User reviews

How can something, so beautiful, so twisted and so disturbing, be so boring?

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.

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 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 enjoyed this movie, it may not have the suspense of the novel but the story is entertaining. Kristin Scott Thomas was wonderful her character was really well played. The setting, Mandalay, the clothing and cars were stunning.

I'll start by saying I haven't seen the original film or read the book, so I didn't go into this with certain expectations. That could explain why I liked it more than some of these reviewers.

Thought the plot was interesting, and the movie was compelling enough to keep you enticed. My biggest gripe was the characters, which I'll try to explain without giving away anything important. The main guy (Maxim) is supposed to be all charming and sauve, but almost everything he does is obnoxious and rude. And we're supposed to believe his wife would love him? Maybe they could've done a better job building their relationship because any sane woman would've left him immediately. You kind of have to suspend your disbelief to stomach their relationship, which takes you out of the movie.

The book by Daphne Du Maurier is amazing and a favourite, a masterpiece of suspenseful atmosphere and psychological depth. There are three versions of 'Rebecca' prior to this latest one from 2020, the best known one justifiably being the Alfred Hitchcock directed film. While the 70s adaptation with Jeremy Brett is the best version as an adaptation, Hitchcock's is my personal favourite. Even with inevitable changes to suit the code, it is superbly made, acted (Judith Anderson is unforgettable) and directed, true in spirit to the book's atmosphere.

Unfortunately, this version is inferior in nearly all those aspects. It does have its good things, but of all the four versions of 'Rebecca' it is easily the worst for me. Being the only one to not work, the other three are excellent and more. Visually and stylistically, this 'Rebecca' is mostly very successful. When it comes to the substance however, this film adaptation and standalone wise is a failure. Actually don't think one needs to have seen any of the previous versions or read the book to see how badly flawed the film is, a friend of mine also saw it with no prior knowledge of the source material or previous adaptations and disliked it too, highlighting the lack of atmosphere, shallow characterisation, erratic pacing, messy final act and Armie Hammer as particular flaws.

'Rebecca' (2020) has good things. It does look gorgeous, though in my mind the film would have benefitted from a darker look either in a Gothic or noir-ish sense. The film is exquisitely photographed and the settings have beauty and vivid atmosphere, especially in Monte Carlo. Apart from the yellow suit, the costumes are nice and Manderlay is a beautiful and atmospheric house if not quite the character of its own kind that the previous three adaptations achieved. Clint Mansell's score has parts where it is ominous and stirs the emotions.

Didn't care for the performances on the whole, but Kristin Scott Thomas is very good indeed as Mrs Danvers and there is a formidable quality that makes her very memorable. Sam Reilly's Favell is deceptively friendly but suitably manipulative, though could have afforded to have been more caddish.

However, Lily James and Hammer didn't do it for me in their roles. Actually like James as an actress, ever since her charming 'Cinderella', but she lacks the plain mousiness that is needed for the 2nd Mrs De Winter and comes over as too neurotic in her more haunted moments. Hammer is also too young (especially considering that there is meant to be a big age difference, without it the story dynamic doesn't work) and too handsome, personality wise he is like a bland uncharismatic cipher as well as jerk-ish even when Maxim's character writing darkens. The lack of chemistry between the two really hurts the film and too lukewarm romantic comedy-like instead of the conflicted one it ought to be. The characters are stripped of their complexity and become one-dimensional, the most interesting is Mrs Danvers easily but that is down to Thomas mainly.

Furthermore, the script could have flowed more and is too mundane with no spark. Some of it was awkward too. The direction is too constrained and tends to be pedestrian in the first half and then out of control and too reliant on a horror vibe in the second. The story is completely lacking in suspense and the omnipresent spookiness just isn't there, with the psychology of the characters being too muted. Likewise with the more mysterious elements in the story. The pacing is a mess too, it takes too long to get going and is too deliberate in the first half and then the final act especially becomes very rushed and jumpy. This part of the film is also far too melodramatic, the tone shift is not just completely uneasy and jarring but the second half feels like a different film altogether and in a schlocky horror way, not in a suspensefully psychological way. The ending is very tacked on and did reek of studio interference or of the writers not being sure how to end the film.

