Fenêtre sur cour

This movie was painful to watch! I thought I would be in for a treat when it showed up on a Saturday afternoon on the Lifetime Network. Boy, was I in for a load of crap. The dialog is the worst I've heard in a long time...even worse than most TV movies. The acting was atrocious, the camera angles were amazingly bad and, overall, there was nothing believable about the entire thing. And yeah, hey, I know Reeve is REALLY paralyzed and in a wheelchair but does that mean he should be given rave reviews because he brilliantly plays a paralyzed man? Okay, I feel for the guy...but this is a really bad movie and I'm not going to pretend it's not for sentimental reasons. Thankfully, the movie just ended. And, though I'm grateful, the ending was so off I didn't even know it was the ending....I would have begun a wave through my living room had I known! Why didn't I change the channel?..something about watching a trainwreck...what do they call it...morbid curiosity.

It is not just another remake. They destroyed what was a good story line.

Christopher Reeve plays on everyone's sympathy because he was paralyzed. He should have stopped acting before he made this show. It was pure trash. Next try to make something.

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.

So many films have been remade in recent years, and I'm always fascinated as to why. The only justifiable reason that I can see for remaking a film, is if the original had potential, but was in the hands of the wrong director. In the case of 'Rear Window', Alfred Hitchcock's original version was close to perfection. That being the case, why did anyone feel a need to remake it? While sticking to the basic storyline of a man confined to his apartment and becoming suspicious that a neighbour has murdered his wife, there are a few changes. Christopher Reeve plays the lead character, who is not a photographer but an architect, and has been pompously renamed Jason Kemp. Also the lead female role, played by Daryl Hannah, is not his girlfriend (to begin with) but his colleague. And there are some other differences here and there, such as the lack of exploration into the complexities of relationships, and the fact that Jason Kemp has two medical assistants on call 24 hours instead of an insurance nurse that visits daily. I suppose the makers deviated in these areas so that the film would not look like an exact copy of the original, but these differences do very little, and in some cases let the film down.

For a thriller, this film hardly manages to mildly scare. Jeff Bleckner's direction does not labour on key points in the film long enough to generate much tension, nor is there much atmosphere. The film's soundtrack also does not help matters. The best part of the film is Christopher Reeve, who does stand out from a cast with little substance. Thelma Ritter's character of an insurance nurse in Alfred Hitchcock's version, has more spark than the two medical assistants in this film put together. Then again, that may be largely due to the relatively shallow script that the actors have to work with.

That being said, this was a very needless remake. Not all of Alfred Hitchcock's films were classics, but when it comes to his best films, I don't believe it's possible to improve on them. Apart from this attempt, 'Psycho' has been remade, as well as multiple remakes of 'The 39 Steps'. Let's hope it stops there.