Rebecca

There should be a rule, don't remake a great classic movie if you have nothing new or interesting to add to it. This looked like the Hallmark version of Hitchcock's classic film noir. Lilly James is overacting the shy, inexperienced character, she walks like Forrest Gump in some scenes, for example where she's following Rebecca's ghost at the party. She also pouts all the time. Armie Hammer has the intensity of a carrot, he's too vanilla for the role. His suits are horrible, badly tailored, the mustard suit in the beginning is an eye sore. Kristin Scott Thomas as Mrs Danvers is the only saving grace of this movie. And finally, the cinematography is bad. It's like somebody wanted to make a rom com and changed their mind in the last minute. Those happy, ultra saturated colors don't fit the mood of a dark gothic romance novel in the least.

With no knowledge of the original novel or the Hitchcock adaptation, I had a sense of intrigue in the build up to watching Rebecca. Sadly, for all the impressiveness of the costumes and locations, the current 5.8 rating is about right. I found myself watching and waiting for something to happen, rather than actually being engrossed in the story. It is rather dull and fragmented, with little suspense and characters you come to care little about. There seems to be little or no repercussions for anyone's actions, and the ending is rushed and cut to pieces. It felt like there was more story to tell but even two hours wasn't enough to fit it all in. Maybe a TV adaptation would have been a better idea....

I won't complain about the lovely costumes and scenery, the gawkable high-end interiors or the attractive cast. Lily James' costumes are to die for, even the demure little blouses and tweed skirts she wears when she returns to Manderly with her dashing husband Maxim. If anything, the actors are TOO pretty, especially Armie Hammer. Yes, James' bobbed blonde hair is glaringly fake against her brown eyes and crisp dark eyebrows (seriously, WHY do they always make her a blond?), but at least the style is period appropriate and highlights her sensible wardrobe and English Rose prettiness. But Hammer's towering, hunky frame, chiseled face and big baby blues make him look more like a GQ model in a Ralph Lauren ad than a 1930s English Posho. His accent is passable, as is his acting. He and James both give perfectly good, if not masterful, performances. They have chemistry and I rooted for their marriage to make it. They make a nice couple. The problem is, they're in the wrong movie.

"Rebecca" is supposed to be a Gothic thriller, not a romantic adventure. Which is not to say it can't have a love story embedded in it. "Jane Eyre" is a love story, but Rochester is a genuinely dark character, and real danger looms (literally) above the heroine's head. Here, the second Mrs. De Winter allows herself to be cowed by Kristen Scott Thomas's (excellent) Mrs. Danvers, who, while disdainful, icy and manipulative, does not seem mentally unhinged enough to be truly terrifying. Even the house itself is just a large, old manor house full of portraits and servants standing at attention....remarkable to a young woman from a humbler background, but not to anyone who has watched other English period pieces. James' character is a fish out of water. Intimidated by her surroundings, especially the wing/rooms that belonged to her predecessor, yes. Unnerved by her husband's uncommunicative moodiness and sleepwalking, yes. But haunted? Driven to near madness? I'm not convinced.

The sinister sexual undercurrents of Hitchcock's version are also missing. They really only rear their heads when the talk and action turn to horses (sorry!). It seems that whereas Mrs. DW2 doesn't even know how to ride., the aristocrat Rebecca, as Mrs. D tells her in racy detail, could break any stallion. Ahem. So when Rebecca's dissolute Toff of a cousin (Sam Riley, very good) shows up and sweeps the young bride up onto a horse in front of him for an impromptu lesson, squeezing her thigh and tossing off comments like "just move with me" and "you'll be sore tonight" with (almost) comic creepiness, I was kind of delighted at the diversion. She almost seems more scared here than at any other time, and I don't blame her. Honestly, I think Riley would have been better cast as Maxim. Hammer's version is just too darned wholesome.

And speaking of shifts! (Again, sorry). About 3/4 of the way through the movie, there is a massive Info Dump and the train suddenly switches tracks, lurches off in another direction entirely and goes in and out of a few shadowy tunnels before almost unceremoniously dumping the viewer out at its destination, where I at least was left blinking in the sun. Twists and turns in a mystery are a good thing, and of course the end is supposed to be a surprise. But here, the characters turn on a dime. All at once she, at least, is almost a different person, their relationship transformed. She puts on a (gorgeous) tweed suit and does a whole Nancy-Drew-Goes-Noir bit for about five minutes, revelations come fast and furious, and......here we are! Wait, what? Where? The end, tacked on from the original, is satisfying in a way, but also random.

The movie is engaging and beautiful. No one embarrasses himself or herself. If you like the book, like period pieces and mysteries and lovely things, then watch it. But don't expect to be on the edge of your seat. This isn't one for the ages.

I had such high hopes for this, anticipation was high, especially as new material has been somewhat thin on the ground this year, for obvious reasons.

I did raise an eyebrow when I heard that Armie Hammer had been cast as Maxim, but I felt he did a decent job, it gives me hope for his upcoming part in Death on the Nile.

The standout for me was Kristin Scott Thomas, she was a fearsome Mrs Danvers, very impressive.

The film itself, very stylish, and had some good moments. If I'm totally honest, I was a tad disappointed, I think the pacing was a bit off, it perhaps felt a bit rushed at the ending.

A few reviewers calling for no remakes, and yes the 1940 adaptation is the ultimate, but come on, many of us love seeing a retelling. However, if you haven't seen the adaptation with Olivier and Fontaine, I urge you to, it captures the atmosphere beautifully.

Overall, it's a good watch, maybe it's the sinister atmosphere that's perhaps lacking. 6/10.

I don't understand why you would attempt to remake a film who's shoes are just too big to fill.

First off the film looks great especially the scenes in France and the story is good but that is the source materials fault not anyone involved with this film.

I thought it was pretty bland apart from the points above. The characters were just so blah. I literally cared more about Clarice the maid than the lead characters. She seemed nice which is at least an adjective, I can't really think of any adjectives to describe Mr and Mrs de Winters. So that tells you something.

I was really looking forward to the costumes too but for the most part I was let down. They stuck Mrs de Winter in like dumpy hats and cardigans that you could go and pick up from H & M. I don't understand this choice. In the Hitchcock film they give her interesting dresses and stylish tops. I was so confused.

I also don't believe the reviews that say this captures old Hollywood. I didn't feel it, it 100% felt like a 2020 film. If you want a old Hollywood movie just go and watch one.

I would honestly skip it, it was pretty confused. The first chunk of the movie felt like full romance but then it shifts into like a boring drama then it's all like Frankensteined together with horror tropes like "jump scares". It had no point of view.