In summary, liked the style but the substance underwhelms. Very disappointing. 4/10.

I'm not sure I understand the negativity...

I adore the Hitchcock version, while the newer BBC version with Emilia Fox and Charles Dance always felt very miscast and the 1970's BBC version was just blah. But this 2020 remake was a happy surprise. I thought the casting was excellent and it has a modernity that I think many will appreciate, maybe even motivating them to read the source material. While it may not have the sleek polish of a 1940's movie with the unparalleled Laurence Olivier, this is a very worthy attempt.

For those who criticize the Lily James character of the "new Mrs. DeWinter," she is supposed to be "jumpy" and unsure of herself. That is the character. Armie Hammer brought a posh sophistication that also impressed me, since he was the casting choice I questioned the most, and Kristin Scott Thomas was delightfully creepy.

It's been years since I read the book, but I'm downloading it soon to reread. And even if the movie is not 100% faithful to the book, it's certainly faithful enough at its core. Even the Hitchcock movie had changes.

Whether you read the book or not, this version is worth your time. Great for a girl's night once the pandemic ends!

Fimul follows the book but unfortunately it doesn't shine ... They failed to give the film freshness, energy, enough color. Even if it has the air of mystery, it does not have the necessary force to captivate you, to make you startle, to excite you.

It just kept me going back and forth, and I thought I'd land in a good place in the end, but no.

The first half was good, but the second half is when everything started to fall apart for me.

Without revealing too much, in the second half, especially towards the end (like the last half hour), the dialogue turned awkward & inconsistent. The events including significant revelations were RUSHED so much that there was no build up to them nor enough time to let them sink in before moving on to the next scene. The reactions to some news or events within the plot were dull & lacked sincerity and passion.

The editing for those scenes didn't help either. It just kept jumping too fast to the next scene or cut to a different frame in a different location in the middle of a revealing conversation. That's when they lost me. The emotional connection I wanted to feel for the characters kept being interrupted.

Though I still kept an open mind and was hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised that I'll love this movie by the end of it, but unfortunately, it just kept going the same kind of direction till the movie was over.

I've been looking forward to this, and even with my expectations being reasonable and not too high, I still didn't get what I wanted.

And just to be clear, I'm not comparing this to Hitchcock's version. In fact, I've never even seen it. So this is solely based on the execution of the story in this specific movie. It simply didn't do it for me.

So Rebecca follows the whirlwind romance and and subsequent complications of Mr. Maxim De Winter (Armie Hammer - I know 😬😖) and his new wife (Lily James). This film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name, and follows the new Mrs. De Winter as she attempts to fill the shoes of the mysterious, alluring, and tragically deceased late Mrs. Rebecca De Winter.

This film is a beautiful period piece with fabulous cinematography, and very textured settings. It's kind of a slow burn, and definitely takes you on a ride. However, I felt that the pacing was very stunted, and alternated wildly between sprinting and walking painfully slow. The mystery of the story is doled out carefully, and the tidbits the film gives you make you work for them in patience for sure.

Although this film has been generally panned online, I actually kind of enjoyed it. May have been because I set the bar pretty low, but it was still an enjoyable experience.

A word of warning - don't let the trailer fool you. This is not a psychological thriller mystery - although it certainly has its moments. It's more a frantic and super tragic love story, where you just feel bad for Lily James because *nobody is nice to her at all* which is super tragic.

All in all, 7/10 - would recommend if you're interested, but wouldn't try to make you watch it if you didn't want to.

