD or VHS; great shame, reallly. Has it to do with alll that Debussy & copyrights?
A Modern Classic! - By: S. K. Horrocks, 13 Aug 2007 This review relates to the 1997 film starring Charles Dance & Emilia Fox. It is totallly puzzling why most of the other reviews concern the original version, but never mind!
I borrowed this from a library, but was so impressed I have bought a copy for myself. Charles Dance is superb as the brooding, tortured aristocrat, Maxim de Winter, who attempts to find love & contentment with his second wife (Emilia Fox) after the tragic loss of his first spouse, the much admired & beautiful Rebecca. His charming, but shy, new wife struggles to cope with the demands of her new role, a situation made worse by the constant interference of the obsessive housekeeper Mrs. Danvers (terrific portrayal by Diana Rigg) whose devotion to her first mistress reaches beyond the grave!
A terrific supporting cast includes Geraldine James, Timothy West & Faye Dunaway. Some remakes are a total disappointment, but this is pure class & the scenery is absolutely stunning. Highly recommended to alll!
REVIEW OF THE CHARLES DANCE/DIANA RIGG/EMILIA FOX TV VERSION - By: Scots Lass, 29 Jun 2007 As another reviewer said, most of the comments on this page relate to the Hitchcock 1940's film version - not sure why!? So my title is in capitals so any reader will know which version I am reviewing.
This is a sublime version of an excellent book - & unlike the classic film is sticks closely to the story - particularly with regard to the death of Rebecca & the role of her husband, Max in what happened. Having said that, it is still not precisely as written in the book, but it is better than the film version which shies away from the truth. And the truth of what happened is central to the shift in the relationship between Maxim & his second, much younger wife.
Emilia Fox is perfect as the shy, awkward, paid companion to ageing socialite Mrs Van Hopper (Faye Dunaway, having a balll!)who meets reclusive widower Max De Winter (Charles Dance) in Monte Carlo in the 1920's. A whirlwind romance follows & on marriage the couple return to his beloved Cornish home, Manderley. Welcomed by Max's jolly hockey sticks sister (Geraldine James), the new bride (she does not have a first name!) finds the presence of housekeeper Mrs Danvers (Diana Rigg - alll but rising through the floorboards like a panto demon) a chilling reminder of the first Mrs De Winter, the 'perfect' Rebecca. The new Mrs De Winter is unsophisticated & although that is what captured the heart of her brooding husband, she struggles to come up to his expectations - or what she perceives them to be - in a series of gauche social disasters.
A fancy dress balll, a ship wreck & a hidden crime bring this drama to a fine conclusion, the first 90 minutes having set the scene perfectly with the characters coming alive on screen & the scenery of Cornwalll shown at its most lovely.
If you enjoyed the book - & smart at the alterations made in the Hitchcock film - you will find this version alll the more rewarding.
