Janela Indiscreta

It is many years since I saw Jimmy Stewart in the original "Rear Window" but if my memory serves me right I feel that this re-make for TV comes nowhere near the original. It lacks the terror, the fear, the excitement that the first "Rear Window" brought to the screen. In the first version it was a simple photographer armed with a camera and flashlight, but here we have an architect with computer and digital camera. A photographic studio has now been become a lavish apartment and there is plenty of room for the electronic chair (formerly a simple wheelchair). In the updating I feel that much of the atmosphere has been lost. While I admire Christopher Reeve's attempt to return to the screen in his paralyzed condition, I feel his acting ability is definitely restrained. There is not much response from or interest in the other actors either. The best that can be said is that this film is a therapeutic exercise for Christopher Reeve. I found the result rather dull and lacking the excitement necessary to make up for the immobility and frustration of the central character.

Although this re-make is OK as re-makes go, it would be next to impossible for anyone to equal the directing genius of Hitchcock or the mastery of Jimmy Stewart. As terrific an actor Christopher Reeves is, I think he bit off more than he could chew when he tried to re-make the character played by Jimmy Stewart, one of the greatest rated actors in motion picture history. The same goes for Darryl Hannah. She is a good actress, but one could easily argue the superiority of Grace Kelly. I admire the attempts of these people, however, when one ventures to remake a Hitchcock classic like Rear Window, one should stay closer to the original story line. They don't call him the master of suspense for nothing.

I only watched this film to the end as I wanted to see how it would end. I wish I hadn't bothered. A really disappointing finale. Reeve is fine but the script is hopeless. Why couldn't his neighbours simply have drew the curtains? Reeve's character's likeablilty goes out the window as he invades everyone's privacy. Hope he can do better than this in the future.

A paralyzed architect, who spends his time spying on his neighbours, convinces itself that one of them is a murderer. By freeing itself from the single room location, this new version of one of the Hitchcock classics lose in dramatic intensity. What remains is the emotional test of re-encountering Christopher Reeve.

The best thing I can say for this film is that it enhances our appreciation of Alfred Hitchcock. His 1954 original has roughly the same running time, but it has so much more going on: A dozen recurring minor characters give texture to the script and complications to the plot. The plot itself involves far more twists, turns, and red herrings, plus twice as many confrontations between the heroine and the villain. The romantic relationship is far steamier, and the climactic scene is utterly original and totally terrifying.

In this new version, the mystery story has been "streamlined" to allow more time for techno razzle-dazzle and detailed presentation of the challenges faced by the disabled every day. The cause is worthy, but the shotgun marriage of movie-of-the-week message with murder-mystery drama serves neither facet of the film very well.

There are a few effective scenes, and the actors make the most of the feeble script. Christopher Reeves may be paralyzed from the neck down, but he knows how to use his handsome, highly expressive face and voice. You won't forget Jimmy Stewart, but you do get involved with Reeves' character. Reuben Santiago-Hudson is delightful in the Thelma Ritter role, and Robert Forster is fine as the hard-bitten cop. Darryl Hannah, alas, does little with less; a star willing to take on a Grace Kelley role deserves more support from her producers!

If you'd like to support people with spinal cord injuries and see a good thriller, write a check to Christopher Reeves' foundation, then rent Hitch's masterpiece.