The recent Netflix remake of the 1940 Best Picture winner (directed by some clown named Alfred Hitchcock). Now starring Lily James & Armie Hammer (in the roles established by Joan Fontaine & Laurence Olivier) we find James working as a valet for a rich dowager (played by Ann Dowd looking unrecognizable), an American on vacation in Europe who's staying at a swank hotel. Unrehearsed in the ways of the world, James (working for a paltry 90 pounds a year) is pushed around & shoved to do her job waiting hand & foot on Dowd's behalf generally not enjoying the sumptuous surroundings about her but things change when the mysterious & rich, Maxim DeWinter, Hammer, shows up at the resort setting tongues a-wagging. Dowd, hoping to get into his good graces & probably dish some gossip, hopes to be seated w/Hammer when he goes to dine sending James as her emissary but in meet cute fashion Hammer does end up finding her to be the bee's knees & they start to date (Dowd falls sick & thankfully for James bedridden) which when their time at the hotel comes to an end the picture postcard sheen of their romance bears fruit when they marry. They then head to back to Hammer's estate, Manderlay, where the staff meets the new Mrs. DeWinter & the house matron, Mrs. Danvers, played by Kristin Scott Thomas, still exalts the name & memory of the former mistress (the Rebecca of the title who passed away when she drowned) keeping James on edge throughout her stay which forces her, whether she likes it or not, to assume the mantle she's married into & have some say over the household. Now the big elephant in the room can be addressed, was the original Rebecca so antiquated & past its prime it needed a remake? No way full stop. Does this film hurt the memory of the original? No, again. While hitting a lot of the same story beats as its predecessor, it also adds unnecessary subplots (maybe from Daphne Du Maurier's novel?) which end up adding nothing w/the awesome & iconic finale of Manderlay & Mrs. Danvers going up in flames changed to something a bit muted & less bombastic. The actors are fine but in no way do they outdo their betters but for those out there who deign to even glimpse a film prior to a certain date in their heads, this version may be the one they'll adore, for me I liked it, that's it.

I finished in 2 days because it is quite long and very slow movie. Cinematography was very nice, location, scenes, the house were perfect, I liked acting too but what was missing exacty , I have no idea. For example last 20 min, you can understand what happened to Rebecca but you don't feel anything good or bad, you watch just for finish the movie. Something is really missing. If I find Hitchcock version of this, I will watch immediately.

If you watched the original version of this film before watching this remake you will definitely prefer the old version directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Lily James is effervescent in any role, and this is based on one of my favorite gothic novels. The adaptation of it is pretty good with beautiful cinematography.

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.

Rebecca is a book dear to my heart.

To those who said they hated Lily James' character for being so timid and weak and not stepping up to own Manderley, I think that's the whole point of her character its main function to contrast that of Rebecca. The fact that people hated her character means that one should really congratulate LJ for her successful portrayal of Mrs de Winter, which I think is loyal to the book. Although I wish some of the scenes where longer to allow LJ to really act out the emotions.

I thought the Manderley set is marvellous, though some important points are missing, like the rhododendrons imagery or flowers in the valley. Also agree with some of the other reviews that suspense was lacking and it does feel rushed. But overall I liked the film and makes me want to read the book again.

The protagonist (Lily James) is a companion-assistant to rich abusive Mrs. Van Hopper (Ann Dowd) traveling in Monte Carlo. They encounter wealthy man-about-town Maxim de Winter (Armie Hammer). He falls for the poor orphan young girl and they get married. He is still haunted by his first wife Rebecca who died in a boating accident. They return to his large estate Manderley with a vast cast of servants led by the harsh Mrs. Danvers (Kristin Scott Thomas).

It's interesting that the lead character remains nameless. I've never read the Daphne du Maurier novel. I always assumed that her novels are pulpy romances. It probably meant that the book was written in a first person point of view putting the reading in the young assistant's shoes. It's a great way to get the female readers to embody the protagonist and walk her journey. I wonder if the movie should try doing something as experimental as strictly using the first person point of view. It does need something. As it stands, it's a rather old style melodramatic narrative. There are some attempt at gothic horror. The film looks beautiful. The actors are fine. In the end, nothing is superior or new or punch you in the face. It's fine.

How did did they take a stellar cast, beautiful cinematography, and so much potential and come out with this....? Its one of those films that you so want to be better... but its just not. It was so bland and boring really just full of missed opportunities.

My Review- " Rebecca "

My Score 6.5 /10

I really was looking forward to this new version of Rebecca mainly because of the excellent cast that includes Lily James as the young and naive ladies maid who becomes the new Mrs De Winter and mistress of Mandalay. This is the role that earned Joan Fontaine her first Academy Award nomination in 1941. Armie Hammer is suitably dashing as the troubled Maxime De Winter Master of Mandalay the stately mansion where Rebecca ended her days. This role was one of Sir Laurence Olivier's finest Screen performances and also won him an Academy Award Best Actor nomination. Kristin Scott Thomas is very good as the deranged housekeeper of Mandalay Mrs Danvers who's obsession with her dead mistress Rebecca borders on psychotic. This role in the 1940 film version was brilliantly portrayed by Australian actress Dame Judith Anderson ,who was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress. The Original 1940 film version of Daphne Du Maurier's best selling novel Rebecca did win the Best Motion Picture Oscar of 1941 and there's a good reason why ,it's a brilliant adaptation filmed in monochrome that suits the Gothic atmosphere of the novel. This 2020 film version has been described as Downton Abbey on a bad day and I can understand why it's beautifully filmed and uses great locations but it's far from brilliant. Like the horrible 2017 remake of Daphne Du Maurier's My Cousin Rachel this version of Rebecca seems to me to be padded with new plot twists and a little dumbed down . The cast is excellent but I feel like most remakes of Classic films especially if the original was directed by Alfred Hitchcock it's almost impossible to make them work but this one is at least a good attempt. They tried it with Psycho in 1998 with Gus Van Sant directing and it was a momentous flop this version of Rebecca is much better than that horrible remake of Psycho . English Director Ben Wheatley certainly is no competition to Hitchcock and on checking his previous work I could see no justification for using him to direct such a famous remake. It's at times a quite entertaining movie ,especially if you've never seen the original but it really has nothing to justify the expense and frankly all this great talent is wasted. I did appreciate the little homage to Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 film "The Birds" , it couldn't have been accidental and did add a sense of foreboding but pleas don't remake that film. The set designs costumes and homes in this new adaptation are beautiful The first house used is the Jacobean-era Hatfield House in Hertfordshire, which was built in 1611 for Robert Cecil, a former statesman in the court of Queen Elizabeth I. Cranborne Manor in Dorset, originally built in 1207 as a hunting lodge, before being remodelled in the 17th century, also for Robert Cecil. Loseley House, situated in 1,400 acres of countryside near Guildford in Surrey Petworth House in West Sussex, a late 17th-century Grade I listed country house, rebuilt in 1688 by Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset Osterley House is Isleworth, built in the 1570s for banker Sir Thomas Gresham Mapperton House, a Jacobean manor in Devon Blegberry Farm in Devon. Shooting for the film also took place at Hartland Quay, a rocky seaside area on the North Devon coastline. Rebecca is well worth a look ,you'll enjoy the performances and the settings but I much prefer the original film. One performance I really didn't like in this movie is the casting of Ann Dowd who was so evil as Aunt Lydia Clements in The Handmaid's Tale as Mrs Van Hopper the wealthy bitchy socialite who employs our young heroine narrator as her personal assistant. It's only a brief but important role at the beginning of the film . Ann Dowd plays the character as an alcohol soaked broad and unlike Florence Bates in the original just comes across as dead common and left me wondering how she could ever have been accepted in high society.

Starts so well but ultimately is something very very boring. I watched this with so much anticipation. Very disappointed by this. Really felt the soul was taken from this with poor direction and editing.